Now that would be fascism.
Are you claiming that the government lends no material support to these oppressors of free speech?
Yes or no.
Now that would be fascism.
I'm claiming your characterization is ridiculous and these companies are not oppressors of free speech and a tweet is not material support.
Your question is complete bull .
Absolutely none of your premises are true.
Is that clear?
Yes or no.
Are you claiming that these big media companies in question receive no material support from the government?
Yes or no.
lol what do you think "material support" means? I only know the definition used for terrorism -- and that ain't tweets -- so you're going to have to say what you mean here.
I think he's trying to say the govermnent supplements them with some sort of monitary aid?
If that's what he's going for, he's wrong. These are privately owned companies.
lol dailybeast
Well, for the record Chris -- would you want Trump to have the power to shut down media companies by decree?
A recipient directly benefiting from materials such as goods, moneys, services, infrastructure, etc provided by the referred-to party.
How would he shut them down? Coordinated deplatforming, or are we wheeling out the guillotine?
For companies worth $24 and $540 billion, nothing significant.
But do explain your conspiracy theory.
Privately owned companies receiving billions in government tax subsidies.
Not killing anyone. Just shutting down media outlets he didn't like.
Would you support this or oppose this?
And?
You guys really need to flesh out your twitter conspiracy theories.
Sociopath chump having to fall on "nothing significant" and makes it relative to the money like a plutocrat minion.
ElNono could explain the material support these companies receive from the govt. better than I can.
I don’t have a conspiracy theory I was just correcting Reck’s incorrect statement. Was I wrong?
Great. For discuission's sake let's say your contention that it's very significant is correct.
Now what?
Maybe not.
I don't have the figures for each company.
But now what?
Then the government has a lawful expectation that Cons utional rights of Americans will not be violated by the services they 'significantly' help to facilitate, particularly as it relates to "public forums."
lol no.
That's not how it works.
No one has a cons utional right to a twitter account.
So, you believe that the government can put forth its resources for denying the Cons utional rights of the citizenry?
Today's sociopath chump
"lol no"
lol no.
There is no cons utional right to a YouTube account.
That's not what I'm arguing, sociopath chump.
That's exactly what you are arguing.
It's 100% wrong.
Facebook is not violating any cons utional rights by terminating accounts that violate its TOS.
Perioid.
Rick Wilson and an online poll provided exclusively to the daily beast
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)