See, they really do try to control what you see, read and think.

[NATI BENGALS]

The government admits there is a battle against disinformation from our adversaries.

https://www.state.gov/gec-special-report-how-the-peoples-republic-of-china-seeks-to-reshape-the-global-information-environment/

https://www.state.gov/russias-pillars-of-disinformation-and-propaganda-report/

I have yet to see any proof the government actively censored Americans voices. As far as I know Twitter and Facebook chose to limit the Hunter laptop story. Mainly because it was stolen hacked info. Show me the government demanded its removal or somehow took control of those private companies and did it themselves.

Government officials combating disinformation campaigns from our adversaries have contact with social media companies. If we have intelligence indicating a threat. Shouldn’t the companies whose platforms are being used as tools to disseminate the threat know?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-20-2024, 02:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The article posted in the OP is not an opinion piece. The later posted opinion piece was shared to support the information shared in the news article because it cites specific proven examples of material being discussed in the article in the OP. In other words, it's completely fine to have an opinion either way on this topic, as it is a true and valid topic for discussion.

The key source of info in your first Faux article.
https://www.mrc.org/staff/dan-schneider
“Dan Schneider is currently the Vice President of Free Speech America, MRC Business, and the External Affairs division. He previously served as the executive director of the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC. His work in government has included roles in the White House, executive branch agencies, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Something tells me the guy who used to organize CPAC had a political agenda. Idk just a hunch that he could be a tad partisan.


We have seen countless right wing news stories and tv news anchors over recent years complaining about being censored. It’s highly ironic they are on tv or widely circulated articles crying about being silenced. The right wing victim mentality on full display.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2024, 09:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The key source of info in your first Faux article.
https://www.mrc.org/staff/dan-schneider
“Dan Schneider is currently the Vice President of Free Speech America, MRC Business, and the External Affairs division. He previously served as the executive director of the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC. His work in government has included roles in the White House, executive branch agencies, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Something tells me the guy who used to organize CPAC had a political agenda. Idk just a hunch that he could be a tad partisan.


We have seen countless right wing news stories and tv news anchors over recent years complaining about being censored. It’s highly ironic they are on tv or widely circulated articles crying about being silenced. The right wing victim mentality on full display.

Of course the guy who headed CPAC has a political agenda.  Are you saying Biden and his team don't?  Maybe they're a "tad partisan?"

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 01:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course the guy who headed CPAC has a political agenda.  Are you saying Biden and his team don't?  Maybe they're a "tad partisan?"

Of course. But they are also operating by a different set of rules. One operating in official capacity that is responsible for defense of the nation. The other hiding their political bias behind a flashy patriotic name, The Free Speech America Media Research Center, running to faux with sensationalized fear mongering to drum up the base and play the conservatives are the victims card.

When the name of the game is stopping adversaries from spreading disinformation. cough Russia cough.

I’m with you guys that the government doesn’t get to censor people. Businesses can though. I’m still waiting for anybody to show me who was actually wronged and got censored and who did the censoring. In America.

I would bet this election cycle if you want to find the Russian and Chinese disinformation you’ll probably be able to find it on Truth Social.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-21-2024, 04:31 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m with you guys that the government doesn’t get to censor people. Businesses can though. I’m still waiting for anybody to show me who was actually wronged and got censored and who did the censoring. In America.

The entire point of the article in the OP was to point out that Government agencies are leveraging businesses to censor speech and messaging that the current administration does not agree with.  Weather direct or by proxy, it's the Government squashing voices.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 07:41 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The entire point of the article in the OP was to point out that Government agencies are leveraging businesses to censor speech and messaging that the current administration does not agree with.  Weather direct or by proxy, it's the Government squashing voices.

If a business knows their platform is being used to spread misinformation, I wonder if they could be held liable for any damages? My guess would be yes.

I’m a fan of the US government. I think we are the greatest country in the world. And that wouldn’t have happened without our government. I was once a government employee. I had good intentions for us and bad intentions for our enemies. I think there are countless public servants with that same mindset.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-21-2024, 08:02 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If a business knows their platform is being used to spread misinformation, I wonder if they could be held liable for any damages? My guess would be yes.

I would certainly hope not.  Disregarding the implications to, you know, free speech there are more than a few recent examples of shall we say inconvenient truths being labeled as "disinformation" for political expedience.

Censorship "for the public good" is how it starts...And well-intentioned idiots are still idiots.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 09:19 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I would certainly hope not.  Disregarding the implications to, you know, free speech there are more than a few recent examples of shall we say inconvenient truths being labeled as "disinformation" for political expedience.

Censorship "for the public good" is how it starts...

Jimbob can stand on the corner and hold a sign and talk to anybody he wants about freebasing ivermectin to remove the vaccine microchip so that the next election isn't rigged.

The government doesn't control social media. But the government does monitor social media. And if they see a movement/group that threatens our country. They are supposed to do something.

Hey. Musk. Those guys posting on twitter that they won. They actually lost. Just because that mob of people showed up that doesn't mean they won. They are starting a civil war with lies that are being perpetuated on your platform. We might sue you.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-21-2024, 09:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Hey. Musk. Those guys posting on twitter that they won. They actually lost. Just because that mob of people showed up that doesn't mean they won. They are starting a civil war with lies that are being perpetuated on your platform. We might sue you.

You mean rebel against an oppressive and tyrannical government? 

[HarleyDog]

(06-21-2024, 09:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Jimbob can stand on the corner and hold a sign and talk to anybody he wants about freebasing ivermectin to remove the vaccine microchip so that the next election isn't rigged.

The government doesn't control social media. But the government does monitor social media. And if they see a movement/group that threatens our country. They are supposed to do something.

Hey. Musk. Those guys posting on twitter that they won. They actually lost. Just because that mob of people showed up that doesn't mean they won. They are starting a civil war with lies that are being perpetuated on your platform. We might sue you.

Holy F***stick Batman. How deep is your head buried in the sand?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 09:36 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You mean rebel against an oppressive and tyrannical government? 

depending on how hard you are rebelling at some point i think it becomes complicit in treason for believing a lie.

[masonbengals fan]

(06-21-2024, 09:47 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Holy F***stick Batman. How deep is your head buried in the sand?

DEEP REAL F'N DEEP

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-21-2024, 09:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Jimbob can stand on the corner and hold a sign and talk to anybody he wants about freebasing ivermectin to remove the vaccine microchip so that the next election isn't rigged.

The government doesn't control social media. But the government does monitor social media. And if they see a movement/group that threatens our country. They are supposed to do something.

Hey. Musk. Those guys posting on twitter that they won. They actually lost. Just because that mob of people showed up that doesn't mean they won. They are starting a civil war with lies that are being perpetuated on your platform. We might sue you.

Wow...

That's an insane take...

[JustWinBaby]

(06-21-2024, 09:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Jimbob can stand on the corner and hold a sign and talk to anybody he wants about freebasing ivermectin to remove the vaccine microchip so that the next election isn't rigged.

Well, there's several issues with that:
1) Is it the government's job to be the arbiter of truth?  I suspect the people that wrote the 1st Amendment would disagree.  It's more than a slippery slope when the government suppresses free speech "to protect the public".

2) Good information is out there if people care to search for it.  Perhaps the real problem with disinformation is the "4th Estate" has completely lost trust and credibility.

3) Whether Jimbob yells on the corner or posts a tweet, the loudness/reach of free speech has never been a criteria, to my knowledge, to infringe on free speech.  Agree or disagree, one of the reasons Musk cites for buying Twitter is he feels it's very much an extension of free speech in the modern world, and shouldn't be a platform for state run media.

This sounds a lot like the old "nanny state" arguments.  How we went from that old meme "I read it on the internet, it must be true" to moderating OPINIONS that may differ from the view held by the government - which has access to all kind of media, including direct communication to the people is beyond me.  

Can't say I remember people demanding US Weekly and The Enquirer be moderated for misinformation.  And they were right there front and center at the grocery checkout line.  Yet somehow most people knew most of those stories were sensationalized garbage.  But no doubt those rags had many avid readers that believed much of the stories.

Stupid people are always going to stupid. The rest of us don't need the government to protect us from their ignorant beliefs.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-21-2024, 11:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, there's several issues with that:
1) Is it the government's job to be the arbiter of truth?  I suspect the people that wrote the 1st Amendment would disagree.  It's more than a slippery slope when the government suppresses free speech "to protect the public".

2) Good information is out there if people care to search for it.  Perhaps the real problem with disinformation is the "4th Estate" has completely lost trust and credibility.

3) Whether Jimbob yells on the corner or posts a tweet, the loudness/reach of free speech has never been a criteria, to my knowledge, to infringe on free speech.  Agree or disagree, one of the reasons Musk cites for buying Twitter is he feels it's very much an extension of free speech in the modern world, and shouldn't be a platform for state run media.

This sounds a lot like the old "nanny state" arguments.  How we went from that old meme "I read it on the internet, it must be true" to moderating OPINIONS that may differ from the view held by the government - which has access to all kind of media, including direct communication to the people is beyond me.  

Can't say I remember people demanding US Weekly and The Enquirer be moderated for misinformation.  And they were right there front and center at the grocery checkout line.  Yet somehow most people knew most of those stories were sensationalized garbage.  But no doubt those rags had many avid readers that believed much of the stories.

Stupid people are always going to stupid.  The rest of us don't need the government to protect us from their ignorant beliefs.

The same people who want to limit what you can see or read are the same people who want no limits on what our children can.

I wonder if there is a word for that?

[JustWinBaby]

(06-21-2024, 11:54 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: The same people who want to limit what you can see or read are the same people who want no limits on what our children can.

I wonder if there is a word for that?

I don't know, what's the word for "trust the courts....unless it's a Republican appointed judge"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 04:31 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Of course. But they are also operating by a different set of rules. One operating in official capacity that is responsible for defense of the nation. The other hiding their political bias behind a flashy patriotic name, The Free Speech America Media Research Center, running to faux with sensationalized fear mongering to drum up the base and play the conservatives are the victims card.

What about when a GOP POTUS is in office?  They get to use the same "defense of the nation" excuse, right?

Quote:When the name of the game is stopping adversaries from spreading disinformation. cough Russia cough.

Misinformation like the Hunter Biden laptop or the Ashley Biden diary?  How about misinformation like the Steele dossier?  Can you begin to see how your whole argument starts to fall apart the minute you examine it even a little closely?

Quote:I’m with you guys that the government doesn’t get to censor people. Businesses can though. I’m still waiting for anybody to show me who was actually wronged and got censored and who did the censoring. In America.

The problem being when the government leans on said businesses to censor what they want censored.

Quote:I would bet this election cycle if you want to find the Russian and Chinese disinformation you’ll probably be able to find it on Truth Social.

Sure.  You'll also find it on on TwitterX, FaceBook, TikTok, Instagram and Reddit.  As an adult it's your responsibility to vet sources and claims.  I don't want the government in the deciding what's officially true and can be repeated game.  If the myriad lies about Covid don't convince you of this then nothing will.  Ever.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-21-2024, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What about when a GOP POTUS is in office?  They get to use the same "defense of the nation" excuse, right?

I think the critical distinction is, depending on one's political leaning, some disinformation is acceptable (even admirable) while other is a "clear and present danger".

A huge issue is our entire political discourse is catered to the lazy and focus-challenged. Even the talking heads have to boil down complex topics to 30 second sound bites.  Spin and gaslighting can often be indistinguishable from an honest effort to dumb things down in a concise summary, which nevertheless creates fertile ground for critics to mine.

I think if people were honest about how little they understand, about pretty much everything, they'd be much less passionate and self-assured in their partisan positions.


Also, whatever we're teaching these days in civics in school we are failing the country massively.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 12:38 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think the critical distinction is, depending on one's political leaning, some disinformation is acceptable (even admirable) while other is a "clear and present danger".

A huge issue is our entire political discourse is catered to the lazy and focus-challenged. Even the talking heads have to boil down complex topics to 30 second sound bites.  Spin and gaslighting can often be indistinguishable from an honest effort to dumb things down in a concise summary, which nevertheless creates fertile ground for critics to mine.

I think if people were honest about how little they understand, about pretty much everything, they'd be much less passionate and self-assured in their partisan positions.


Also, whatever we're teaching these days in civics in school we are failing the country massively.

being informed is not considered important, having the correct opinions, and not diverting from them, is what's important.  A good example being the ignorant children protesting the war in Gaza.  Most of them can't identify what river or sea is being mentioned in their chant.  Most have no idea that Hamas' charter calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.  Most have no idea that Hamas is rabidly anti LGBTQ.  All they know is that this is the current correct thing and they're on board.

If we actually started ridiculing people who are wholly ignorant, regardless of whether they're on "our side" or not we might start making some headway.  A little social shaming can be a good thing.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-21-2024, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   A little social shaming can be a good thing.

Your opinion is incorrect