Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'The Savant' Star Jessica Chastain Says Apple TV+ Delay Is Wrong Call Amid Violence

Obioban said:
I'm 100% for what's going on with Jimmy Kimmel, etc, because it's finally waking up the left to government censorship. We need some STRONG laws against any form of government censorship (including leaning on private companies), and that's not going to happen with bipartisan support unless the left experiences some of what the right experienced under Biden.

Remember this two days ago, when google detailed how the Biden administration made them suppress speech?
www.yahoo.com

Google Admits to Congress the Biden Administration ‘Pressed’ YouTube to Censor COVID ‘Misinformation’

Google admitted President Biden's administration "pressed" the tech giant and YouTube to censor content the administration felt was COVID-19 "misinformation"
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Remember when Zuckerberg detailed all the speech the Biden administration was making them suppress (far worse than a TV show, since social media is the modern town square)?
www.pbs.org

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Remember when Trump(!) got banned on all the social media platforms at the same time?

Remember when the covid lab leak was misinformation that needed to be suppressed?

So, yeah, go after Jimmy Kimmel. Let's get some REAL laws on the books that keep the government out of speech, and block things like that (or any of the above) from occuring.
Click to expand...
Remember when the conservative Supreme Court rejected the claim that what the Biden admin did was censorship?

The government arguing its viewpoint isn't censorship. The difference is that the Biden admin never threatened government action as retribution for speech like the current admin. Oh for the days when we could discuss things with at least a basic understanding of high school civics.
 
Last edited:
Obioban said:
I'm 100% for what's going on with Jimmy Kimmel, etc, because it's finally waking up the left to government censorship. We need some STRONG laws against any form of government censorship (including leaning on private companies), and that's not going to happen with bipartisan support unless the left experiences some of what the right experienced under Biden.

Remember this two days ago, when google detailed how the Biden administration made them suppress speech?
www.yahoo.com

Google Admits to Congress the Biden Administration ‘Pressed’ YouTube to Censor COVID ‘Misinformation’

Google admitted President Biden's administration "pressed" the tech giant and YouTube to censor content the administration felt was COVID-19 "misinformation"
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Remember when Zuckerberg detailed all the speech the Biden administration was making them suppress (far worse than a TV show, since social media is the modern town square)?
www.pbs.org

Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to 'censor' some COVID-19 content during the pandemic

Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, "repeatedly pressured" Facebook for months to take down "certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire."
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Remember when Trump(!) got banned on all the social media platforms at the same time?

Remember when the covid lab leak was misinformation that needed to be suppressed?

So, yeah, go after Jimmy Kimmel. Let's get some REAL laws on the books that keep the government out of speech, and block things like that (or any of the above) from occuring.
Click to expand...
These are admitted facts that no one can derail, that's for sure.

Politics is largely the process of taking credit and putting the blame on others - regardless of what the facts may be.

Thomas Sowell
 
turbineseaplane said:
We already have one.
It’s called the first amendment.

We need laws to be enforced, including against the president who is breaking them recklessly and continuously.

We need to change that, now.
Click to expand...
It is funny how riled up the left is about the censorship that's currently going on, given how vastly more egregious it was under Biden.

Personally, I think both are unacceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breezygirl, JohnWick1954 and basslik
BaldiMac said:
Remember when the conservative Supreme Court rejected the claim that what the Biden admin did was censorship?

The government arguing its viewpoint isn't censorship. The difference is that the Biden admin never threatened government action as retribution for speech like the current admin. Oh for the days when we could discuss things with at least a basic understanding of high school civics.
Click to expand...
Sure, and what's going on now won't be legally classified as impinging on free speech either. Doesn't make it right.

The government arguing its view point wasn't the issue. It was censoring content on social media, deplatforming people, deleting accounts, etc.

Podcasts were so central to this most recent election because they are decentralized-- there was no one entity they could go after to prevent free speech from occurring there. It was the last bastion of uncensored speech that could actually get out to the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954 and basslik
Obioban said:
Sure, and what's going on now won't be legally classified as impinging on free speech either. Doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...
So you'll pretend the distinction doesn't exist? Huh.

Seems pretty clear to me.

LEGAL
Govt: "You should get rid of this content because it's harmful."

ILLEGAL:
Govt: "If you don't get rid of this content, we will hurt you."

Obioban said:
The government arguing its view point wasn't the issue.
Click to expand...
Except it was. Because that's all they did.

Obioban said:
It was censoring content on social media, deplatforming people, deleting accounts, etc.
Click to expand...
The government never did any of those things. That's completely made up.
 
BaldiMac said:
So you'll pretend the distinction doesn't exist? Huh.

Seems pretty clear to me.

LEGAL
Govt: "You should get rid of this content because it's harmful."

ILLEGAL:
Govt: "If you don't get rid of this content, we will hurt you."


Except it was. Because that's all they did.


The government never did any of those things. That's completely made up.
Click to expand...
UM, did you read the statement from google?

Grace under pressure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
BaldiMac said:
So you'll pretend the distinction doesn't exist? Huh.

Seems pretty clear to me.

LEGAL
Govt: "You should get rid of this content because it's harmful."

ILLEGAL:
Govt: "If you don't get rid of this content, we will hurt you."


Except it was. Because that's all they did.


The government never did any of those things. That's completely made up.
Click to expand...
So far, at least, the government hasn't done anything at all to compel ABC to deplatform Kimmel. The FCC chair said on a podcast, not even to anyone at ABC, something vaguely ominous, but no actions have been taken.

So, yes, I do think a distinction exists-- what the Biden administration did was orders of magnitude worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954, Shamgar, Tdude96 and 2 others
Obioban said:
So far, at least, the government hasn't done anything at all to compel ABC to deplatform Kimmel. The FCC chair said on a podcast, not even to anyone at ABC, something vaguely ominous, but no actions have been taken.
Click to expand...
Sure they did. Despite your characterization, they have clearly threatened to investigate the broadcast license holders if they don't do something about Kimmel's protected speech. Both Carr and the president have made that clear.
 
BaldiMac said:
Sure they did. Despite your characterization, they have clearly threatened to investigate the broadcast license holders if they don't do something about Kimmel's protected speech. Both Carr and the president have made that clear.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Threatening is exactly what both sides have done. Neither side has taken legal action.

... but the Biden administration was many orders of magnitude farther reaching in what they censored. Literally the modern town square, vs a couple talk show hosts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
Obioban said:
Exactly. Threatening is exactly what both sides have done. Neither side has taken legal action.

... but the Biden administration was many orders of magnitude farther reaching in what they censored. Literally the modern town square, vs a couple talk show hosts.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is nothing in Google's statement that says that the Biden admin threatened them. In fact, Google was clear that they rejected some of the governments requests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
BaldiMac said:
No. For two reasons.
1. Again, Google never claimed that the Biden admin threatened them.
2. Kimmel is still banned by multiple affiliates that Carr threatened.
Click to expand...
1. Even if you choose to believe that, Zuck stated facebook was threatened, repeatedly.
2. The affiliates you're referring to were not threatened by Carr-- note the ones not showing kimmel are in pretty deeply red areas of the map. They were the ones pushing ABC to can Kimmel before Carr's podcasts statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
Obioban said:
1. Even if you choose to believe that, Zuck stated facebook was threatened, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Sigh. No, he didn't.

Obioban said:
2. The affiliates you're referring to were not threatened by Carr-- note the ones not showing kimmel are in pretty deeply red areas of the map. They were the ones pushing ABC to can Kimmel before Carr's podcasts statement.
Click to expand...
They were. The are the broadcast license holders that Carr was referring to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
BaldiMac said:
Nope. There is nothing in Google's statement that says that the Biden admin threatened them. In fact, Google was clear that they rejected some of the governments requests.
Click to expand...
Power entities do not need to do those actions.

Persuasion is an effective tool. Even 300 employees have that power.

One can twist perception, yet reality won't budge.
 
BaldiMac said:
Sigh. No, he didn't.


They were. The are the broadcast license holders that Carr was referring to.
Click to expand...

"Zuckerberg elaborated that Biden administration officials would "call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse" over requests to remove posts, including "things that are true." He described one instance where officials demanded the removal of COVID-related memes (humor and satire) after Meta resisted, saying they retaliated by pressuring the company further: "They're like, 'No, you have to take that down.'""

Sure sounds like a lot more direct form of attempting to censor then someone offhandedly saying something in a podcast to someone else...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954, Shamgar and Tdude96
And back to quotes from google/youtube:
"The Biden Administration pressured Google to censor Americans and remove content that did not violate YouTube's policies."
"Biden and his officials created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tdude96 and basslik
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Amusingly, none of it actually matters-- the important thing is that both sides now see the value in ensuring that this never happens again, which makes it very likely that laws will actually go into effect to make it so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954 and basslik
BaldiMac said:
I've no interest in reading a republican propaganda document. Feel free to quote direct quotes from witnesses detailing specific threats made by the Biden admin.
Click to expand...
Don't think the democrats are going to call this out, so you might be up a creek for seeing the other side, in that case.

That documents over 10,000 emails showing White House leverage via regulatory threats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954 and basslik
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back