>you do remember you have an entire stickied thread specifically to voice these complaints so they don't shit up the thread, and they're getting deleted here as per bv announcement like a week ago, right?
He has a public school education and cant read, yet demands that you do as it wants.
>ALSO, BAKERS THAT ARE PURPOSELY PUTTING GLOBALS IN THE OPENING POST, OR QResearch Search Engine IN THE SAME POST AS GLOBALS OR SEPERATING GLOBALS FROM NOTABLES ARE DOING IT TO FUCK THE AGGREGATORS AND FORCE THEM TO DEFAULT TO /QRB/
Gotta tell ya, im not against this
>Which isn't the end of the world anyways since MAGA/Q SM people spread the diggs/news way better than QR Notables ever have.
Not our job to spread anything at all, so fuck those who are trying.
>The issue is whether or not a group or corporation has a right to censor political speech during a campaign season, or even anytime. Political speech should be protected speech and the only speech they have a legitimate claim to censor is profanity and slander.
Im gonna have to side, yet again, on the side of the Constitution on this one. Companies have the right. Sucks, but its the way it is.
>and once again I will remind you they gave corporations personhood, fucking themselves over wrt. the Constitution with that
You really need to reread the Constitution.
>Not if their companies and technology were funded by the taxpayers. You really think Zuck and Dorsey created those sites? Also, they sell your info as their product.
Again, the Constitution, you need to read it.
>>Not our job to spread anything at all
>I wouldn't go that far about it.
>It's not enough to just say MSM is Fake News.
>There needs to be an alternative source for information as well.
>Otherwise there's a vacuum left that will be filled by those with less noble intentions.
Not our job, not our mission. Q was VERY specific and your desires dont match them.
>You seem to forget the Constitution does not address either. You freedoms of speech are protected against THE GOVERNMENT.
>>14074249
>So go to another thread so our complaints about post happy
Its what its for. I would expect you to shit in the toilet rather than in the kitchen where the food is prepped as well.
>No, once the "companies" communicated with the Federal Government on who to ban/shadow-ban/fact-check they became defacto portions of the Federal Government. Which means they are the government denying the first amendment rights to MILLIONS of Americans.
Sauce?
>>>14074247 (You)
>>Q was VERY specific
>Which you're not, so sauce those drops out.
>I'm moar than happy to reassess the situation when someone does that.
Im not here to do the work which has been done over and over. We arent here to become a news source or ANY source. Dont like it, go search the archives. YOU are a prime example why a normie shouldnt be here.
>I would normally agree with you regarding private enterprise and censorship. In this case, however, private companies coordinated with federal and state gov't and a political campaign to take down a political opponent.
If the GVT told them what to do, then that is an issue. If there was no communication of that nature, then its the Corps right to do with it what they wish.
>> Companies have the right.
>Standard Oil and The Bell System disagree.
So do the millions of aborted babies, or is the law and the Supreme Court infallible to you? How about the rise of the mob, I mean the banning of alcohol. OH wait, they reversed that one. Should have been an obvious overreach in the first place.
>I don't have to. The lawsuit will
Roe v Wade Let me know when its gone, THEN talk to me about a lawsuit.
>>Sauce?
>They said it in the speech, you must have missed it. Go back and re-watch.
Constitutional sauce, you know, from that old dusty piece of parchment…… You have heard of it right? It wasnt on TV or anything, but…..
>Section 230 protections cannot be given to them, then. They edit/mask/ban/shadow ban/silence anyone they choose to on their platforms. That makes them a publisher, not a platform. A class action lawsuit could work, and using the section 230 angle might just be the only way to take them down.
Proof of nothing but a theory.
>>If the GVT told them what to do, then that is an issue. If there was no communication of that nature, then its the Corps right to do with it what they wish.
>Jenna literally said this in the speech.
So a Constitutional lawyer agrees with me as well. Golly, all of those who are opposing me here are BRILLIANT then.
>. A private company is not government but……………when a private company partners "with" government
Nice theory, got proof or you would just have action happen without any, again?
>It doesn't matter if you like it or not. They'll be broken up. The writing's on the wall. And all over the Internet. How ironic.
Its written absolutely noplace. Perhaps you have heard of a tiny company called Netscape. OH wait, you likely havent.
>You are comparing apples and oranges. And you just like to argue. R v W will be overturned. Eventually.
No im discussing law. You are trying to turn the discussion to shitting in one hand and wishing in the other.
>Are you implying that POTUS would hire lawyers that are not familiar with the constitution
No you stale bread retard, im saying THE COURTS ARE COMP'D. Fuck you people are dummer than a bag or rocks.
>- Once they took DIRECTION from the GOVERNMENT
Still need proof. None has been shown. Till any is shown, my comments will not change.
>Look, you made the initial statement that Anons purpose is not to spread news because Q said so.
>Back it up or stfu - that's how it works.
Cant, its not there
>It's proof of their actions against users on their platforms,
No, its not proof of anything.
>IT'S THE DISCOVERY THAT'S GOING TGO KILL THEM…AND A FEW OTHERS
Possibly and HOPEFULLY you will be found correct.
>Put it in your browser and smoke it. - anti trust laws tech breakup
If it was, you would have posted it. Its not.
Yes, and I dont remember any FAANG members asking the Gvt of any country or state or providence to run it. Those are the ones we are talking about.
>convince anons that the case being brought against these ABC assets and their platforms is going to be ineffectual because there's no "proof" of anything
Honestly, did you proofread this? Without proof, I could (and would) have people who disrupt the board shot for treason. Yet, that proof is what is required.
>And there is also the fact that when this law was passed Zuckerberg was in middle school.
This means nothing. Nor does her comment on the Internet population when it was passed. Until the emails passed between Fauci and Zuck are unredacted, what is in them is a guess.
Make no mistake, I am not arguing with the merit of what you are saying, im brushing merit aside and exposing what it is that matters to a court. Abortion is NOWHERE in the constitution, yet, the SC has claimed it is.
Do I want them broken up as traitors? Yes. Will a court do it? Maybe, if they can find abortion in the laws…..
Rudy claimed to have a lot of stuff, none has been proven to exist at all. Do I think he may have been bluffing? Its more than a distinct possibility and law shouldnt be decided on a bluff.