So, you trust fact-checkers who list something as FALSE when it is DISPUTED.

We've discussed the various dirty deeds of fact-checkers.

Tim Pool on YouTube has done several videos showing how fact-checkers blatantly lie or in many cases distort the claims so they can call them False.

You have every right to believe proven liars.

So you refuse to discuss fact-checkers being full of shit.

Gotcha.

@bi4smooth

BTW, you still refuse to discuss the original topic; Fact-checkers are fake news.

For some reason, you want to derail it so we don't talk about fake as fuck fact-checkers.

It's not just the douche bags on FB, but everywhere.

I'll discuss the Facebook fact checkers when you explain why the price of Chinese rice in China is higher than it is in the US.

Both questions are equally germane. (or irrelevant)...

BTW, you still refuse to discuss the original topic; Fact-checkers are fake news.

For some reason, you want to derail it so we don't talk about fake as fuck fact-checkers.

It's not just the douche bags on FB, but everywhere.

BS.

Get rid of Section 230 and we go back to the blatant disticntion between publisher and platform. You and I discussed the 2 lawsuits and the differing outcomes, which created Section 230.

The publisher lawsuit said that because the site had editorial control of what was posted, they were responsible. It had nothing to do with editorial control prior to posting or being paid to post.

The platform lawsuit didn't editorialize or control posts, so the site was exempt from libel suits.

Any of this ringing a bell?

Even prior to Section 230, but a publisher and a platform had a legal obligation to remove certain content, such as kiddie porn, and whatnot.

@bi4smooth

Ok, let's start off with your biggest lie in your post. You love freedom when it works against conservatives. You hate freedom when it comes to going against the liberal hivemind, regardless of the topic.

"Big tech" has special rights under Section 230, that no one else has. They get to play publisher and platform, whichever suits them at any particular moment.

BTW, I see that you ignored the entire point of my post, that "fact-checkers" are full of shit, partisan hacks

I am not the straw-man you're looking for, you Fascist, NAZI, Trumpite!

I even gave examples of how other's FREEDOM goes against my personal beliefs, but are protected - and that I respect their rights!

Your un-proven and factless claim that I do not support similar freedoms for all are baseless and false. Fascist Pig!

I didn't ignore your complaint about fact-checkers: I rendered it moot.

The truth, or lack thereof, of your post does not matter in a legal sense... Facebook has the right to delete your entire account, much less a single post, simply because they learned... that you use non-flushable wipes to clean the makeup off of your pimply ass, and flush them anyway! (Or any other ridiculous reason you care to come up with!)

FYI: Section 230 protects my TINY site every bit as much as it protects Twitter and Facebook (and Parler, Telegram, etc)... We (including Parler & Facebook) are not publishers:

• A Publisher has control over content BEFORE it is published.
• A Publisher pays Editors to control what gets covered and what does not.

Take away Section 230, and you completely obliterate the likes of Parler, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Telegram, YouTube and so on... EVERY site that allows users to post content WITHOUT editorial filtering - including sites that allow user COMMENTS! All content would have to go thru a "moderation and editing" process, or else the company would be at risk of being sued for the content some 3rd party made.

I will say this: I agree that Social Media in general is causing as much harm as it is good... and most of the harm comes from so-called anonymous posting.

IMHO, if you want to reform Social Media (including Parler, Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc), you need to start by removing the ability to post anonymously. That doesn't mean your personal info needs to be accessible to the PUBLIC at all times, but the platforms could be required to have proof or reliable identity information for each user, and when properly subpoenaed, they should be required to "give up" who made a particular post... And if the identity information proved to be false or invalid, the site could be held responsible - in lieu of the end user.

So when someone "anonymously" says Trump should be assassinated, the Secret Service actually CAN get a real name to follow up with! And when someone claims Google is run by Nazis, the company CAN pursue a defamation lawsuit against them!

Not against some "anonymous user #224", but against Joe User, of 1234 Main St, Anytown, USA... and monetary damages can be achieved for illegal behavior. And Criminal Behavior can be punished with criminal prosecutions.

Note that this would necessarily ALSO result in certain kinds of "segregation"... citizens of Iran, for example, might not be allowed to post on topics relating the US elections - because the status of their location would make legal challenges to their behavior impossible. But, that would be up to the site: just remember... in this case (which is not the way it is now): if the user cannot be prosecuted, the site can!

Ok, let's start off with your biggest lie in your post. You love freedom when it works against conservatives. You hate freedom when it comes to going against the liberal hivemind, regardless of the topic.

"Big tech" has special rights under Section 230, that no one else has. They get to play publisher and platform, whichever suits them at any particular moment.

BTW, I see that you ignored the entire point of my post, that "fact-checkers" are full of shit, partisan hacks

So called "fact-checkers" are dirty as fuck.

I was fact checked over something I posted on FB. It was decided that I was posting false info.

Here's the situation;

I posted an official statement from the Arizona Senate about the election audit of Maricopa County.

Maricopa County, without proof, said nah-uh.

Instead of saying it was disputed, they claimed that the Arizona Senate was lying. Case closed. Maricopa County, without proof, is telling the truth.

Shit like this constantly happens in favor of the liberal narrative.

Tim Pool has done several videos on how fact-checkers do this, as well as other dirty as fuck tactics.

You hate it when I point this out, but freedom is a double-edged sword!

Facebook isn't a news site - and they can make all the rules they want about the content they'll let you put on their site! It's not a Government-run site, it's Zuckerburg's site! The fact that it's popular doesn't change the "rules" (which are: it's a privately-held website, free under the 1st Amendment to make whatever rules it wants! And to enforce them however it sees fit! ... at least when the enforcement is limited to their site... just covering my ass for some hyperbolic, out-of-left-field, wildly misplaced and unrelated "what-about" response you'll have...)

You like to say I support "Big Tech" - but that's not true... I support freedom! And that includes your (actually, it's Mike Lindell's - or, the My Pillow guy's) right to claim that 24,000 votes in a single county in Iowa were changed by Chinese hackers in 2020.

The problems with his claims are numerous, but let's start here:

• There are only 17,000 registered voters in that county, and there were only about 12,000 votes cast in the 2020 elections there.
• The only electronic balloting done in that county is done by inserting the ballot into a machine that reads it, then deposits it into a locked container. The ballots themselves are hand-marked on paper ballots.
• The machines in question are not ever, and are incapable of being, connected to the Internet.
• The manual recount - done 3 times at the request of different entities - involved human beings examining the paper ballots themselves, and came up with ZERO discrepancies. Not a single mis-read vote (Mind you, in election terms, 12,000 votes is a minuscule sample-size... a certain ERROR rate is to be expected, but the key to using the electronic counters is that the error rate is significantly lower than the HUMAN error rate!)

So the claim is factually bereft of even a hit or whiff of truthfulness - but he's been on CNN making those claims (why he agreed to an interview with CNN is beyond me... dumb move on his part!), and it is his right to self-publish those baseless claims anywhere that will let him!

However, the folks at CNN would have been within their rights to have censored his baseless claims, and even to have decided, editorially, not to run the interview at all... Though, in this case, they did run the interview - without editing his ridiculous claims.

I am certain that Fox News, as well as Gab, MeWe, Telegram, and Parler, have edited their sites for content they found "unbecoming" of their "brand" as well! (And if they haven't so be it - and good for them! But, it is within their rights to do so! And that is the point!)

I am a true believer in freedom... even when it is not in my favor. But as the owner of a small business (with an Internet presence), I do not want the Government telling me - beyond some wide, broad-brush strokes, like: not suborning hatred, violence, or the overthrow of the Government itself - how to run my business (or my Internet site). And I happen to think that the same goes for other non-Governmental Internet sites - big & small - as well!

Where I DO support Government Regulation is realm of the the ISP's - especially in areas where there is only 1 (or 2) provider(s). In most US jurisdictions, ISPs enjoy a Government-subsidized and Government-created monopoly on being an ISP for high-speed Internet.... and "regulated monopolies" need to be regulated! (My ISP should not be allowed to block my connection to GT.ru, nor to throttle my torrent client connections!)

Create an "open and free" marketplace for ISPs (as exists in many other countries), and the problem goes away... people like me can simply choose an ISP that doesn't do the things I object to! But, as you've heard me quote before: 'This ain't that'