Jump to content
LetFreedomRing

PATRIOTS RALLY BEHIND INFOWARS AMID TECH’S TOTAL COMMUNIST CENSORSHIP

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jake Overy said:

Well I agree, but Facebook and such are going to Congress claiming these sites are "interfering" so fight fire with fire, how else are we going to get heard in Congress.

Start your own Facebook.   The capitalist way 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Megatron said:

Start your own Facebook.   The capitalist way 

That would be fantastic if I was more computer savvy, lol. Im illiterate when it comes to technology. Hell I have to ask kids how to do things some times, lol. But I bet there is someone that one of us knows that is a techy and knows how to do this stuff. I could try and learn how to do it but god only knows how long that would take and we need it sooner than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

yeah he goes by FIXER...aint this the facebook were speaking of

No, I don't think so, we were talking about building a platform (facebook) for Conservatives and such to get away from the commy censorship that is taking place. At least that what I thought lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can’t beat facebook at their own game which is why i only develop communities outside facebook community standards.

 

we do a lot of things better than facebook 

 

forums are the original social networks, being private sector we are able to operate with out an agenda and let people express themselves 

 

there are already rightwing versions of facebook like gun district but the sites are terrible

 

we are working on some things that will set us apart ... how does notifications when a user joins who is within 100 miles of you? we are working on it but its not easy because of new internet standards about information sharing , we have to figure the opt out functionallity among other things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

And the Civil Rights Act stands because of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment

 

If a challenge to the 14th Amendment came up in court...could the anti-coercion stance upheld by SCOTUS in 2009 and 2012 rulings apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WMD said:

if it's on the internet it must be true!

ok thats fine bro....anything else you wanna add or you just jumping in everytime me or resister says anything.... to say, notahhh!!!i thought it was a good read i know you couldnt have read it because its only been 1 min since i posted the link....stop being subtle and just say what you want i wont melt...

Edited by Ripcannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

ok thats fine bro....anything else you wanna add or you just jumping in everytime me or resister says anything.... to say, notahhh!!!i thought it was a good read i know you couldnt have read it because its only been 1 min since i posted the link....stop being subtle and just say what you want i wont melt...

Why selectively quote me? I gave the reason as to why I stated what I did. Here it is again:

 

26 minutes ago, WMD said:

If the 14th was never legally ratified the states themselves would have challenged it in courts shortly after it was ratified, and since that never happened....SHRUG

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

 

I don't know that I understand the question without know what specific cases you're referencing. 

 

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court found that Congress violated the anti-coercion doctrine. Specifically, in the Affordable Care Act, Congress withheld 100% of states' Medicaid funding if they didn't expand those programs. A court plurality characterized this as a coercive "gun to the head" because it involved a loss of over $233 billion dollars — more than 20% of states' budgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted

There are a few conservative social media sites like CRTV but as far as I know they are all pay to access.  Maybe fixer will start up an ad driven conservative social media site similar to youtube that people can view for free.  Well he kinda has already with Mymilitia.com but I mean more of a format like Youtube that monitizes submitted videos based on views and add revenues generated.  How bout it fixer?  Feel like being CEO of a media sharing company like Youtube?  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a site called Vid.me but they went out of business.

 

Gab.ai is a true free speech site and they have live streaming, Gab TV , the ability to be a pro content creator where you can charge ppl to subscribe to your content. Alex Jones is there already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When youtube started shutting down gun channels i looked into adding a video database here, anything is possible but the name of this site scares off too many people to add features to cater to people who are just into guns and not militias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the silencing of dissenting opinion on social media is something to really watch. Alex Jones was obviously the most flamboyant and loud voice of opposition, so an easy target. He was treading on sensitive nerves just weeks before the midterm elections, so the Left chose now to shut him up. Not a coincidence of timing, if you ask me. 

 

Let's revisit the argument that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkdIn, etc have the right as private entities to exercise editorial control and remove information they don't like. I think this is incorrect. If they have become the arbiters of what constitutes "hate speech" or inflammatory dialogue, and shut down the likes of Alex Jones, but do NOT also deplatform the Antifa and jihadi groups that are openly calling for violence, they are no longer neutral. If they lose neutrality, they become liable for content. The logical conclusion is that social media MUST shut down MORE speech, now that they are the guardians of information. Alex Jones was first, your pet commentator will be next, maybe they'll shut down a couple of rabidly violent left-wing sites to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the end result is free speech is going away. I happen to think this spells out social media's own demise, and the shareholders of these corporations should be throwing a bloody temper tantrum over Jone's ousting, but probably few are thinking this through to its endpoint.

 

Anyhoo, "Al", I never liked you much, but I'd be your staunchest advocate in this fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, nina9mm said:

I think the silencing of dissenting opinion on social media is something to really watch. Alex Jones was obviously the most flamboyant and loud voice of opposition, so an easy target. He was treading on sensitive nerves just weeks before the midterm elections, so the Left chose now to shut him up. Not a coincidence of timing, if you ask me. 

 

Let's revisit the argument that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkdIn, etc have the right as private entities to exercise editorial control and remove information they don't like. I think this is incorrect. If they have become the arbiters of what constitutes "hate speech" or inflammatory dialogue, and shut down the likes of Alex Jones, but do NOT also deplatform the Antifa and jihadi groups that are openly calling for violence, they are no longer neutral. If they lose neutrality, they become liable for content. The logical conclusion is that social media MUST shut down MORE speech, now that they are the guardians of information. Alex Jones was first, your pet commentator will be next, maybe they'll shut down a couple of rabidly violent left-wing sites to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the end result is free speech is going away. I happen to think this spells out social media's own demise, and the shareholders of these corporations should be throwing a bloody temper tantrum over Jone's ousting, but probably few are thinking this through to its endpoint.

 

Anyhoo, "Al", I never liked you much, but I'd be your staunchest advocate in this fight.

 

Good points there. Just to add to your comment, the social media sites will continue to feed in biased news stories that follow the site's line of thinking. They won't have to rely upon suppressing free speech as much as promote their views with news articles and reports. One has to be careful with advocating the neutrality issue as it can turn around from one side and apply to the other.

 

If more people spoke up as constitutionalists, there might be more recognition that there is a group of people in the middle whom watch "the sides" of the political spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...