Recent social media censorship is a means of vote manipulation

Jun 4, 2013
7,174
3,979
I never realised this until Candace Owens pointed it out.

When Trump won he won via social media not the media. They constantly abused his campaign. In fact if his campaign was traditional media only he wouldn't have made the primaries.

Those on the left have realised that trump got in via a non traditional route appealing directly to the electorate not through the MSM. His views and opinions couldn't be censored so realising they've ignored this huge gap in voter influence they've moved to close it. In effect embarking on voter manipulation just coincidentally in time for the 2020 elections.



Prove me wrong. :middlefinger
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,172
4,778
Candace Owens :lol:

Post a single shred of evidence or substance to your argument and maybe then it can be debated, until then this is such a non point it's hard to even take seriously.

Trump actually surged due to his own rallies and TV performances that won over very stupid people, none of which was censored.

What's this golden social media content that is now being censored? Examples please.
 
Jun 12, 2012
8,093
4,786
Denmark
Christian baker can refuse to provide his services because he doesn't support gay marriages. So now social media companies can refuse their services to the political views they don't support. Same same. Typical radical rightists whining about their rights while they have absolutely no problem denying anyone not agreeing with them the same rights.

I even fucking pointed THIS exact problem out to the right wing nut jobs on here. If anyone can refuse service for whatever personal belief they hold, they'll cry their little eyes out when they get hit by that boomerang. Now it's here and there is a butt hurt pandemic running rampant besides the real pandemic.
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,172
4,778
The irony in trying to regulate these companies and telling them that they have to allow factually incorrect content to appear as genuine news on their platform...because if they don't it will be unfair on our guy who relies on lying a lot :lol:
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,993
3,896
South London
Christian baker can refuse to provide his services because he doesn't support gay marriages. So now social media companies can refuse their services to the political views they don't support. Same same. Typical radical rightists whining about their rights while they have absolutely no problem denying anyone not agreeing with them the same rights.

I even fucking pointed THIS exact problem out to the right wing nut jobs on here. If anyone can refuse service for whatever personal belief they hold, they'll cry their little eyes out when they get hit by that boomerang. Now it's here and there is a butt hurt pandemic running rampant besides the real pandemic.
these don't seem like the same thing at all. was that the world's only baker? can that baker genuinley influence nationwide votes? is the explicit cake really relevant here at all? if a baker refused to make a pornographic cake for straight people would anyone care at all?
 
Reactions: Judgemental John

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,172
4,778
these don't seem like the same thing at all. was that the world's only baker? can that baker genuinley influence nationwide votes?
Pleas explain why a company should be forced to platform factually incorrect information and display it as a genuine news?

Also give some examples of this Trump content that is no longer allowed.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,993
3,896
South London
Pleas explain why a company should be forced to platform factually incorrect information and display it as a genuine news?

Also give some examples of this Trump content that is no longer allowed.
a cake with gay guys bangin aint news compared to an election. a cake with straight people bangin would never have been in the news full stop.

i said they are different things, you agree.
 
Reactions: wesshaw1985

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,172
4,778
a cake with gay guys bangin aint news. a cake with straight people bangin would never have been in the news full stop.

i said they are different things, you agree.
So you can't explain and have no examples of the Trump stuff.

No worries
 
Reactions: Bachafach^^^
Jun 12, 2012
8,093
4,786
Denmark
these don't seem like the same thing at all. was that the world's only baker? can that baker genuinley influence nationwide votes?
Is Twitter the only social media? No!
Are you prohibited from starting your own social media site? No!
Are there alternative social media sites that cater to radical rightist? Yes!
Are they as wide spread as the major social media sites? No!
Is that the problem of the major social media sites? No!

Case closed
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,993
3,896
South London
Is Twitter the only social media? No!
Are you prohibited from starting your own social media site? No!
Are there alternative social media sites that cater to radical rightist? Yes!
Are they as wide spread as the major social media sites? No!
Is that the problem of the major social media sites? No!

Case closed
no, they are not.
no, i have no idea how to and don't want to, but ok.
yes, and no other cunt reads nazi twitter either. you know that one side being 'mainstream' and one side being 'radical right' is a bad way for things to be framed.
no, if they were we wouldn't be having this discussion.
no, but if they want to improve social politics discussion banning one side is not the way to do it.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,993
3,896
South London
Already have.

Asked for examples and substance relating to Trump, got neither.
i really don't give a fuck about trump, he's done in 1 year or 5 years.

you only wanna talk about trump, but you refuse to talk about trump. i wasn't that interested to start with.

but if we have to, please post all the democrat twits that have been 'fact checked'.
 
Jun 12, 2012
8,093
4,786
Denmark
no, they are not.
no, i have no idea how to and don't want to, but ok.
yes, and no other cunt reads nazi twitter either.
no, if they were we wouldn't be having this discussion.
no, but if they want to improve social politics discussion banning one side is not the way to do it.
Discussion time is over. Ever since Citizens United v. FEC back in 2010, it's been about throwing economic might behind political views to influence the voters. All the radical rightist were totally fine with this as long as they seemed to be winning but now the tide is changing and they scream, moan and sulk about it and want the rules changed AGAIN. It's just fucking pathetic and I kind of enjoy seeing the radical leftist handing the radical rightists the same shit cake they got served. Hopefully both sides choke to death on it.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,993
3,896
South London
Discussion time is over. Ever since Citizens United v. FEC back in 2010, it's been about throwing economic might behind political views to influence the voters. All the radical rightist were totally fine with this as long as they seemed to be winning but now the tide is changing and they scream, moan and sulk about it and want the rules changed AGAIN. It's just fucking pathetic and I kind of enjoy seeing the radical leftist handing the radical rightists the same shit cake they got served. Hopefully both sides choke to death on it.
my apologies, i didn't know that discussion time was over.

everyone go home, chb is closed and discussion time is over.