You are running away from any specific charge knowing that any specific claim is easily disproved.
Going into details with you has proven pointless in the past. If anyone who was not part of the Biden corruption debate doubts, let me know and I will go into details for your sake.
When the expression is controlled by media, that is called editorship.
Not when the media is controlled by the government and especially not when the entity in question is not media but a platform facilitating public dialogue. Social media is analogous to fedex, not a newspaper.
Here is an analogy to help you: Asking someone for tea is very different from "asking" them (with a gun in your hand) to go steal someone else's tea.
- Using this analogy, Twitter decides that one of its vendors is selling lawn clippings and calling it "tea." Twitter asks the vendor to stop calling it tea. When the vendor refuses, Twitter discontinues supply from that vendor. No government
Your analogy is missing the government, which is confirmed to be present.
no guns
Where there is government, there are guns.
no theft- all that is just huffs and puffs in the QAnon hyperventilation chamber.
Don't you get tired of defending insurrection? It must be such a burden to your soul.
. Fox is a media company, not a social media company. A publisher, not a platform.
- Show me where the US Constitution makes a distinction between publishers and platforms,
The difference is in the definitions, not the constitution. A publisher is an editor exercising original speech. A platform is a facilitator offering to aid in communicating the original speech of third parties.
The government may not impede original speech in any way.
A.) It cannot order twitter to not tweet,
B.) and it cannot order users besides twitter to not tweet.
B.i It cannot order twitter to stop users from tweeting because that is simply (B) by proxy
If the bill of rights could be skirted by annexing a private corporation there would be no bill of rights. The supreme court is not infallible, but to the extent that you have blindly appealed to its authority before, this is recognized.
Explain to me how Twitter does not publish and Fox is not a platform.
A platform is a stage like a forum in classical Rome or an Agora in classical Greece. The public are invited to come in, and once inside they engage in speech.
The owner of the forum does not own the speech, has not commissioned any particular opinion, and does not determine whether the views expressed reflect his own (are true in his opinion).
A publisher publishes, that is creates discernible units of speech over which editorial control has been (in theory) applied. Various persons may be enlisted to produce the speech, but the speech is by that token commissioned and the publisher takes responsibility for it.
This is why you can sue a newspaper but you cannot sue a forum. If laws were different they would be wrong, this is (for once) the correct analysis.
You cannot have it both ways. Someone has to 'own'/'be responsible for' the speech. Insofar as a publisher is a manufacturer of speech, it may be responsible and thereby it may choose to publish or not to publish. This is inherent in the act of soliciting expression (from a columnist for example), by asking someone to specifically write something FOR YOU they consent to not be published and you consent to take responsibility for the content.
There is no such relationship between social media companies and their users. If you wish to advance the theory that each social media user is providing solicited expressions that are owned by thesocial media company there are two consequences:
1.) The social media companies are responsible for every single thing that was said, every piece of libel, every slander, every threat, every call to violence.
2.) The social media companies are guilty of hundreds of millions of counts of fraud and should be at once nationalized to make whole the victims.
The government may not impede expression regardless of the origin. It may not censor a newspaper and it may not censor individual expression. All that I have just described can be boiled down to the obvious: People talking on social media are people talking, it isn't twitter having a conversation with itself.
Fox does not invite the general public to speak on its programming. It never airs any segment without one of its agents present or guiding. That makes it a publisher.
Twitter invites the general public and creates an implicit contract for facilitating expression via the community guidelines (or whatever they're called). They transmit speech, they don't create it. That makes them a platform.
If Fox hosted a forum and emails were uncovered where the DOJ was telling Swecker who to ban on that forum, that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
- A Forum is "A gathering for the purpose of discussion; A form of discussion involving a panel of presenters"
What have I ever done to give you the impression that such pathetic word games would work on me? Equivocation - the fallacy. Moving on...
Worse than former employees getting advice
Such despicable dishonesty....
- Trump actually just ordered FOX who to ban, who to promote, who to attack.
- Then-President Donald Trump urged the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, to use the influence of his network to help sink the Senate candidacy of coal baron Don Blankenship in 2018, according to newly released court documents.
Blankenship was surging in the polls in the final days of a bruising West Virginia GOP primary race, prompting concern among Trump and other Republicans that his potential victory could lead to a failed attempt to unseat incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, in the general election.
So, Trump appealed to Murdoch to ramp up the network’s criticism of Blankenship, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems said in court documents as part of a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
Ah, so when your quote says "urged" you translate to "ordered" but when you see "flagged for removal" you think "humbly requested advice."
In all seriousness if the above was true it is too close to a violation of the 1st amendment for comfort. While it's true that Rupert Murdoch influencing fox would be acting as a publisher the mere act of being approached by the government in any form invokes the threat of force.
The government should never be getting anywhere near the subject of speech, expression, or religion in any private communications ever.
If Trump told the post office or FedEx to not deliver political mail that might help Blankenship that would be equivalent to what the FBI did at twitter. Trump would then be in a state of rebellion against the constitution of the United States of America and ought to have been exiled or executed.
Let's be sure to note that Matt Taibi specifically refutes your claim .... You believe in Elon Musk's lies even though Elon is basing his claim on Taibi and Taibi says as loud as he can that Elon Musk is wrong and knowingly lying.
You can't even summarize your own quoted material honestly. Ignored
Every bit of sober, factual reporting....
Yea I've seen your filter at work before. if (agrees with me) return reliable; else return crackpots;
