Quote:“We should repeal Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged by the content that is posted. But we now know that was an overly simple view. That if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are. If they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.”

(10-05-2024 01:12 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:“We should repeal Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged by the content that is posted. But we now know that was an overly simple view. That if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are. If they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.”

That's right, Hillary. YOU LOSE TOTAL CONTROL... you old hag.

Quote:'cause it's da ______, that's a fact

'cause it's da ______, and they're suckin' muh sac

'cause it's da ______, what a game

'cause it's da ______, ain' got no shame

'cause it's da ______!

set to this jingle, explains it every.single.time. ....





@should'veBeenBornAjew

They won’t lose some control, or an element of control. They will lose TOTAL control, inferring that’s what they have.

(10-05-2024 05:08 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  That's right, Hillary. YOU LOSE TOTAL CONTROL... you old hag.

Unfortunately the repeal of it WOULD GIVE THEM TOTAL CONTROL. Who do you think would feel the full brunt of the deep state lawfare? And who do you think would never be ‘fact checked’? Exactly. If you don’t believe it ask Donald J Trump.

Why do people still report what that old piss bag says?

Whatever else we might say about Hillary! and her ilk, we must admit they have tipped their hand and told us what their ultimate agenda is. Granted, you have to pay very close attention for an extended period of years, because they are deeply dishonest people and they only give a few drops of candor at a time, mixed in with gallons of deception, distraction, and assorted bullsh!t. But the fact remains, when it’s all said and done, they have told us with their words and they have shown us with their actions — over and over and over again — who they really are and what they really plan to do.

If the American people allow that to happen, well, they really won’t have anyone to blame but themselves. Yes, the people will be to blame — not the “Republicans” and not “the media”, as useless and corrupt as they are. That does *Not* mean that the people “get what they deserve.” But it does mean they’ll get what they vote for.

I don’t worry about her, or Klaus, or even Bill Gates that much anymore. They are getting old and their time is short. I am more concerned about identifying their successors, the ones that will continue their mission. You know little Soros is one, but who else is set to lead the next generation of the cabal?

(10-05-2024 10:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why do people still report what that old piss bag says?

THIS X INFINITY.

That archiac fugly hag = the BIGGEST LOSER in US politcal history after Trump stunned her overrated @ss back in November 2016. THAT MONUMENTAL AND SHOCKING POLITICAL UPSET WAS TOO DAMN SWEET. Best of all.....that humiliating loss to Trump BROKE Hillary!




Hillary never recovered and is viewed by most US citizens as a bitter, pathetic and overweight b1tch that is desperately trying to remain "relevant" on the national stage.

(10-06-2024 06:32 AM)boss man Wrote:  

(10-05-2024 10:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why do people still report what that old piss bag says?

THIS X INFINITY.

That archiac fugly hag = the BIGGEST LOSER in US politcal history after Trump stunned her overrated @ss back in November 2016. THAT MONUMENTAL AND SHOCKING POLITICAL UPSET WAS TOO DAMN SWEET. Best of all.....that humiliating loss to Trump BROKE Hillary!




Hillary never recovered and is viewed by most US citizens as a bitter, pathetic and overweight b1tch that is desperately trying to remain "relevant" on the national stage.

It didn't just break HRC, it broke half the country.

Quote:"If that ******* bastard wins, we all hang from nooses.”

She's a peach.

(10-06-2024 08:15 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

Quote:"If that ******* bastard wins, we all hang from nooses.”

She's a peach.

A rotten moldy peach, yes.

(10-05-2024 01:12 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:“We should repeal Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged by the content that is posted. But we now know that was an overly simple view. That if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are. If they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.”

The Leftists have spent the last fifty years grooming and installing their sycophants to control what the American people hear as News. Then along comes this gosh darn internet, with these gosh darn platforms the Leftists can't control. The Leftys ain't about to put up with that. Any views that run counter to Leftist group think, must be silenced, and it is ALL to save our Democracy. Nothing screams save our Democracy like silencing a free press.....

If they censor, then they should not be able to use the safe harbor of Section 230. That section exists because of a presumption that they do not control content. If they censor, they control content.

(10-05-2024 10:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why do people still report what that old piss bag says?

Because "OTHER" Piss Bags like her. She's their idol.

Poor girl is still trying to stay relevant

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Hillary never recovered and is viewed by most US citizens as a bitter, pathetic and overweight b1tch that is desperately trying to remain "relevant" on the national stage." Bossman

She's the white Stacy Abrams, they can't accept losing, those losers.

(10-06-2024 12:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If they censor, then they should not be able to use the safe harbor of Section 230. That section exists because of a presumption that they do not control content. If they censor, they control content.

That is the irony of what she said. I would argue that political censorship is hate speech, and websites who are politically censoring do not deserve Section 230 protection.

A few years ago I switched to Gab.com and other parallel economy websites after increasing frustration with political censorship on many sites (including the biggest BYU fan message board)