The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I mean if we're going to broach the topic of government influencing private media for their own means, that discussion must - at minimum - start with Fox News. The Trump WH basically had that network on speed dial.

Quote:More than 2,300 messages from Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' phone show that Hannity sought input from the top administration official on what to say to his audience as Americans headed to the polls in the presidential election, according to the CNN story published Monday.

(12-12-2022 05:00 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I mean if we're going to broach the topic of government influencing private media for their own means, that discussion must - at minimum - start with Fox News. The Trump WH basically had that network on speed dial.

Quote:More than 2,300 messages from Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' phone show that Hannity sought input from the top administration official on what to say to his audience as Americans headed to the polls in the presidential election, according to the CNN story published Monday.

Nah...that doesn't count. Even if every single word of it is 100% verifiable, it's invalid because CNN said it.

(12-12-2022 01:40 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:59 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:34 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  $44B could've gone a long way in improving the lives of so many.

What price tag would you put on your/our free speech? Are you ok with our government possibly colluding and coordinating with a private entity to suppress speech for political or any other purpose?

As long as you’re willing to remember the “government” that asked Twitter to take things down.

And even they didn’t collide or coordinate, they asked for Twitter to adhere to their pre-existing TOS.

(b) asking a company to stick with their own terms of service, isn’t collusion, this isn’t a conversation.

I assuming you are referring to this and how Twitter didn't adhere to their TOS:

Bari Weiss @bariweiss

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE.

THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

(12-12-2022 05:38 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 01:40 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:59 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:34 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  $44B could've gone a long way in improving the lives of so many.

What price tag would you put on your/our free speech? Are you ok with our government possibly colluding and coordinating with a private entity to suppress speech for political or any other purpose?

As long as you’re willing to remember the “government” that asked Twitter to take things down.

And even they didn’t collide or coordinate, they asked for Twitter to adhere to their pre-existing TOS.

(b) asking a company to stick with their own terms of service, isn’t collusion, this isn’t a conversation.

I assuming you are referring to this and how Twitter didn't adhere to their TOS:

Bari Weiss @bariweiss

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE.

THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

You literally refuse to do anything but deflect.
Trump was suspended for his violent rhetoric. That is in-line with Twitter’s TOS

We’ll just let it all play out and dissect later.

(12-12-2022 05:38 PM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 01:40 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:59 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 10:34 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  $44B could've gone a long way in improving the lives of so many.

What price tag would you put on your/our free speech? Are you ok with our government possibly colluding and coordinating with a private entity to suppress speech for political or any other purpose?

As long as you’re willing to remember the “government” that asked Twitter to take things down.

And even they didn’t collide or coordinate, they asked for Twitter to adhere to their pre-existing TOS.

(b) asking a company to stick with their own terms of service, isn’t collusion, this isn’t a conversation.

I assuming you are referring to this and how Twitter didn't adhere to their TOS:

Bari Weiss @bariweiss

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE.

THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

You literally refuse to do anything but deflect.
Trump was suspended for his violent rhetoric. That is in-line with Twitter’s TOS

We’ll just let it all play out and dissect later.

It's funny that Elon is releasing all this internal data from Twitter previous to his arrival, but then wants his new staff to sign NDA's for everything going forward. Selective transparency.

(12-12-2022 10:57 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  It's funny that Elon is releasing all this internal data from Twitter previous to his arrival, but then wants his new staff to sign NDA's for everything going forward. Selective transparency.

And don't forget shadow banning accounts he doesn't like.

(12-12-2022 10:57 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  It's funny that Elon is releasing all this internal data from Twitter previous to his arrival, but then wants his new staff to sign NDA's for everything going forward. Selective transparency.

And now we've moved to completely banning individuals for posting about publicly available information all the while trying to pass it off as "doxxing" so that he can use the TOS to "justifiably" ban them.

Elon Musk and the rest of the Free Speech Absolutist Jackwagon Brigade are all about free speech absent accountability until the lack of accountability impacts them.

The fact that any reasonably intelligent individual would align themselves to this level of hypocrisy simply for "the win" is mind-boggling.