John Deering for October 29, 2020

It’s a pretty wide, pretty deep and ultimately unsolvable problem… if you include a requirement for low cost and easy acceptance into the particularly social medium. What DOES it take to prove you’re who you say you are… entirely online?

Exactly.

Wow, powerful cartoon Mr. Deering.

Thank you Mr Bannon, are you still out on bail?

Facebook is not the government. They may suppress all day long. Just as one may eschew using their “service”.

And in this day of “It is so because I say it is so”, I defy anyone to say that that person is not a 27-YO Latina.

Freedom of speech can be suppressed only by government. Facebook is not government — yet.

This cartoon kinda reminds one of the CONservative political ads on TV. They never let the truth get in the way of the personal attacks against their opponents. An example? In one ad it claims that a Repulsican AG has filed felony charges against a Democrat running for governor. Now I find this interesting because if a person is charged with a felony and convicted, they cannot run for public office upon said conviction. Since all relevant personnel and agencies in the state are of The Repulsican persuasion, a conviction would have already happened. NO?

OAC was giving a stack of photographs by the FBI of right wingers who have threatened to kill her. Vote out every vicious, racist covid spreading, election rigging anti American republican.

Here is an article from Politifact showing that there is NO connection between Tony Bobulinski and Joe Biden and that Joe was not involved with any of Hunter’s China deals.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulinski-hunter-biden-and-china-explainer/

Here is an article about retired justice Anthony Kennedy’s son helping Donald Trump get loans from Deutsche Bank that have been under REAL investigations. Funny that this doesn’t get as much media attention as the lies about Biden promoted by NYP and Fox. Many believe that Kennedy retired to try to prevent his son from being investigated on this matter.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-supreme-court-justice-son-023053216.html

Nailed it John!

Here’s what I don’t quite understand:

—Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act says that Internet companies cannot be considered “publishers” of the content they carry. Thus, just as The Phone Company cannot be held liable for my bank-robbery plotting over their wires, Yelp cannot be held liable for, say, a negative review of a restaurant.

—The various Internet companies are still private, and have the right to display the comments they want and not display the ones they don’t. Currently, some of them have taken to not displaying various kinds of lies and fraudulent posts, currently mostly from right-wingers.

—Various kinds of right-wingers in power are threatening to punish these Internet companies by removing the protection they enjoy from section 230. This would presumably mean that the companies would then be considered “publishers” of the material they carry, and would be liable for “publishing” it.

Seems to me that, in that case, the Internet companies would be forced to be much more restrictive of their content, much more prudent about the (largely right-wing) lies on their sites. So how would this action promote “freedom of [right-wing] speech”?

When you “catfish” you have no rights.