Are you totally TDS phucked that you cannot or refuse to see what he is actually saying?
Yeah, it’s pretty clear what he’s saying.
TSS.
Are you totally TDS phucked that you cannot or refuse to see what he is actually saying?
Nope not at all, I don't care what they do, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in their fair practise policy
Which you failed to do.
You never do any research outside of your own little box.
Jack Dorsey, chief executive of Twitter, took to his site not long after to say Twitter would not back down, presenting a stark contrast to Mr. Zuckerberg, who, in an interview a day earlier with Fox News, said Facebook wasn’t going to judge Mr. Trump’s posts.
“We’ve been pretty clear on our policy that we think that it wouldn’t be right for us to do fact checks for politicians,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “I think in general, private companies probably shouldn’t be — or especially these platform companies — shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
“Zuckerberg’s instincts have been right,” said Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. “Zuckerberg said, ‘We trust people to make up their minds.’”
But Mr. Zuckerberg’s hands-off approach to Mr. Trump’s increasingly incendiary behavior on social media runs the risk of alienating some users who think the rules about what can be posted to Facebook should be applied equally to everyone, including world leaders. It could also infuriate some of the company’s Silicon Valley work force, who still believe Facebook isn’t doing enough to counter misinformation campaigns.
“I’m filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission because of Twitter’s domestic election interference against President @realDonaldTrump,” Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida said in a tweet.
After Twitter applied the warning label on a tweet from Mr. Trump on Friday morning, Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, called on Twitter to apply its rules against inciting violence equally to other world leaders. He provided a link to to anti-Israel tweets from Iran’s supreme leader.
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, retweeted Mr. Pai’s post and called for criminal action against Twitter.
“Exactly, @AjitPaiFCC. That’s why today I called on AG Barr & @stevenmnuchin1 to open a criminal investigation into @Twitter.”
That kind of confrontation is exactly what Mr. Zuckerberg, who controls a far larger internet megaphone than Mr. Dorsey, wants to avoid. In a speech at Georgetown University in October 2019, Mr. Zuckerberg declared that political speech would be protected on Facebook, including lies made by politicians on the site.
Despite what he called his own “visceral negative reaction” to Mr. Trump’s language, Mr. Zuckerberg said he felt compelled to keep the posts up on Facebook and Instagram, and that the president’s language did not violate the company’s policies.
“I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote.
“ I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this,” he continued, “but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.”
"Intended" by whom?
By the way, the crazy fat kid keeps telling us how rich he is. Why doesn't he set up his own social media company? He's a businessman, ain't he?
Oh, right. Doesn't want to compete with Stormfront.
Oh, have no fear, I know.You're a lawyer - you figure it out! Geesh!
Unless they're on Wall Street, looting your pension fund.I don't care if he was calling on looters to be shot. Looters SHOULD be shot.
Those ones should be denutted and allowed to bleed out. In the middle of Wall st.Unless they're on Wall Street, looting your pension fund.
Yeah, let me know when that happens.Those ones should be denutted and allowed to bleed out. In the middle of Wall st.
I don't care if he was calling on looters to be shot. Looters SHOULD be shot.
I wonder why only two? Are the rest of you looter supporters?Two greens on this one.
I wonder who?
Because, of course, anybody who doesn't want looters to be extrajudicially murdered must be "looter supporters."I wonder why only two? Are the rest of you looter supporters?
Because, of course, anybody who doesn't want looters to be extrajudicially murdered must be "looter supporters."
Including the Commie Antifa Kenyan Muslim socialist Deep State Hillary Supreme Court that decided Tennessee v. Garner in 1985.
Oh, have no fear, I know.
I'm just providing a mental challenge to the slower amongst us.
Oh, have no fear, I know.
I'm just providing a mental challenge to the slower amongst us.
Boomer and Moosie hate it when private companies do as they please with their property.
The only people Trump has directly ordered attacked were legal, peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park.Oh they can do as they please without the government protection that other companies don't get.. capiche??
Tennessee WIlliams?Because, of course, anybody who doesn't want looters to be extrajudicially murdered must be "looter supporters."
Including the Commie Antifa Kenyan Muslim socialist Deep State Hillary Supreme Court that decided Tennessee v. Garner in 1985.
Boomer and Moosie hate it when private companies do as they please with their property.