Phil Crawford Podcast

[Bobby Bucks]

alebrewer what did you do to upset them, did you post a link to the Ron Paul Liberty Report?

 

[J Grant]

Please explain why "MAGA" is such a touchstone of hatred from Democrats? The fact someone voted for Trump does not make them "MAGA"...it means only that in the choice between one and the other, they picked the one that scared them the least.

Yes it makes them MAGA, becaue TRump and his clones manipulate with lies and conspiracy theories and thus are a danger to othe Republic, even if the demcortss slso suck

MAGA is nto the same as conservaitves. I am all in for conservaives, but they are a minory of the Rpeulbian party now becaue consdrvaitves refgnie facts and want to flollow the law and the onstition, which puts them at odds with the MAGTA wint of the Repuican party

The visus way MAGA goes after ethical, consedrvaive REpulcians, incljuding mocking them by callign then RINO's, and which can inlcude career ruining schmes and death threats, shows who they are .

 

[Cob]

Actually those platforms are regulated by the government

They have no requirements to fact check anything especially when the fact checks so often prove to be wrong.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally exempts social media platforms from lawsuits related to user-generated content, essentially shielding them from being held legally responsible for information posted by third-party users on their platforms; this means they are not treated as the "publisher or speaker" of that content, allowing them to avoid liability for most user-generated content. The goal was to encourage innovation and free speech on the internet ​

​

We will know more next month as a SCOTUS case reaches the high court

On February 26, 2024, the justices of the US Supreme Court heard Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, both cases that will determine how and what social media companies can do when running their platforms. The cases will test how powerful social media companies are and establish where the Tech Giants rank in the hierarchy of First Amendment protections in the United States. The question likely to be answered this spring: Do states have the right to restrict how social media companies moderate and run their platforms? ​

From Facebook, "Facebook may restrict a user's account if they violate its community standards or policies. Restrictions can range from temporarily stopping users from commenting on posts to a full account lockout"

 

[Cob]

Apparently that's worth a LOT to some folks. Again - I'm humbled you remember. And I'll always admit when I'm wrong, so no surprises there.

You denied it and did NOT admit you were wrong, not until I pointed it out to you and then you really had no choice but to admit it.

 

[J Grant]

From Facebook, "Facebook may restrict a user's account if they violate its community standards or policies. Restrictions can range from temporarily stopping users from commenting on posts to a full account lockout"

In my opinion, this is not censorship

Participation in these platforms is voluntary.
If a platform has certain rules that are violated, then they can suspend or drop an account

Posting or publishing harmful information in the form of falsehoods may be part of that. Or used to be.

I don't agree that a great number of paid fact-checkers in a mass had a political agenda- I doubt they would last long if they did. The reality is that it was many more of the RW posts that contained harmful or blatant falsehood and diinormakltn, so they got taken down or flagged in larger numbers.

It is the genius and the danger of AMGA that it spins a false victim narrative -a persecution or with hunt while sidestepping their own responsibility -

 

[alebrewer]

You denied it and did NOT admit you were wrong, not until I pointed it out to you and then you really had no choice but to admit it.

Until you pointed it out, how would I have known about it? You seem to have trouble letting stuff go. Might I recommend counseling?

 

[Cob]

In my opinion, this is not censorship

Participation in these platforms is voluntary.
If a platform has certain rules that are violated, then they can suspend or drop an account

Posting or publishing harmful information in the form of falsehoods may be part of that. Or used to be.

I don't agree that a great number of paid fact-checkers in a mass had a political agenda- I doubt they would last long if they did. The reality is that it was many more of the RW posts that contained harmful or blatant falsehood and diinormakltn, so they got taken down or flagged in larger numbers.

It is the genius and the danger of AMGA that it spins a false victim narrative -a persecution or with hunt while sidestepping their own responsibility -

I AGREE, I am not saying it is censorship, because people AGREE to this before signing up, but then when it their account gets suspended ot their comment gets taken down, they scream it's censorship, even though they already agreed to this, that's the point I'm making, SO many people claim censorship, when it's NOT.

 

[alebrewer]

Screaming censorship when you've agreed to the terms is akin to screaming I've been screwed when you agree to low fees.

 

[Cob]

Until you pointed it out, how would I have known about it? You seem to have trouble letting stuff go. Might I recommend counseling?

Look who's talking, I can tell you what happened, you made a comment stating something, I commented on what you said, you said that you said no such thing, then when I reposted EXACTLY what you said, THEN you admitted that you did make the comment, so to say you always admit when you're wrong wasn't really the case in that situation, you only admited you were wrong AFTER it was pointed out, but somehow I'm the one with trouble letting stuff go and need counseling??? I can CERTAINLY see how you say you lean right politically!!!

 

[alebrewer]

Look who's talking, I can tell you what happened, you made a comment stating something, I commented on what you said, you said that you said no such thing, then when I reposted EXACTLY what you said, THEN you admitted that you did make the comment, so to say you always admit when you're wrong wasn't really the case in that situation, you only admited you were wrong AFTER it was pointed out, but somehow I'm the one with trouble letting stuff go and need counseling??? I can CERTAINLY see how you say you lean right politically!!!

Dude - aside from being profoundly humbled that you care so much about me - you REALLY need to get a grip. How's this: I sincerely apologize for any contradiction I've made on this forum - not only with respect to any engagement with you, but with respect to ANY post I've made. My intent was not to be deceptive and I REALLY appreciate you pointing out my faux pas. I will work ever so diligently so as not to allow that kind of monumental mistake to happen again. Please continue to monitor my posts and do not hesitate to point out any similar future incidents.

Thank you in advance for your support and concern.