Little Known Secrets People Don't Know About Captain Kangaroo.Fans Rally to Help American Graffiti Actor Paul Le Mat In Hard Times.& Mel Gibson Claim Hollywood is an 'Institutionalized Pedophile Ring'
Mexican Drug Gangs Are ‘Laughing at Americans’ Under Biden May 13, 2023.List of School, Church Mass Shootings Questions Big Pharma Influences May 14, 2023.What Are States Doing About Private Election Funding by Soros, Zuckerberg & Others? May 15, 2023.Secret Agent for People’s Republic of China Indicted May 15, 2023.Clever Photos You Just Have to See May 16, 2023.Retailers, Restaurants Losing Customers Due to Dirty Restrooms May 17, 2023.Great Article on James Woods, I read through the comments, I’ve always been fond of him. If any site fails to honor not censoring content (by whatever means), they should not be protected by Section 230. Clearly, YouTube is censoring material, usually citing Hate Speech, or Misleading Speech. In return for certain sites being exempt from responsibility for broadcasting illegal acts, they had to agree not to censor material. I think the time for media to profit from the Broadcast of Illegal Material needs to end, and Section 230 Needs Modified Accordingly, but Section 230 contained one impetus I have not yet mentioned. It’s inconceivable that they would permit those, and then censor reputable Doctors, or Political Speakers. YouTube, for example, permits videos to be posted, some quite obscene, but some of illegal acts, such as people climbing Radio Transmission Towers for Selfies, or Riding Illegally on Railroad Cars such as Gondolas or Hoppers. GAB seems to Oppose modifications of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and I think it might be because GAB has something to hide, concerning it’s operations. To me, this is as reprehensible as Facebook and Twitter banning a stunning, articulate intellect, such as James Woods.
#JAMES WOODS MEMES LIBERAS FREE#
In my humble opinion, as I read, suggested online, GAB uses a modified shadow ban, linking misfits with other misfits, and giving the illusion that they are a genuine Free Speech Platform. GAB, despite my best attempts, despite investing hundreds of hours repeating Respirator and Mask info, possessing a zillion links to covid material and posting them as needed, and despite making lighthearted posts, memes, etc., I no longer seem to get more than a few notifications on anything, most are just because I’m on a contact list and these people are commenting to each other. (Conservative Treehouse and Front Page Magazine banned me because I advocated for a black man, shot to death by a police officer, despite the black man being a licensed conceal carry that did not rob a store the night before, nor did he have the gun in his lap, like one or both of those sources reported). I am not sure why Conservative Sites ban so easily. I have commented on The Hill, and a few other sites associated with Liberals, but to tell the truth, not that things aren’t different now, but at the time, I have not been banned by Liberal Sites, but I have had my comments removed. I’m banned on American Thinker, Conservative Treehouse, Front Page Magazine, and The Gateway Pundit. Alas, the censorship isn’t limited to liberals. James Woods takes a licking and keeps on ticking, to steal a phrase from Timex.įacebook and Twitter suspending Paul Joseph Watson and James Woods, respectively, is a sign of a country with a fundamental basis of Free Speech, but no commitment to it by Social Media. The ability to be open in one’s speech is critical to a society such as ours, as that’s how the nation was founded.
0 kommentar(er)
