Fox News covers a variety of issues, and many lean right. You’re choice to cherry pick is ridiculous at best.
And River do you have a link to the story you claim was on Fox News website? I looked for it and couldn't find it??? Oh, probably pulled it from something Media Matters claimed about Fox News
Not River, but here is the story, found easily by googling the title of the article (which he clearly stated was from yesterday, not today): Democrats push firearms purchasing ban for people who voluntarily give up their 2A rights The bill is to put together a list of people who volunteer to give up their rights to own a gun, likely due to mental health concerns, and is sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican. Apparently, the Judicial Committee Republicans are mad about...the fact that giving a gun as a gift to a person concerned enough about their mental health to voluntarily put themselves on this list might not be legal. I guess somebody needs to fight for the rights of those giving guns to mentally ill people.
Did you read the article? It clearly states it was sponsored by a D and R, but the vote out of committee was a party line vote with the D's being for it. What about that headline is misleading?
Perhaps this bit of information that was just released may clear up the confusion as this is not simply about Hunter Biden and the Biden family. TWITTER FILES FRIDAY NIGHT BARN BURNER… THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP… We’ll show you what hasn’t been revealed: the erosion of standards within the company in months before J6, decisions by high-ranking executives to violate their own policies, and more, against the backdrop of ongoing, documented interaction with federal agencies. What must be understood here is the FBI, DHS and the DNI have no business being involved in any of this. From my perspective none of this has a hint of criminality or national security interest. It is clear twitter is all too happy to take the lead from government agencies and do their their bidding. I also don't believe this is just about twitter but also involves a greater spectrum of social media. Everything from the MSM, to twitter, to facebook, to you tube, etc... Edit: updated the twitter link.
You seriously couldn't find it? Google "Fox Democrats second amendment" and it's the second item. Democrats push firearms purchasing ban for people who voluntarily give up their 2A rights
I don't watch full shows or anything close to it, but I flip through channels and often catch the beginning of Carlson, Hannity or Ingraham. It's rarely actual news, just the hosts blast anything and anyone Democratic. Often sweeping claims about 'the left' because one person said or did something. Before the pandemic, I was often at a gym at night that had TVs scattered around with both Fox and CNN on. Sound off, closed captioning that I often wasn't close enough to read but could see the headlines and chyrons. CNN spent too much time on the latest stupid thing Trump said, but otherwise covered the news. Fox, at least in prime time, was 90 percent bad stuff about the Democrats. And I look at websites such as Media Matters that record Fox's absurdity. Yesterday "Fox host says kids committed suicide because Twitter silenced conservatives about Covid." Beyond that, do you really think the websites are radically different than what the two networks broadcast? When we had the thread about the baseball bat attack in NYC, Fox had a headline that it happened in a "Dem-run city." It does that all the time. Bad stuff in Dem-run cities or blue states. Did any major news outlet run a headline saying the Uvalde massacre was in a GOP-run city or state? Another thing I see Fox do just about every day is stories about someone on the left blasted for something. If you read the story, some Republican is criticizing a Democrat, or else some people on Twitter did. But Fox makes it into a major story.
I tried going through the revolver news link and beyond the hyperbole of explosive reveals I couldn’t really figure out what the sinister government act was. I suspect it has to do with the whole New York post hunter Biden thing days before the election. Yes intelligence agencies advised social media that they thought it was a Russian planted October Surprise. So the companies decided to pass, given the whole 2016 Comey Hillary emails debacle. Even the NY post reporter was uncomfortable and refused to out his name on it. NY Post Reporter Behind Dubious Hunter Biden Story Refused to Put His Name on It (Report) Ultimately these were decisions made by social media companies based upon the best information they had. There was Nothing nefarious about it. If you want to criticize their decisions, fine, but it isn’t some government conspiracy. As for banning Trump, he incited insurrection, violated terms of service, doxxed and threatened others so I have zero problem with his account being banned.
Perhaps the twitter thread from Matt Taibbi will work better for you versus the Revolver article. The thread contains Part 1 which covers October 2020 through Jan 6. Matt Taibbi If you can't see the bigger issue at hand I'm sorry. This goes well beyond the actions of a privately owned institution making decisions at a company level.
Twitter is entertainment. Who cares what TruthSocial is doing? No one. I don’t care about twitter either. I may use less though.
The bigger question is why are Trumpsters so eager to see Hunter Biden’s junk? Those tweets were a violation of of TOS.
Thanks for the link. Sorry I’m just not seeing it. I assume the issues are 1 - Twitter making on the fly and inconsistent judgements on content moderation 2.- Regularly consulting with intelligence agencies on accuracy of certain issues. If that’s it, so what? I don’t see 1 as a different than if the mods on here were inconsistent in their moderation policies. That isn’t good but it isn’t a scandal. As to consulting with intelligence agencies, I don’t see it as intrinsically bad. Sure you may be giving up some level of independence but that’s their choice. In summary it seems like Twitter isn’t doing a particularly good job on the very difficult job of content moderation. OK fine. Next issue?
So you believe twitter consulting with the FBI, DHS and DNI concerning censorship of non criminal activity is OK? I certainly see the issue and I'm sorry you don't.
I would assume they are consulting the intelligence agencies as to what is true and what isn’t on certain issues. No I don’t have a problem with it. Why should I have a problem with it? Also nobody has the inherent right to post any comment they want on social media as long as it isn’t illegal. Twitter can suppress any content they want. If consumers don’t like it they don’t have to particulate. This forum has these rules. MUST READ: - Too Hot Rules | Swamp Gas Forums Most of these are not criminal activities. Should the government step in to force GC to allow such content?
That assumption is not the case at all they were consulting the FBI, DHS and DNI on what and who to censor. None of what was censored rose to the level of criminality which is what the FBI, DHS and DNI are there for. Why consult them in the first place?
They are intelligence agencies/sources as well as law enforcement. Fox News frequently coordinated messaging with the Trump administration. The new Twitter owner tweeted his recommendation to vote Republican on Election Day. Are you ok with those?
I'll grant the intelligence agencies have the authority to gather information and conduct surveillance operations. What they do not have is the right to silence individuals. Exchanging messages with a news agency is a far cry from the having the FBI, DHS and DNI being involved in who should be silenced. I have no issue with anyone stating who they are going to vote for. Nor do I have an issue with organizations that back a party or candidate of their choice. In the end an individual will make their own choice. I certainly didn't cast my vote based on Fox News or Elon Musk's recommendations as I'm sure you didn't either.
So exactly how are these agencies involved in who should be silenced? Who Twitter silences is ultimately Twitters decision. They can get feedback from the govt or anybody else for that matter.
