Trump says Twitter is "stifling free speech" after it labels his tweets with fact-check...

[Puiu]

LOL, to show you the proof of a deleted comment? Hahahaha. The whole point of deleting a comment is that you cannot see it. And secondly, you didn't even read what I wrote. I didn't say they "deleted", but "censored". That means the comment is there, and I can see it, but nobody else can.

I could show the proof by opening the same thread on two different computers (say, mine and yours) where on one you'd see the comment, on another you wouldn't.

It's dirty censorship. If it was legitimate censorship, they would say something like: "Your comment has been deleted because of this and this". However, since they have no proper reason other than ideological, they do it in a hidden way. Because they wanna hide their dirty censorship policy from the users. They don't want users start leaving their sites.

So they make the comment "soft-deleted" by enabling the user to see his comment, but nobody else can. Assuming that user would never discover it. This clearly demonstrates they have ideologically based censorship, because it censorship was based on something real they would do it openly and not in this dirty way.

You can show proof by making a post and then screen-shotting it before and after. I'm not asking for something that doesn't exist.

I just don't see this being a thing. It looks to me that it's mostly just in your head, a conspiracy theory.

FYI "soft-deleting" is easy to check with an VPN or/and different PC.

 

[Markoni35]

I just don't see this being a thing. It looks to me that it's mostly just in your head, a conspiracy theory.
FYI "soft-deleting" is easy to check with an VPN or/and different PC.

Yes, that's exactly how I checked it. And the post wasn't there, even though I could see it myself on my primary computer. Are you calling me a liar??

 

[Puiu]

Yes, that's exactly how I checked it. And the post wasn't there, even though I could see it myself on my primary computer. Are you calling me a liar??

yes

 

[Markoni35]

Then you must be a paid leftist troll, which are know of denying the obvious reality.

 

[Markoni35]

yes

Here's a YouTube video about ghost banning on YouTube:

I can already hear you asking: "If this is true, why didn't they delete her video?". Because she's not accusing them of deliberately censoring people, not even understanding those are automatic filters which are set for ghost banning, so her naive approach probably disarmed them.

Also, she's got lots of subscribers, so by deleting the video they would turn her naive story into something much more dangerous. After all... it's not a secret that YouTube uses ghost banning on a regular basis. Except to reality deniers like you.

 

[mailpup]

I think that's enough personal comments. Thank you.

 

[wiyosaya]

The problem is if his EO is legal then Twitter may have to outright ban Trump, or start fact checking every single tweet from EVERYONE, to avoid a lawsuit. That would be a nightmare for them and slow down the whole thing and get rid of the 'conversational' nature of Twitter. What Trump did was make things exponentially worse for him IF his EO stands the test in a Court of Law and on Appeal.

Legal experts say it won't because it is highly likely that it is unconstitutional.

Trump uses Twitter because he can, if he can't use it to blast out his ideas and misdirection crap then he thinks he won't be as effective. He thinks this is a HUGE reality show and he's 'winning' in the ratings race, the truth is the more he screams about stupid crap the more 'undecided' voters say NO to Trump and that means he loses in November.

About that, we agree. There are also many out there that voted for him in 16, but because of his behavior since then, they now say that they will not vote for him again.

Trump won because Hillary was a piece of crap

That is a matter of personal opinion. 60 or so investigations of her in the house of representatives that was led by republicans at the time, failed to find anything chargeable. Perhaps that bears repeating - 60 investigations by people that professed to hating her. 60 - WTF?

From my viewpoint, it was propaganda that lead to her being considered, as you say, a piece of crap. From my viewpoint, it was Trump that was a piece of crap, but propaganda from the right along with election interference from Russia lead to Trump's "victory." To me, that simply shows that there are many people out there that do not have good BS detectors. IMO, what Trump has done since he was put into office overwhelmingly proves he was the real piece of crap.

If you care to read a study of media coverage at the time of the 2016 election, it was right-leaning "news outlets" that were primarily responsible for embellishing (which might be termed propagandizing) coverage of the election and the campaigns. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

Biden isn't alot better but for other reasons, with another lady coming forward saying Biden abused his power with her too

If you are talking about Tara Reid, she is under investigation for fraud and perjury. It will be interesting to see where that goes.

From my standpoint, Biden is a saint compared to Trump.

Remember in the Florida case involving Wasserman-Schultz the DNC Chairman said they have the 'absolute and total authority to put anyone they want on the ballot regardless of what the public thinks or who they vote for'. That statement was asked regarding Hillary Clinton 'buying' her way to the nomnation over Bernie Sanders.

That is precisely what is wrong with politics these days. The truth of the matter is that people like that exist on both of the major parties.

 

[scavengerspc]

Trump won because Hillary was a piece of crap,

The reason Trump won, not taking into account for Russian interference and Comey, was because the "Bernie Bros" (or as I like to call them, Bernie Bitches) laid down, kicked their feet, stuck out their bottom lip and decided not to vote at all. They are the biggest reason for the Orangutan in chief because a no vote for Clinton was a vote for tRUMP as they were "reliable" Democratic voters.

 

[captaincranky]

Trump won because Hillary was a piece of crap,

That's such a monumental over simplification, it justly deserves clarification.

Primarily what Hillary is or isn't, is simply the fact she's not Bill Clinton. IMO, she never really had a separate identity from her husband. She certainly has little to none of Bill's charisma. Her campaigning style amounted to nothing more than endless nagging.

Again IMO, she's the classic example of people voting because of their party affiliation, and the rest were people voting against her opponent.

Biden isn't a lot better but for other reasons, with another lady coming forward saying Biden abused his power with her too,

Nowadays, every time someone male is nominated for whatever office, some biddy crawls out from the woodwork claiming, "sexual harassment". More often than not, it's someone who has lost their looks, but still wants to be in the spotlight as being "still sexually desirable, but a poor victim nonetheless". Accusations like these always pop up at convenient times for the opponent.

If Biden did have his hand under her skirt, I'd be just as inclined to believe she grabbed it and put it there.

As sexual harassers go, Trump is likely the biggest piece of crap ever. Billy Bush proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt, then lost his job for bringing it to light Why else would Trump have bought the rights to the "Miss America Pageant", if not for the fact that in some dark corner of his mind, he believed that the women were part of "his harem".

the Dems may FINALLY put someone on the ballot who can run head to head with Trump.

I would vote for a Turnip in lieu of Trump any day of the week.

Remember in the Florida case involving Wasserman-Schultz the DNC Chairman said they have the 'absolute and total authority to put anyone they want on the ballot regardless of what the public thinks or who they vote for'. That statement was asked regarding Hillary Clinton 'buying' her way to the nomnation over Bernie Sanders.

Every nomination is de facto "bought". The one with the biggest "war chest" wins in the vast majority of elections. The loudest mouth with the most money usually carries the day, period.

BTW, Bernie Sanders is, and always well be, not electable as commander in chief. His affect is too bizarre, and his politics, (as well intentioned as they might be), are way too socialist to be viable across all American demographic profiles.

As for Biden, he may be half senile, but I'd be willing to bet he'd be able to put together and keep a cabinet, instead of the "firing of the week", game of musical chairs going on across our government now.

Trump patently is as overt of an egomanical emperor wanna be, as you're ever likely to see in public office, and he doesn't even have the good taste, or good sense, to hide it.

 

[wiyosaya]

Well now now! ?

Trump himself appears to have perhaps registered to vote fraudulently in FL, and voted by mail. ????

President Trump tried to register to vote in Florida using an out-of-state address

EDIT: And about that Wasserman-Schultz crap, I certainly do not condone it; however, the repubs are doing essentially the same thing this year in many places since they have already said that Trump will be their candidate without holding / refusing to hold primaries in many areas.