×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
0
25 comments block


[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 08:32:37 ago (+0/-0)

Didn’t happen. Enjoy your kike propaganda, paid shill.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 06:54:08 ago (+0/-0)

Company needs people to thrive.

Company bans people.

Company dies.

Meta is CIA (intelligence) run. Zuckerberg is a front and a total fuckin' faggot.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 07:10:48 ago (+0/-0)

Normal to ban enemy propaganda.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 07:42:24 ago (+0/-0)*

No it isn't, faggot.

At the height of the cold war, in 1959, we allowed a debate on Communisn vs Capitalism between Nikita Krishchev and then Vice President Richard Nixon, and televised it for the world to see.

Banning people from speaking is anti-American faggotry pushed on us by filthy fuckin' jews controlling our intelligence agencies. Otherwise, the world might find out certain inconvenient facts.

In 1973, a chink sued the government and established that we have a right to seek and obtain propaganda from enemies of the US, in that case China.

Oh, and we aren't at war With Russia. They aren't our enemy, yet.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 08:36:14 ago (+0/-0)

We’ve been directly at war with Russia since the neoconservative movement (jews) fled the Soviet Union and started openly calling for nuking them regardless of their behavior. They have never wanted communism to be defeated. They only wanted Stalin’s reforms to be rolled by to revolutionary Bolshevik rules after a U.S. invasion and regime change of the USSR.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 08:48:33 ago (+0/-0)

They may have been at war with Russia, but we haven't. We've been strong tradesman with Rissia, post soviet era.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 09:09:39 ago (+0/-0)

Well, since when has what we (the people) wanted mattered.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 08:57:57 ago (+0/-0)

At the height of the cold war, in 1959....

....communuist books were taken out of libraries.

Plus, no one is "banned from speaking" dipshit. A private company made a decision not to allow anti American propaganda from an enemy. They're entitled to do that. You are still free to see your Russian propaganda if you like, the government won't stop you.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 09:25:42 ago (+0/-0)*

It's okay if the government uses "muh private company" to violate people's rights.

You're a fucking idiot. Meta is a CIA front company waging an intelligence war against the people of the US and the world. They ban whatever our government tells them to ban. Meanwhile, ISIS and Al-CIA'da can post on Facebook. Along with the Iotollah, Xi, Putin and any other "enemy" world leader.

How the fuck does Meta know the enemy is Rusdia and the posts are propaganda? Just like they knew all the doctors that warned that the jab was pure poison and didn't stop covid were wrong? And that the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian Disinformation"? Is Meta the expert in everything?

Go fuck yourself, faggot.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 09:35:31 ago (+0/-0)

Isis have an official Facebook page? Must be great just making whatever shit up that you feel like.

Your precious Russian propaganda is still available to anyone who can type into an address bar, relax.

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 10:54:47 ago (+0/-0)

If Meta is banning it, it is at the behest of the federal government and a violation of BOTH our rights and the 1st amendment.

You're a filthy fucking and disgistimg statist suckdick nigger. You utter piece of shit.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:04:03 ago (+0/-0)

It's not a violation of your rights dipshit. Facebook can ban what they like

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:23:59 ago (+0/-0)*

Banning people from social media is a rights violation, you utterly dumb fuck. If the government does it, it is a violation of the 1st amendment and is unlawful.

Fuck your dumb. You have a right to speak freely, share information, and associate with whomever you want. Private companies, which Meta is NOT, are allowed to violate people's rights without penalty. Meta, which receives BILLIONS in government funding is not a private company and the government urging them to ban people or information is the government violating our rights. The fact that I can get the same information somewhere else isn't an exception to the law.

If the government, giving meta billions of dollars and is the single source of profitability, tells meta to remove something, that's censorship coming from the people telling Meta to remove it, ie the government.

You stupid fuckin' ninny.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:33:48 ago (+0/-0)

Banning people from social media is a rights violation


Lol

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 11:11:48 ago (+0/-0)

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:01:18 ago (+0/-0)

An auto created page dipshit

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:28:01 ago (+0/-0)*

Nigger. Facebook ALLOWS pages for ISIS and Al-CIA'da on their platform and auto generates landing pages for that content.

“Despite repeated warnings and questioning from multiple lawmakers, Facebook has continued to create business pages for designated terrorist groups that thrive on digital propaganda—and it’s been knowingly doing so since 2019,” said Katie Paul, the researcher and author of the investigation.

You're utterly fucking stupid and you clearly didn't click the fucking link, you disingenuous fuckwitted faggot.

[ - ] Sleazy 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 14:54:31 ago (+0/-0)

Marsh vs Alabama says it is illegal for a private company to restrict free speech

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 15:09:31 ago (+0/-0)

You may not know that since that 1946 ruling, in 2019 the SCOUS ruled differently. In a decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative justices ruled that the First Amendment constraints didn’t apply to the nonprofit, which they considered a private entity.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 9 monthsSep 17, 2024 08:32:47 ago (+0/-0)

But that didn’t happen.