Reason Roundup

White House Seeks Social Media Sob Stories from Conservative Snowflakes

Plus: Mississippi jailers ignore dying inmate, New York City may ban furs, and more...

|

Was someone mean to you on Twitter? The White House wants to know about it. As of Wednesday, a new tool on the White House website allows visitors to report suspected "political bias" from social media companies. "Too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear 'violations' of user policies," the site says.

The tool only accepts complaints from U.S. citizens, although there is no requirement that complaint filers verify their identities. It asks users to list "what social media platform(s) took action against your account," what action was taken, links to tweets that triggered action, and screenshots of any messages from the platform.

The White House is portraying the initiative as an effort to defend free speech.

Its tempting to merely laugh at this sort of absurdity, to gawk at the blubbering fools who spent years ranting about easily-triggered liberal "snowflakes" only to literally make it a federal matter when their Facebook account gets suspended. And sure, the self-owning MAGAservative chorus of "No one liked my tweet, I must be shadowbanned!" is a special delicacy.

But these collective delusions are now being used by preening, authoritarian asshats—from Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) to members of the Trump administration itself—to drum up support for policies that take away Americans' speech rights.

Right now, too many Republicans want us to think it's a First Amendment violation for a private company to dictate the terms of service on a private platform it owns, but not for the federal government to dictate what individuals can and cannot say on those platforms or to punish private companies that don't conform to some Congress-created speech code.

I know it's clichéd and melodramatic to make 1984 references, but this is some really serious doublethink.

The saddest part is that so many Republicans are proving themselves willing to go along with it, out of ignorance or convenience or both. They'll throw away the whole open internet, their own First Amendment freedoms, and everyone else's because, by golly, they want those anti-speech snowflakes on the left to see conservatives' sick AOC memes in their timelines one way or other.


FREE MINDS

Jackson County, Missouri, jail guards joked that an inmate just had "jail-litus" and refused to get her help when she complained of chest and leg pain. The woman, ReGina Thurman, died of a torn aorta not long thereafter. They didn't even call in emergency paramedics until she had no pulse.

Her family is now suing, claiming the staff showed "reckless or callous indifference toward ReGina Thurman's health and safety."


FREE MARKETS

A proposed ban on fur sales in New York City is pitting city council members and animal rights advocates against black ministers, Hasidic rabbis, and longtime garment manufacturers.

"City Council Speaker Corey Johnson wants to kill 7,000 local jobs by legislating his private morality into law—and he'll likely succeed, because the cultural elite agrees," says the New York Post editorial board. "This, when a New York ban won't remotely stop the fur trade, a $33 billion industry worldwide. Luxury buyers can go elsewhere, or use the internet. If Johnson & Co. really think this is progressive, then progressivism isn't about protecting the little people, but only a matter of self-satisfied posturing."


QUICK HITS

  • Televangelist Pat Robertson said Alabama's abortion ban is "too extreme."
  • With the Equality Act, Democrats want to redefine sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
  • New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is officially in the Democratic presidential running.
  • Ron Paul explains why "the government has no business telling cancer victims where they can and cannot go to receive life-saving treatment."
  • The Kamala Harris campaign worries that talk of her as Joe Biden's vice presidential running mate is diminishing her prospects as a presidential candidate.
  • Biden is not polling well with millennials.
  • A D.C. apartment-building battle is "a case study in what happens when you try to build more housing in affluent neighborhoods."
  • The National Labor Relations Board issues a memorandum reiterating that Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees. The memo "concurs with a letter the Labor Department released last month that classified gig economy workers similarly," notes Reason's Billy Binion.
  • ICYMI:


Correction: Josh Hawley is a U.S. senator, not a U.S. Rep. This post has been updated to reflect that.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

302 responses to “White House Seeks Social Media Sob Stories from Conservative Snowflakes

    1. Ugly feminists are large and in charge.
      I fart in the grocery store to get the men behind me in line to back up a notch. I fart on the ferry to get men to take their goddamned arm off the back of my seat.

      1. She’s going to fart next to the wrong BRAPist one time. I pray for her then.

        1. Wait until she discovers that just turns Crusty on.

        2. Men are told to act more civilized, so they do “guy things” less and less.

          Dykes are trying to act tough, so they fart.

          Wait until guys just revert back to belching in public really loud, hitting on women at every turn, sharting until it clears a Subway train, and pissing where they want.

          1. So San Fran, subbing in dude on dude inappropriate comments?

          2. ENB when female comedians who say “men are scum” are censored: OMG! This is oppression of marginalised groups! This is absolutely silencing women!

            ENB when conservative and libertarian commentators have their entire social media presence erased, denied service by financial institutions, fired from their jobs and have their lives ruined: Haha, snowflake.

            What an airhead.

      2. What does she eat that she’s able to fart on command like that?

        1. The musical fruit.

          1. *sad trombone*

            1. That’s probably what it sounded like when she let it rip.

        2. Fish….lots and lots of fish.

          Stinky Progressive Filet-o-Fish.

      3. I’m surprised that article didn’t mention Lindy West, who managed to parlay her talent at hoovering snack cakes and complaining about people noticing what a fat musk ox she was into national media gigs.

        With that said, I’m not surprised that men were intruding on Allison Hope’s spaces–she looks more masculine that John Wayne and they probably thought she was actually one of them.

    2. Hello.

      Conservative ‘snowflakes’.

      Good one.

      Honk, honk.

      1. Conservative: I was shut down and lost income for my opinion.
        Progressive: Wah, waw, waw. Snowflake!

        1. Conservative: Mastercard, Visa, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T have gotten together to forbid me a credit card or cell phone because I posted the wrong meme.

          ENB: That’s cool. I don’t realize I’m next.

          1. Conservative: I got a great score on math and reading on the SAT but I can’t get into college because my white parents live together

            Progressive: good

          2. THIS. Do these idiots not realize libertarians are just as hated by the left?

            1. ENB does not know that because she’s not a Libertarian.

              Her job is to marginalize Libertarianism and conservatism via a platform that used to lean Libertarian.

            2. If anything, an actual libertarian is hated more. Conservatives can be more utilitarian than libertarians are.

          3. Conservative: Mastercard, Visa, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T have gotten together to forbid me a credit card or cell phone because I posted the wrong meme.

            Is that not illegal?

            1. Private companies!

            2. “PRIVATE BUSINESSES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!
              If they disagree with your politics they can cut off your utilities, deny you banking, phone service, medical care and transportation.
              …unless the business is a bakery cause bake the fucking cake bigot.”
              – t. Elisabeth Nolan Brown

        2. ENB today: they’re private companies

          ENB when internet companies refuse to allow any publication that hires her to have a web presence thus forbidding her to work: wah, wah, wah.

          1. Nah, ENB would just switch her politics to full progressive like Weigel and Balko did after leaving here.

            1. I don’t think that would be a switch. ENB is already a full progressive, its just a slow reveal.

        3. ENB suffers from TDS.

          1. That’s why she fits right in with reason staff.

            1. I think she’s a Robby sock puppet.

        4. Until Elisabeth is kicked off Facistbook for espousing free range kids. Then she’ll get it.

  1. A proposed ban on fur sales in New York City is pitting city council members and animal rights advocates against black ministers, Hasidic rabbis, and longtime garment manufacturers.

    And red paint salesmen.

  2. Televangelist Pat Robertson said Alabama’s abortion ban is “too extreme.”

    When you’ve lost Robertson.

    1. The real question is, who has Pat Robertson recently impregnated in Alabama?

    2. I think he’s just not as convinced SCOTUS will overturn Roe yet

    3. But infanticide in NY is not.

    4. That article quoted a survey that said 45% of people think all or most abortions should be legal in the first trimester… That’s not even half the fucking country.

      And the progs are all in on abortion til birth. Only 20% thought 3rd trimester should be legal. They really do seem to be picking some real winning ideas lately!

      1. Gallup has been doing surveys re abortion for 40 years. The numbers have not really ever changed much – on that specific question of 1st trimester – 60-65% think it should be legal – which is about the same % as think Roe should NOT be overturned.

        Banning third trimester and/or restricitng 2nd trimester is a very very different thing than 1st trimester. The theocrats are about to find that out.

    5. So here’s a question. If Alabama says your parasite is a full blown human then couldn’t our masters charge these women with kidnapping and conspiracy to murder when they try to leave the state to get an abortion?

      1. If personhood attracts at conception then couldn’t Alabama prevent the women from leaving the state?

      2. Couldn’t the woman demand that the fetus be arrested for refusing to leave her body? Couldn’t she plead self-defense if she aborted it?

      3. I think it would be a better option to arrest the fetus and charge it for kidnapping the woman and stealing her food through the umbilical cord.

        That makes sense, right? Honk

      4. “your parasite”
        Ordinary Monster imagines that a placenta is somehow not the natural state of every single fucking human being who ever existed and their ancestors since the dawn of the fucking therian mammals 160 million years ago.

        Why do abortionists hate science?

  3. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is officially in the Democratic presidential running.

    Officially but not really.

  4. Was someone mean to you on Twitter? The White House wants to know about it. As of Wednesday, a new tool on the White House website allows visitors to report suspected “political bias” from social media companies. “Too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear ‘violations’ of user policies,” the site says.

    Everyone knows Good Conservatism means losing with dignity and grace. Fuck that – use the left’s own rules against them. Crush them. This is preferable to living in Venezuela.

    1. She must think we’re a real bunch of saps. Does anyone honestly believe the Left gives a sh*t about consistency?

    2. So if the Left is totalitarian, then the Right is justified in using totalitarian measures in order to defeat the Left?

      Wouldn’t that be just substituting one flavor of totalitarianism for another? How would that be an improvement?

      1. The Nazis were invading other countries in the 30s and 40s. Were we right to act the same way or should we have lost with dignity and class?

        1. So you want to use literal warlike analogies to peacetime political disagreements? Do you really want to go there?

          Some Bernie supporting nut tried to assassinate Republican Congresscritters. So, are you going to endorse assassinating Democrats now? Last of the Shitheads is already at that point. Are you?

          1. So you want to use literal warlike analogies to peacetime political disagreements? Do you really want to go there?

            In case you haven’t noticed, they already are thinking like that.

            1. In case you haven’t noticed, they already are thinking like that.

              In this context, who precisely are “they”? Every single Democrat? No. Are there a few nuts like the BernieBro who tried to assassinate Republicans? Yes. But is every single progressive person desiring to murder Republicans? I think the empirical answer to that question is no. And that’s the same with Republicans by the way. There are a few on the right who are eager for the next Civil War so that they can have permission to start shooting Democrats. But are most Republicans eager to start shooting Democrats? I think again the empirical answer to that question is no.

              So where do you fall on this spectrum? Are you eager for the next Civil War to start, or not?

              1. The general point is that the left has taken this shit up several notches… The correct response is to match their level of shadiness, but perhaps try not to escalate it more.

                Anything else is suicide.

                1. If “matching their level of shadiness” means just trading one flavor of totalitarianism for another, then what’s the point?

                  I get to choose between the totalitarians munching kale, and the totalitarians watching NASCAR? Whoop-de-doo.

                  1. Your apathy is choosing totalitarians munching kale.

                    1. Tell me, JLT, if we had a “dictatorship of the right” in this country, would it really be such a terrible thing in your view?

                    2. This is why everyone laughs at you Jeff.

                  2. Here’s the thing, the things the right wants to “force” on people are mostly good things… Lower taxes, less regulation, more personal freedoms on most things of importance, etc.

                    I’m no bible thumper. I don’t care about abortion, or doing drugs, etc… But the real life difference between right wing “rule” that is overbearing and a left wing that is overbearing is the difference between the USA in the 1950s, AKA basically paradise… And the USSR in the 1950s.

                    Bitch and moan all you want about how people should be able to be fuckup degenerates, but right wing orthodoxy creates stable and highly successful societies. Left wing ideology destroys everything of value in a civilization. Between the two I’ll take illegal weed or whatever.

              2. In this context, who precisely are “they”? Every single Democrat? No.

                Based on the news coverage and the glad handing, as well as the platforms adopted, it is pretty much every Democrat.

          2. So you want to use literal warlike analogies to peacetime political disagreements? Do you really want to go there?

            The point is that any entity that doesn’t actively, persistently, and vociferously reject leftism is eventually overtaken by it, because left-wing activism is relentless. They don’t ever take the L and move on, they just go back to parroting the same policies over and over again until the other side caves in out of sheer exhaustion, after which they proceed to shove their agenda down everyone else’s throat. That’s why California, Illinois, and New York are basically hard-left one-party states now, despite the fact that most people outside those states’ giant urban metropoles are either conservative or moderate liberal.

            The left didn’t “respect” McCain because they appreciated his political stances, they respected him because he opportunistically sucked up to them and undermined his own party at a whim for media asspats. When he had the chance to get a position of real power, they turned on him instantly, then went back to “honoring his service” when he wasn’t a threat anymore.

            If you’re fine with trying to be the last one lined up against the wall, good for you. Just don’t act like getting everyone else to go along with your suicidal altruism is a noble endeavor.

            1. The sooner all of us non-Lefties realize that we are already at war because the lefties want it that way, the better.

            2. any entity that doesn’t actively, persistently, and vociferously reject leftism

              The problem here is that you are equating every left-of-center idea as being no different than authoritarian socialism. Today, legal gay marriage; tomorrow, death camps and gulags! I’m sorry but that is just not accurate, and this type of black-white thinking is just dumb.

              The left isn’t wrong about everything, just like the right isn’t wrong about everything. For example, criminal justice reform, or holding police more accountable to the citizens whom they are suppose to serve. If your prescription is “don’t give in to the Left at all, which means covering up for every police misconduct, because the alternative is DEATH CAMPS AND GULAGS” then that is stupid.

              It is not altruism to discern the world through a more critical eye than simply via the lens of tribalism and partisanship. It is just simply rational.

              1. The problem is there is not a single thing no matter how authoritarian that the left can do that you won’t rationalize and claim is left of center. I am not sure what is more pathetic that you are that transparent or that you think no one notices.

                1. I call out authoritarian bullshit every time, John. You on the other hand look the other way when it’s authoritarian bullshit coming from *your tribe*.

                  1. I call out authoritarian bullshit every time

                    You call out what you think is ‘authoritarian bullshit’.

                    And it’s usually stuff that goes against the will of the collective. Or stuff that empowers individuals. Or stuff that upholds civil rights.

                    What you actually do is applaud dehumanization, oppression and authoritarianism.

                    You behave as if you believe that if you’re a big enough cheerleader for your masters, they’ll keep you as a pet instead of consigning you to a camp.

                    1. And it’s usually stuff that goes against the will of the collective. Or stuff that empowers individuals. Or stuff that upholds civil rights.

                      What you actually do is applaud dehumanization, oppression and authoritarianism.

                      How can stuff that “empowers individuals” also be a form of “dehumanization, oppression and authoritarianism”?

                    2. You call out stuff that goes against the will of the collective. Or stuff that empowers individuals. Or stuff that upholds civil rights.

                      And you cheer for dehumanization, oppression and authoritarianism.

                      Is that simple enough? Or do I need to draw you pictures?

                    3. Well perhaps if you had used the normal rules of grammar your meaning would have been clearer.

                      And it’s usually stuff that goes against the will of the collective. Or stuff that empowers individuals. Or stuff that upholds civil rights.

                      What you actually do is applaud dehumanization, oppression and authoritarianism.

                      Well, you got 1 out of 6 right. I often, though not always, object to “the will of the collective”, that is for sure.

              2. If the left hadn’t entrenched bad cops through iron clad police unions, there wouldn’t be a need for much reform.

                1. If the right hadn’t coddled cops and licked their boots at every turn, then cops wouldn’t have felt emboldened to get away with as much bullshit as they have.

                  See? I can play that game too.

                  1. You cant though.

                    Without police unions and the Police State Lefties push for, bad cops would be fired or never hired at all since government budgets would be far less than they are now.

                  2. You’re comparing apples to oranges instead of engaging with the argument. But like you said in another post, you’re more into tribe than policy.

                  3. You’re comparing apples to oranges instead of engaging with the argument.

                    The “argument”, in this case, is “coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to blame everything bad on my opponents in order to frame them as the most evillest evil that ever evilled”.

                    It’s pretty easy to play this game. I’ve heard some fairly creative variations on this theme. But it’s all baloney. You know who is responsible for bad cops? The cops themselves. Not the police union, not conservative cop bootlickers, it’s the individuals themselves. That is what it means to be an individualist and not just a tribal asshat.

                    1. Wait…you just claimed that people on the right caused bad cops by coddling them and licking their boots.

                      We just laugh at your nonsese chemjeff.

                    2. You beat the shit out of that strawman, my friend, kill it!

                    3. Yeah, individuals is all that matters – organizations, pfft, they have no effect on individual behaviors! The letter of the law? Na, no effect on individual behaviors!

                      That is some of the worst thinking I have ever heard. I know you think you’re clever by appealing to individualism, but what you don’t realize is that I’m not a libertarian. I think organizational structures, institutions and laws actually affect the way people behave. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t have unions at all.

              3. The problem here is that you are equating every left-of-center idea as being no different than authoritarian socialism

                No, I’m just observing what’s going on in the real world.

                Today, legal gay marriage; tomorrow, death camps and gulags! I’m sorry but that is just not accurate, and this type of black-white thinking is just dumb.

                That strawman you burned was so massive that NASA satellites can see the heat signature.

                It is not altruism to discern the world through a more critical eye than simply via the lens of tribalism and partisanship. It is just simply rational.

                There’s nothing rational about it all. In fact, it’s a denial of millennia of human anthropology and history.

                1. That strawman you burned

                  What strawman? You said yourself that failing to oppose Leftism means that we are all overtaken by left-wing activism. Is this *necessarily* a bad thing in every way? If you don’t think it will lead to gulags and death camps, eventually, what do you think it will lead to?

                  If left-wing activism will not *necessarily* lead to authoritarian socialism, then why oppose it in all ways and in every way? Perhaps the parts about left-of-center thinking which are compatible with individual liberty ought to be not resisted but supported instead. That is my point.

                  But instead you seem to want to mindlessly oppose everyone on the left based on sheer tribalism and fear. Which is silly.

                  1. You said yourself that failing to oppose Leftism means that we are all overtaken by left-wing activism.

                    You’re the one who said “gulags and death camps,” not me. That says a lot more about what you think of your left-wing buddies than it does about what i actually said.

                    For someone who likes to cry about people who mischaracterize what you say, you sure seem to have no problem doing the same thing. Projection seems to be another trait you share with your lefty boos.

                    1. I think authoritarian socialism inevitably leads to gulags and death camps, yes.

                      I’ve heard plenty of conservative criticism denouncing Bernie, AOC, etc., as indistinguishable in ideology from authoritarian socialists.

                      It doesn’t take rocket surgery to put 2 and 2 together.

                      But if you don’t think “left-wing activism” (as you characterize the term) inevitably leads to gulags and death camps, then why don’t you tell us where you think it will lead?

                      Or, instead, maybe you could for once acknowledge that I had a point.

                    2. I think authoritarian socialism inevitably leads to gulags and death camps, yes.

                      Like I said, projection.

                      But if you don’t think “left-wing activism” (as you characterize the term) inevitably leads to gulags and death camps, then why don’t you tell us where you think it will lead?

                      Ask Great Britain.

                      Or, instead, maybe you could for once acknowledge that I had a point.

                      Your point was stupid and not worth engaging on a serious level. Stop acting as if your neuroses are shared by others.

              4. The problem here is that you are equating every left-of-center idea as being no different than authoritarian socialism.

                Because every left-of-center idea IS no different than authoritarian socialism.

                Gay marriage, which you bandy out there as a product of the left is a product of classical liberal and libertarian ideas.

                The left, when given free reign to actually run a country, kills homosexuals.

                Criminal justice reform? Holding the police accountable? And yet every shithole of police corruption is controlled by leftists.

                And again, when they really let go, when they actually run a country, the left really shows everyone what a police state is supposed to look like.

                Everything the left does is wrong, Jeff. Everything.

                1. Oh too funny.

                  Do you know what Lenin’s view on homosexuality was? Hint: He didn’t exterminate the gays.

                  1. But Stalin sure as hell did, as did Mao and Pol Pot etc. So you cherry picked one data point to refute a mountain of evidence. And it wasn’t technically illegal but many homosexuals after the Bolshevik revolution, even under Lenin, still lost their jobs, were jailed and worse.

                    1. You’re right! Because Stalin was more of an authoritarian socialist, not the ideological communist that Lenin was.

                      Isn’t it weird, how individuals can disagree with each other, and are poorly described by some totalizing generalization? Huh.

                      The one data point that I picked was a pretty damn important one, don’t you think? And it gives lie to the claim that “[t]he left, when given free reign to actually run a country, kills homosexuals.” If you just go to the wikipedia page on “LGBT rights under communism”, you see a diversity of views. Communist East Germany totally banned homosexuality, while in Communist Croatia, there was an openly gay radio host on state-run media for a while.

                  2. Poor Chemjeff.

                    From emancipation to criminalisation: Stalinist persecution of homosexuals from 1934

                    Lenin was not the only power player from 1917-1924. Stalin, Trotsky, and Sverdlov were too. After Sverdlov’s death in 1919, Stalin assumed more power. Then with Lenin’s strokes, Stalin assumed more power.

                    The Socialist Revolution almost failed and they needed every persecuted group to fight for the Red. Its why after the Commies consolidated power, they sent the fags to gulags.

          3. Them Republican Congresscritters were just a bunch of snowflakes. Take your bullets like a real man Dude.

      2. I missed the Totalitarianism in this story. Who was thrown in jail or executed?

    3. +100

      Use the company’s violations of ToS back against them.

      1. As I asked yesterday…is it too much to demand that they abide by the agreements with users that they, themselves, drew up?

        If they have ToS, shouldn’t they, bare minimum, be obligated to live by them?

  5. Opting out: Some of China’s ‘996’ tech tribe quit, seek less stress

    Could it be that someday China might lose its edge in labor when most Chinese want better pay and not work so many hours? As in, not want to be near slaves to the Communist state.

    1. Maybe they wanted more time to spend on the social credit app?

    2. Then they’ll be put in prison where they have no choice.

  6. Ron Paul explains why “the government has no business telling cancer victims where they can and cannot go to receive life-saving treatment.”

    Of course this seems like something that would be self-evident.

    1. Archie Evans and Charlie Ward could not be reached for comment.

    2. I’m surprised Reason hasn’t completely thrown Ron Paul under the bus yet… They still cover him in a mostly positive light… Even though by their insane prog-libertarian standards he’s basically satan.

      That will be the true sign Reason has completely shed the pretense of being libertarian, when they completely disavow Ron Paul.

    1. Louisiana ‘heartbeat’ abortion ban nearing final passage

      This Culture War is going pretty HOT-and-HEAVY.

      1. It worked for the gays. Lots of people said it was too soon to push for the SCOTUS to find SSM a constitutional right. But they won (barely).

        1. As they will find out when Roe v. Wade is over-turned, constitutional amendments are the way to go, not the courts.

          Decades later, a new group might be in power and with a pen and phone change your “right” into ““stare decis is not an inexorable command.”

          1. Yup. It’s not a one-way ratchet (yet).

        2. RvW was bullshit anyway. In legal terms, and in terms of rights. IMO it’s a states right thing if anything. They should have left it at that, but of course the suicide cult left can never accept anybody not bending to their will.

          1. I am on board with the government protecting a medical privacy or full-on privacy right under the 9th Amendment. The right to be left alone is a Natural right.

            This would likely cover early abortions; ban domestic public surveillance by the state; ban requirements for identity linked to ISP, cell phones, etc; government keeping databases…..

            Otherwise a constitutional amendment was the proper avenue to make abortion 100% legal. Since they didn’t do that, there a reasonable debate allowed for when a baby is too much a baby to do an abortion.

            1. it would also eliminate the DEA and FDA. Win win for everyone

    2. According the Kaiser Family Foundation, 64% of reported legal abortions in Alabama are performed on women of color (sorry no link, wasn’t gonna do that search on a work computer). 70% in Louisiana 72% in Georgia and 80% in Mississippi.

      **sad face emoji**

      For when the progs realize they are literally killing diversity.

      1. No, they are just saying that because most abortions in those states are blacks, this is another form of Jim Crow. That this is evidence of racism. Saving black lives is racism now.

      2. As designed.

        I how they scream “diversity” and such while putting numerous white males as Democrat Presidential Candidates.

        Luckily, less and less Black Americans are buying that bullshit and have left the Democrat Part.

  7. “Bill de Blasio officially launches 2020 presidential campaign“

    LOL

    1. Officially in: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney, Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam, author Marianne Williamson, and former tech executive Andrew Yang.

    2. I live in NY, and even my D-voting friends were laughing hard at this.

      1. Most of these people are really just running for VP or Cabinet seats to raise their political profile, get lined up for cushy lobbying gigs, or because they’ve actually deluded themselves into thinking that all they have to do to beat Trump is show up after getting the nomination and squawk “Orange Man Bad” repeatedly.

        The only ones who I think are actually serious about being President are Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris.

        1. Klobachar just a younger version of Janet Reno.

          1. Klobuchar and Swalwell are probably gunning for the AG position. Gillibrand’s looking to become either VP or SecState, since she’s nothing more than a Hillary clone at this point. Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Bennet are likely looking to move up to Interior Secretary. Buttigieg, like most Millennials, will be happy to get any job at all.

            1. Buttgieg DESERVES to be CEO President, just like Millennials think that they deserve to be CEO after one month of working somewhere.

            2. Buttigieg just wants to get out of unfabulous South Bend.

            3. Bullock is term limited and unlikely to win another statewide office (I know politico ran a puff piece on how he is so down to earth because some patrons in a bar in Helena call him by his first name, and he wears cowboy boots) such as the Senate. He isn’t well liked outside Helena, Butte, Missoula and Bozeman. He won last time because the GOP ran a very weak candidate (I know many who voted for every office but governor because of the choices).

  8. The Kamala Harris campaign worries that talk of her as Joe Biden’s vice presidential running mate is diminishing her prospects as a presidential candidate.

    Does she want the White House or not?

    1. She probably watched the final season of Veep and decided that’s not how she wants it

  9. Missouri task force task force?? Holy shit, how much fucking meth are they doing down there?

  10. Biden is not polling well with millennials.

    They see a grandpa and the eye-roll is instinct.

    1. He’s too sane for them… The education system really did its job turning them into good comrades.

      1. Joe Biden is not too sane for us. Joe Biden supported the crime bills in the 1990s. He’s the kind of authoritarian we hate (not an economic authoritarian, which is the kind of authoritarian we like).

        1. Why would anyone hate the crime bill?

          Was not the crime bill in response to all those mass shootings in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s?

          1. LOL, you think that my generation remembers anything other than music from the 80s? Or anything about history at all?

    2. He’s not kooky enough, oh, and he’s responsible for the criminalization of every day life.

  11. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is officially in the Democratic presidential running.

    For the Party of slavery, this sure is a lot of old White men running to tell Americans how racist they are.

  12. Scandal free administration alert:

    The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook
    They followed cocaine shipments, some from Latin America to West Africa and on to Europe and the Middle East, and others through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States. They tracked the river of dirty cash as it was laundered by, among other tactics, buying American used cars and shipping them to Africa. And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran.

  13. They’ll throw away the whole open internet, their own First Amendment freedoms, and everyone else’s because, by golly, they want those anti-speech snowflakes on the left to see conservatives’ sick AOC memes in their timelines one way or other.

    You had me up until sick. That’s a value judgment.

    1. If social media companies want to act as publishers, give them the same legal liability as publishers.

      1. Yea, I know, conservatives are supposed to lose with dignity and grace while the free minds and free markets crowd defends turning the US into Venezuela.

        1. It’s why Reason finds Trump so much worse than Obama. Because he didn’t bend the knee.

      2. They can ban whiners like you all day and it still doesn’t mean they are acting like a publisher. Do you know what a publisher is?

        1. Yeah, because banning people who speak up in favor of things like 2A, freedom of speech, limited government, etc automatically makes them whiners… Or maybe just Americans.

          It’s okay to whine if you’re being treated unfairly by tyrants/assholes, whether they’re the government or a private entity/person.

      3. Of course we know what will happen then.
        The small blogs will close up because they cannot afford the legal liability associated with ‘publishing’.
        And the news will be delivered by large corporate entities acting like the gatekeepers of old because they are the only ones who can afford the liabilities associated with publishing.
        This is what you really want? All to ‘pwn the libs’?

        1. If I on my small blog slander someone I can already be sued.

          1. How about the commenters on your small blog? Do you want to own the legal liability for their words, as the “publisher” of their comments? Hmm?
            That is why small blogs will vanish under your regime and we will be back to where we were in the 1960’s, with just a few large corporate entities dictating the news to everyone.

            1. So turn off comments and keep the blog, or just don’t curate the comments letting some stay and deleting others. The point isn’t that social media are publishers, period. It is that when they act like publishers they should be treated as such.

              Are you thinking of Facebook and Google as the little guys facing off against Big Media? Does your small blog matter if the tech giants hide it in searches or refuse to host it because you have the wrong opinions?

              1. So turn off comments and keep the blog,

                Would *you* come to Reason if you didn’t have the ability to comment?

                or just don’t curate the comments letting some stay and deleting others.

                WTF? What is the difference between “curating” and “letting some [comments] stay and deleting others”? To my knowledge, Facebook is not modifying Alex Jones’s content, they are deleting it entirely.

                It is that when they act like publishers they should be treated as such.

                And your proposal will mean the death of small online media.

                Are you thinking of Facebook and Google as the little guys facing off against Big Media?

                No, I am thinking that Facebook and Google *will become* the Big Media of old under your prescription. I thought you wanted to destroy Facebook and Google? You want to cement them into a permanent position of power instead.

                1. Reason IS NOT acting like FB or Twitter. They actually allow all speech! They’re not editorializing comments. That is the difference.

                  1. Which honestly is one of the only good things left about them. That they basically never remove a post is pretty awesome, and rare online nowadays.

                  2. If Reason were treated as the “publisher” of your and my comments here, then they would be held liable the next time you, or Shithead, started saying “let’s go murder some Democrats”. All it would take is the next Judge Preet in order for Reason to drop their comments in a heartbeat. That is my point.

                    1. Reason already is a publisher. They select and (in theory) edit which articles they run, and are subject to the liabilities of publishing.
                      They do not selectively edit the comment section, as the Big Tech firms do, therefore do not act as a publisher of that section.
                      But keep trying to carry that water

                    2. They are publishers of their articles. They are not treated as publishers for the comments. People like JLT want to change that, so that they are treated like publishers for the comments too, in order to ‘pwn the libs’. That would have very severe negative consequences that you all haven’t thought through clearly.

                    3. They do not selectively edit the comment section

                      They actually do. Hihn’s comments, for example, have been selectively excised from comments to an article.

                    4. All it would take is the next Judge Preet in order for Reason to drop their comments in a heartbeat. That is my point.

                      They didn’t do it the first time, but it’s nice to see you admit that the left will continue to disingenuously target a non-leftist publication.

                    5. They actually do. Hihn’s comments, for example, have been selectively excised from comments to an article.

                      Which you know damn well is a rare occurrence. Hihn and Mary Stack, when she was posing as White Indian, along with some of Tulpa’s insult handles, are the only ones that I can recall in my 8 years of commenting on this blog who have ever had entire comments nuked from the section. While I’m not privy to their reasons for doing so, I suspect it was because the first two were acting as de facto spammers to deliberately shit up the comments section, so it was easier for the mods to wipe out everything and ban the handles. If Hihn in particular hadn’t acted like Sir Spamalot, the probability is quite high that he’d still be commenting here.

                    6. Conservatives are already getting pwned every day. They’re getting shadow banned, suspended and removed from public discourse. If you’re okay with that, and think your ideas and opinions won’t someday fall out of favor with a select group located in coastal California, lets just maintain the status quo. No problem.

                      Or, we could simply say “listen, if you’re editing content in the comments, you’re a publisher and are now liable for what is said in your comment section.” For harassment control, we can allow people to block and/or mute each other. It’s a win-win situation. Conservatives get to have their own opinions and still be in the virtual public square, and liberals can continue to allocate their own personal bans (blocks/mutes) on those Conservatives. Also, this will help stem the radicalization of conservatives that have been banned off of mainstream platforms (and pushed towards fringe publications) for having opinions that don’t line up with typical coastal Californians.

                      I don’t get why progressives are so upset about that arrangement.. unless their real motivation is to maintain the status quo so they can continue to silence political dissent.

                    7. Here’s what I think. I think a regime based on protection of private property rights, and protection of freedom of association rights, is the best strategy in the long run. So if a Catholic forum doesn’t want to associate with atheists commenting on their privately-owned forum, they don’t have to. Or vice-versa. Same deal with liberals and conservatives, same deal with anyone choosing to associate with anyone else.

                    8. That’s a position. No doubt about that. Have fun being silenced into oblivion.

                      Meanwhile, I’m going to argue for my descendant’s rights to have their voices heard.

                    9. So private property rights are thrown out the window if it means your feelz are hurt. Is that your position?
                      What other rights would you like to throw away?

                    10. So private property rights are thrown out the window if it means your feelz are hurt. Is that your position?

                      “Private property rights” don’t mean shit if they aren’t applied equally.

                    11. So private property rights are thrown out the window if it means your feelz are hurt. Is that your position?
                      What other rights would you like to throw away?

                      So freedom of speech is thrown out the window for everyone you don’t like just because you’re feelz are hurt. Is that your position? What other rights would you like to throw away?

                    12. A catholic message board or whatever could choose to take on the task, and the responsibilities, of being a fully curated website.

                      Frankly, I think my honest answer for a LOT of the shit whiny bitches like you are spouting off on several subjects is this:

                      There’s a difference between peacetime footing, and war footing. We’re at a really dicey point historically. The future of the USA, and freedom in general, is on the precipice. I legitimately just don’t give a fuck about certain principles right now… Because during war time you can’t play by the same rules as in peace.

                      Right now it’s an information/propaganda war, and hopefully it never goes beyond that. But the left is pulling out all the stops and going full frontal attack on freedom of speech and anybody that disagrees with their agenda. You are apparently a Buddhist monk who would rather self immolate than violate your principles… It think you’re a moron. I’d rather break my principles for the moment, WIN, and then return things back to normal after things are settled and put back on the right track.

                      You can talk shit about me being a pragmatist like that, but I don’t care. If we manage to save freedom it will be because of people like me, not people like you. I will accept your thank you in the future when you’re not living in a totalitarian left wing dictatorship.

                2. No, I am thinking that Facebook and Google *will become* the Big Media of old under your prescription.

                  They already are Big Media. I read Ace. I read Instapundit. I never bother with the comments. I wouldn’t care if they turned commenting off. You would allow Big Tech to shut those blogs down for saying the ‘wrong’ things if you allow FB and Google to do the same.

                  1. YOU are the one who wants to shut down platforms like Ace or Instapundit because they won’t be able to afford the liability for the burdens you would place on THEM, just so you can ‘pwn the libs’ at Facebook and Google.

                    AS ALWAYS, when the state starts passing new regulations and new burdens on businesses, it’s the big businesses who are able to weather the storm of regulations, because they have the resources to do so AND the political clout to bend the regulations in their favor. How many lobbyists do you think Ace or Instapundit have in DC, huh?

                    1. Under the publisher conditions, Ace or Instapundit would actually by opening themselves up to liability by editing their comment section. All they have to do is take LESS action, and they wouldn’t have liability. That actually saves them time and money.

                    2. Under the publisher standard, if some nut at Reason’s, or Ace’s, or Instapundit’s, comment section were to start posting defamatory content, then Reason/Ace/Instapundit would be liable as well for those comments. Since they can’t control every nut who posts “MURDER THE LIBS” on their comment section, their only real option is to turn off commenting. That is what will happen.

                    3. Only if reason decides to go around editing or removing comments. A better solution would be to implement a block system that is controlled by the individual users. This would cost small publications like Ace and Instapundit some money, but there are plenty of 3rd party companies like disquis that can handle this for them.

                    4. No, not only if the chose to edit comments. That is true for all of their comments, under a publisher regime, edited or not. The ONLY thing shielding places like Reason from liability over the comments in their comment section is Section 230. Get rid of that, and any nut who says MURDER THE LIBS on the comment board, Reason is on the hook for those comments as well.

                    5. “No, not only if the chose to edit comments. That is true for all of their comments, under a publisher regime, edited or not. ”

                      Doesn’t need to be designed like that. We don’t live in a binary world.

                    6. That is how the publisher standard works in the real world.

                      If a paper newspaper publishes letters to the editor, and the letter makes a defamatory statement, the publisher *can be* on the hook for the letter. It depends on the jurisdiction and it’s not a slam-dunk case. In any event the newspaper would have to hire lawyers to defend itself in court and that is why they carry various types of insurance. In order to insulate themselves from this exposure, they don’t publish every letter that they get. So once again only the big dogs will be able to survive in a world post-CDA230.

                    7. I find how narrow your mind is to be absolutely fascinating. You can’t think of a world where laws are rewritten. It’s crazy to me that some people don’t have that cognitive ability.

                  2. Small media places are only able to survive basically by (a) having rich sugar daddies (Koch’s), (b) begging, and/or (c) advertising revenue. When (a) and (b) don’t work, then all that’s left is (c). You get more page views when your blog permits commenting. How long do you think these small media places will survive when their ad revenue goes in the toilet?

                    I frankly think you haven’t thought through clearly the implications of your position; you are motivated more by anger at Facebook rather than by trying to do the right thing.

                    1. Which came first, small blogs or social media?

                    2. Holy shit, Jeff. Take your meds. You are definitely in a manic spiral. The constant repetition of points that made no sense the first time is the first clue…

            2. I have a friend that has uses Blogger. Blogger is owned by Google. He has received several notices of objectionable content. None are identified and he has no idea if the offending material was in the post or in the comments and he can be disappeared at any time. He’s not very political although some of his commenters are.

            3. I work for a major telecom company.

              Know why we are never liable for what is said on the network?

              Because we do not end calls for things being said. We don’t limit what you can or cannot say.

              That is how we are, demonstrably, a neutral carrier.

              1. AT&T does conspire with the NSA and snoop on packets of date but Congress fixed that liability loophole.

              2. That is completely flawed comparison. Your company does not store customer’s calls on their servers and then publicly display them on a webpage under your company’s logo. You are merely transmitting data.

                Is this why there are so many people confused about section 230? They don’t understand the difference between making a phone call and posting comments on a website?

                1. “That is completely flawed comparison. Your company does not store customer’s calls on their servers and then publicly display them on a webpage under your company’s logo. You are merely transmitting data.”

                  First, adorable that you think we don’t store your call records. When the police want them and get a subpoena, we will see how far your assumption goes.

                  Do we PUBLISH them? No. Reason didn’t publish THIS comment, either.

                  Which is all FB et al would have to do if they simply stopped policing the comments. Nobody would argue “Man, look at what FACEBOOK thinks” with a specific name of a specific poster listed with the comment.

                  If a company decides to control what is put on the platform, then it is not a platform. They are no more a platform than a newspaper’s Letters to the Editor page is in the local paper.

                  “Is this why there are so many people confused about section 230? They don’t understand the difference between making a phone call and posting comments on a website?”

                  There isn’t SUPPOSED to be a difference. If a website makes it a difference, then the site is violating 230 and is no longer a content-neutral platform.

          2. If you edit and publish material, you are a “publisher”.

        2. I don’t think you understand.

          The small blogs aren’t practicing viewpoint discrimination.

          Nor did they sign contracts that promise it.

          This has nothing to do with small blogs, or posting comments

          But the big platforms can’t say that. Because they agreed to not practice viewpoint discrimination in exchange for not being liable for what people said.

          And they built a business model and created contracts based on it.

          And now, they’re in violation.

    2. Couldn’t resist the urge to signal.

      1. When someone at a D.C. cocktail party says, “Libertarians are just pot-smoking Republicans,” the Reasonoids can point to crap like this and say, “Nuh-uh. Lookee what we wrote here!”

    3. In young people speak “sick” is slang for cool or hip

      1. John Cardiel from the 1990s approves

      2. Awesome!

  14. “New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is officially in the Democratic presidential running.”

    Since Drumpf is literally the worst President ever and is guaranteed to lose in 2020 (unless Russia interferes) it’s not surprising so many Democrats are eager to run against him.

  15. “The Kamala Harris campaign worries that talk of her as Joe Biden’s vice presidential running mate is diminishing her prospects as a presidential candidate.”

    There’s enough jokes in that comment to fuel an entire SNL episode.

    1. If SNL had any real balls.

      1. Or still wanted to be funny.

    2. There are enough jokes in the Democratic candidate field for 2020 to fuel an entire season of SNL, if that show wasnt a propaganda outlet.

      Trump even gives them endless actual material and they are scared to push the envelope.

      1. With that being said, SNL made its mark on non-political comedy like Eddie Murphy’s HOT-TUB skit.

        1. It is indeed, hot in the hot tub.

  16. It also created a task force on task forces

    But who will task force the task forced task forcers?

    1. The Watchers?

    2. The Committee for State Security?

  17. Where do this people get the power to ban legal products like straws and fur and such? Seems to me to be a violation of the constitution’s commerce clause.

    1. They won’t be legal products if they are banned, now will they?

    2. The US nor any state constitution gives government the authority to ban products or services. The Prohibition and its supporters needing the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol is evidence of this.

      Not that this fact stops government.

      A state could relatively easily amend their state constitution but they don’t.

  18. A loser with dignity and grace. Dignity and grace, dammit.

    Romney only Republican to vote against Trump judicial pick who called Obama ‘un-American imposter’
    “He made particularly disparaging comments about President Obama. And as the Republican nominee for president, I just couldn’t subscribe to that in a federal judge,” Romney told Politico. “This was not a matter of qualifications or politics. This was something specifically to that issue as a former nominee of our party.”

    1. He really turned out to be putz.

      1. This is a guy who took a dive in the second debate and established the state-run healthcare plan that Obamacare was essentially based on. If he wasn’t Mormon, he wouldn’t have even made Senator of Utah and would just be running another hedge fund right now.

      2. Obama was one of the worst Presidents ever.

        McCain and/or Romney would have made horrible President too. Unlike Obama who had a GOP Congress blocking most of his bad decisions, McCain or Romney would have had a willing GOP Congress to further their bad decisions.

    2. If he can fit into McCain’s old tutu his Sunday morning dance card will be filled to overflowing.

  19. A proposed ban on fur sales in New York City is pitting city council members and animal rights advocates against black ministers, Hasidic rabbis, and longtime garment manufacturers.

    Pimping ain’t easy!

  20. That’s a little much, don’t you think Liz? You really believe taking the pro pluralism position, saying as a society we should have the ability to agree to disagree with each other is the same as advancing a monocultural position and deplatforming as a matter of course anyone who deviates from your personal worldview?

    I strongly believe government intervention would be a mistake here, but just calling conservatives names and creating a false equivalency to the regressive left seems extremely counter productive.

    1. She wants conservatives to take the high ground and lose with dignity

    2. It’s because most of the writers here identify more with the left than sane, boring, but sometimes flawed folks on the right. I don’t know how anybody can do that nowadays if they claim to appreciate freedom. The GOP types are far from perfect, but they’re oodles better than anybody on the left in 2019.

      1. Liz is pro whore and abortion on demand. R’s won’t let her have her pony.

        1. Republicans are more pro-whore than Democrats.

  21. The saddest part is that so many Republicans are proving themselves willing to go along with it, out of ignorance or convenience or both.

    Politics has degraded to significantly or mostly irrational tribalism. Political rhetoric is mostly irrational now. . I call it dark free speech. Whatever one chooses to call it all the lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity and unwarranted emotional manipulation have poisoned the minds of many Americans, especially for hard core extremists on the left and right. Maybe it’s more a matter of tribal identity than ignorance or convenience.

    1. Yes, it is just tribalism now. Facts and truth don’t matter if they come from the ‘wrong tribe’.
      It’s like those polls you see where you have Republicans agreeing with a liberal policy if they believe that Trump supports it, and Democrats agreeing with a conservative policy if they believe that Obama supports it.
      It’s not about advancing an agenda. It’s about promoting the interests of “your tribe” vs. the other tribe, and those interests change depending on the tactical situation of the moment. So one day “traditional values” can be used as a hammer to bash immoral lechers like Bill Clinton, and the next day traditional values are mocked as “muh principles” in order to defend immoral lechers like Donald Trump.

      1. I highly doubt it was ever that much different in the past.

        1. It was never tribalism when it was tribalism between tribes.

          Poor ChemJeff is just feeling let out…again.

      2. don’t forget that only a few years ago it was Democrats frothing at the mouth over illegal immigrants and job protectionism for blue collar workers, and Chinese competition with USA jobs. Sound familiar? LOL

      3. It’s like those polls you see where you have Republicans agreeing with a liberal policy if they believe that Trump supports it, and Democrats agreeing with a conservative policy if they believe that Obama supports it.

        I don’t I’ve ever seen one of those polls where someone on the right agrees with leftist nonsense because someone told them Trump supports it.

        I’ve seen it endlessly on the left. Hell, I’ve seen them call a story the unvarnished truth when a leftist said it and, hours later, when someone on the right said the exact same thing, they called it a lie–a racist lie if I remember correctly.

        Conservatives and people on the right really can’t live in bubbles. There’s just too much leftism rampant for a good seal.

        So they don’t fall for the trick.

        Leftists CAN live in bubbles. Hell, they can live in bubbles in bubbles in bubbles. They can go so far down the leftist rabbithole that Castro becomes ‘right wing’–and have fellow bubble dwellers agree.

    2. Facts are against the Lefties.

      The lies of the Left speak for themselves. Very few Lefties advocate restraint or question the Narrative. By very few, I mean almost none.

      RINOs like too but they have Libertarians and Republicans to be skeptical and say something.

    3. Well, of course it is. Promoting tribalistic and in-group favoritism is how groups with common interests survive in existential conflicts. Groups who claim “It’s not favoritism when we do it” will destroy altruistic groups time after time.

      1. This is one of the things libertarians have trouble grappling with… Collective action, even if it is willing which should be fine in libertarianism, is looked down upon as being the worst thing ever… When it is in fact one of the best ways of achieving goals. Like it or not, it’s the way the world works, and why libertarians never run anything!

        1. Libertarians always have the moral high ground to form volunteers groups that want the same goals as them.

          Collectivists want to use force to get to their goals.

    4. Most people are sheep. I actually just tend to have nuanced opinions and prefer the fuckery of the right to the fuckery of the left. I want 1,000 Ron Pauls running our government… But since that ain’t gonna happen, I’ll take Trump and the smattering of so-so GOP people as a distant 2nd choice.

      But there is basically no instance in which I can get behind anything the left is doing nowadays. They’re simply wrong about 99.9% of everything.

      1. Plus, as long as you have a good amount of skeptical people singling out the RINOs and LINOs, you simply kick them out of the club or vote them out.

        Its easier to do that than have a massive Socialist bastion in government and you’re one of a few “tin foil hat people” asking questions about why we are $22 trillion in debt.

  22. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS????????

    You think the biggest communication tools in the world censoring only CERTAIN political speech is FUCKING FUNNY??? It is not delusion, it is a fact that they are all censoring right leaning people. That is NOT funny. Facebook or Google has the power to swing a fucking election with their bias. We may end up with President BatshitCrazy McSocialist because of this stuff you morons.

    Look, if anything publicly shaming them by doing something like this is an AWESOME way to fuck with them. It’s surely better than an actual law. If this kind of thing is enough to get them to actually respect free speech, then that’d be a big win.

    You asshats think it’s all fun and games… Until it’s your head on the chopping block. They started with Nazis, then white nationalists, then legitimately pretty far right conservatives, now it’s on to pretty center-right folks… Then it will be time to purge the libertarians. And you fucking idiots cheered them along the whole time instead of calling them out HARD.

    Morons.

    1. ENB: But, but, but I finally got that job at The Atlantic and called for single payer healthcare. I thought that would make me safe.

    2. now it’s on to pretty center-right folks

      Which “pretty center-right folks” have been banned by Facebook et al. based on their political viewpoint?

      1. Gavin McGuiness? He’s a pro gay, pro POC, center rightist, Trumptard… And has had his entire life derailed, in addition to being booted off of most (all?) big platforms.

        He’s just a famous example. They’re probably banned thousands of people for posting stupid memes the trigger commies.

        1. Gavin McInnes wasn’t suspended because of his views on gay marriage. He was suspended because of his association with the Proud Boys. Which is why I added in the qualifier based on their political viewpoint.

          They’re probably banned thousands of people for posting stupid memes the trigger commies.

          Who? Do you have any facts to support this contention?

          1. You think he is associated with the Proud Boys, but that’s not based on his political viewpoint?

            You’re a fucking idiot Jeff.

          2. They put out sweeping bans on people saying “learn to code” to some laid off journalists. This was political speech referencing certain mainstream outlets that had seriously suggested that 50-year-old coal miners should be retrained on how to code.

            That’s a blanket ban of people based on political speech under the guise of “anti-harassment.” Why do anti-harassment campaigns at twitter only go one way? I suppose progressives and democrats never harass anyone, or spur large groups of people to attack others on twitter due to an article they publish…

            1. The Press are a protected class because they are super important to the cause as Propagandists.

              Its why you see so many “25 people laid off NYT today” stories.

              Since when does America give a shit about 25 people laid off?

              Its signalling for Lefties to answer the call and buy media, donate, or anything else to save the propagandists from the Evil Market.

            2. No, the “learn to code” crap WAS a type of harassment. That’s why the harassers did it!

              1. No, the “learn to code” crap WAS a type of harassment.

                If teasing people on Twitter constitutes harassment, then Trump would be justified in getting everyone who shitposts in response to his tweets deplatformed.

                1. It wasn’t “teasing”. I love how you like to minimize actual harassment as long as it’s being perpetuated by members of ‘your tribe’ against members of ‘their tribe’.

                  Anything is justified as long as it helps your team and hurts their team, amirite?

                  1. “It’s harassment when they do it, not when I do it!”

                    Speaking of tribalism…

                  2. But its okay when progressives harass James Damore for citing scientific studies in an internal google doc – amirite? Fuck that guy. Its clearly the journalists that need protection from people saying the totally violent words “learn to code”.

                    /sarc

                    I am so confused as to why you think its okay for your tribe to tease people, but when another tribe does it, its okay for twitter and Facebook to ban them.

                    1. Where did I say it was okay for anyone to harass anyone?

                    2. Right up above.

                  3. It wasn’t teasing, or even more accurately reminding them of their own past callousness and flippancy, I see, I see, it was Violence…..

                  4. I love how you like to minimize actual harassment

                    How exactly was it harassment? Are we arguing that words are violence, now?

                    All you’re really doing is making my point for me. Hell, we can even go so far as to say that the obsessives who comment on every tweet Trump makes are participating in bullying, too.

                    1. Harassment is not literal violence. But harassment is not mere “teasing” either. You’re trying to have it both ways, again.

                      If you got fired from your job, tell me how thousands of people sending you, individually, mocking tweets with glee about your firing, wouldn’t be considered a type of harassment, and would be instead mere “teasing”.

                      Teasing implies a type of affection against the person teased. There was no affection on display in this case.

                    2. But harassment is not mere “teasing” either. You’re trying to have it both ways, again.

                      You’re desperately flailing here.

                      If you got fired from your job, tell me how thousands of people sending you, individually, mocking tweets with glee about your firing, wouldn’t be considered a type of harassment, and would be instead mere “teasing”.

                      Oh, are leftists who mock conservatives that lose their jobs getting their Twitter accounts suspended, too?

                      Teasing implies a type of affection against the person teased.

                      It implies nothing of the sort.

                  5. What’s wrong, jeff, your left-wing media boos come crying to you with their wine bottles to complain about a bunch of randos telling them to “learn to code”?

              2. It was the SAME FUCKING THING those idiots said to miners who were laid off.

                Didn’t see them punished for it.

                1. Wait, so thousands of journalists sent tweets to individual coal miners telling them to “learn to code”?

                  1. They wrote fucking stories in their fucking publications and on their fucking sites stating that, yes. They kept harping on teaching 50 year old miners to code because their jobs were no longer needed.

                    Well, hate to break it to them, but miners are FAR more needed than hack writers.

                    Fuck, do you live in a fucking cave or something?

              3. Lol, you think that’s harassment? You are weak man.

          3. Gavin McInnes wasn’t suspended because of his views on gay marriage.

            Vek didn’t claim otherwise.

          4. God. Jeff is so fucking dense sometimes. He is either a total retard, or he deliberately ignores the obvious intended meaning of what people say all the time, essentially playing dumb, so he can make some bullshit argument that makes no sense.

            As for McGuiness, his involvement with the Proud Boys IS his politics. How many ANTIFA associates are getting booted just for being associated with ANTIFA? The only reason the Proud Boys even exist is because ANTIFA and similar types were assaulting conservatives so fucking often they had to start defending themselves.

      2. James Woods was banned for being smarter than libs. His use of the famous historical axiom “if you come after the king, you better not miss” got him banned for promoting violence.

        Dennis Prager was demonetized and shadow banned. Doug Wead. The list is long.

        Oh, then there are the elected Congressmen Matt Gaetz, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan. Oh, and RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel

        Paul Joseph Watson and Diamond and Silk are not my thing, but they are hardly Extremists

        1. Let’s just take one of your examples.
          When exactly was Matt Gaetz banned, and from where, and what were the circumstances of the ban?

        2. It’s also odd that conservative leaning movies get banned on release date. Or how some conservative-leaning political parties suddenly have banning issues on election days.

          I bet it’s a coincidence.

    3. “First, they came for the Nazis, and we Progs said nothing…”

      The sad part is the progs all think irony is like rain on their wedding day. They don’t understand real irony, confuse it with coincidence, and then dismiss it. They may not even get it as they are asked to line up against the wall.

    4. Gee let me open my Twitter account right now…. search “#MAGA” …. oh look at all of these pro-Trump tweets. How could they have gotten through Twitter’s anti-conservative filters? OMG!

      1. They’re working on that and you’re helping them by sucking their dick under the desk.

        1. Why haven’t they already? Trump isn’t triggering enough for them?
          What’s stopping them?

          Maybe, just maybe, the instances of viewpoint discrimination are overly hyped by right-wing media to create a victim mentality among their viewers, and the circumstances surrounding each individual instances of a ban are more nuanced than simply “they were banned for being Republican”?

          1. They can’t do it suddenly or the mainstream population will realize its a problem. Of course its nuanced – in one direction.

            Maybe, just maybe, instances of viewpoint discrimination are downplayed by left-wing media to minimize the actual magnitude of censorship that’s actually happening, and the circumstances surrounding each individual instance of a ban are fairly straight forward and are based on political opinions.

            See? I can engage in totally baseless speculation while painting the other side as stupid/easily manipulated too. It’s quite an underhanded, but obvious, rhetorical trick.

          2. “Why haven’t they already? Trump isn’t triggering enough for them?
            What’s stopping them?”

            Trump is the only thing leaving Twitter relevant. Employees have been trying to ban him for a while. Take away Trump and Twitter is dead the next day. If Trump left the platform for a rival, Twitter would cease to exist quickly.

          3. Well Jeff, the trick with propaganda is to have a seed of truth…

            The trick with their censorship is precisely that it isn’t an obvious 100% blanket ban. That’s what allows them to pretend they’re objective, even though 90% of their activity in banning/censoring tilts one direction.

  23. Was someone mean to you on Twitter? The White House wants to know about it.

    Actually, as you go on to state, they are looking for instances of companies violating their own terms of service and or being inconsistent in policing content such that they are displaying political bias. One might call your opening statement disingenuous.

    1. It’s almost like Reason.com is actually run by a bunch of dishonest progressives that wear libertarian masks.

      1. Actually reason is run by Lefties and Anarchists who are not fooling anyone.

        1. They’re not real anarchists. Lefties and progressives are the same in my mind. Never seen a progressive that isn’t a leftist or vice versa.

      2. What happened to Reason.com. Progressive media tactic #1283266
        1. Identify a cherished institution
        2. Kill it
        3. Flay it
        4. Walk around wearing it’s carcass like a skin suit while demanding the respect it was once given.

    2. ENB disingenuous? Perish the thought!

  24. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is officially in the Democratic presidential running.

    I hear he is “taking on the rich” and thinks that there is “plenty of money but it is in the wrong hands”. Commie is as commie does.

  25. The Kamala Harris campaign worries that talk of her as Joe Biden’s vice presidential running mate is diminishing her prospects as a presidential candidate.

    Since when does she not want to be under an influential man?

  26. “The tool only accepts complaints from U.S. citizens, although there is no requirement that complaint filers verify their identities”

    Like voting.

    1. The second part of that sentence makes the first part completely meaningless.

  27. Biden is not polling well with millennials.

    He just needs to take a hands-on approach.

    1. Fist has a new challenger?

  28. “Ron Paul explains why “the government has no business telling cancer victims citizens where they can and cannot go to receive life-saving treatment any fucking medical treatment or service their heart desires.”

    1. Yeah, the notion that giving a perfectly healthy minor hormone treatments as a precursor to surgically altering their perfectly healthy organs years before they are fully mature is ‘approved’ but giving a terminal cancer patient who is fully mature an experimental treatment is ‘unapproved’ is counter-intuitive to say the least. Especially when the decision is codified by a fucking bureaucrat “in consultation with experts”.

      Kinda makes me think that they just make this shit up as they go along.

  29. A Parent Lee, me ‘being mean’ to ENB by calling her, say, a duplicitous disingenuous mendacious hag, is the exact same thing as her getting deplatformed and singled out as unable and unworthy to make money off of sharing her stupid opinions

  30. Its tempting to merely laugh at this sort of absurdity, to gawk at the blubbering fools who spent years ranting about easily-triggered liberal “snowflakes” only to literally make it a federal matter when their Facebook account gets suspended. And sure, the self-owning MAGAservative chorus of “No one liked my tweet, I must be shadowbanned!” is a special delicacy.

    Their facebook accounts? Is that what you think this is?

    People are having their bank accounts closed. They’re having credit cards rescinded and access to payment systems shut down.

    This isn’t about feelings–it’s about breach of contract.

    And do you know why there’s so much breach of contract?

    Because the blubbering liberal snowflakes feel that if they have to be exposed to opinions they disagree with it’s worse than physical violence.

    Libertarians (you may have heard of them) are very big on contracts being honored–and honest.

    Lastly, you clearly have zero understanding of what ‘shadowbanning’ is or how it manifests itself….

    A post is made, and the author can see it easily. He can link to it, share it, and copy it. But, unless they go to his personal page and search for it, no one else can see it.

    And that part–that no one else can see it is very testable. All you need is someone else. Have them go to where your post is. The best is if they are friends with you on social media and other things show up.

    It’s called shadowbanning because they never tell you what you did wrong.

    I’ve got at least six posts floating around out there that no one can see unless I direct them or use my accounts.

    It is a work of evil genius to silence people without them ever knowing that they’ve been silenced.

    1. fcvk her (oops, there I go being mean again)

    2. Azathoth just committed murder by words.

  31. Going after the Trump White House over free speech is especially absurd today–because the Trump White House just made a principled argument for free speech over the objections of progressives everywhere in the world.

    “The Trump administration will not sign an international pledge by governments and online services to combat extremist content online. The Christchurch Call is named after the New Zealand city where a terrorist livestreamed the shooting deaths of 50 Muslims in March.”

    The statement is being formally released today as part of an international summit in Paris. It will bear the signatures of more than a dozen nations, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Leading technology companies, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, have also signed on. But not the US government.

    —-Ars Technica

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/white-house-refuses-to-sign-international-statement-on-online-extremism/

    Wow, sounds like progressives everywhere are in favor of censoring hate speech and the like online–and so are the social media platforms. Why did the Trump administration refuse to sign on?

    “We maintain that the best tool to defeat terrorist speech is productive speech, and thus we emphasize the importance of promoting credible, alternative narratives as the primary means by which we can defeat terrorist messaging”

    —-White House

    The Trump administration’s libertarian response, there, could have been penned by Nick Gillespie himself. Instead of congratulating them on their principled defense of the free speech, we’re going after Trump for encouraging people to use their free speech rights to complain about the way they’re being treated by private companies? Yeah, not being able to see clearly because Trump is in the picture, that’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about TDS.

    1. Good points. Reason has really fallen on hard times intellectually.

    2. Cliffs: Trump is much better on Free Speech than ENB.

      I keep hearing how authoritarian he is whenever he exercises his own 1A rights and (almost always) justifiably criticizes a broadcast or print media source.
      Wake me up when he is spying on them, or indicting them, like the last guy (who was much ‘cooler)’

  32. […] online complaint department is stupid and worthless, especially because, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, it is likely to become a dumping ground for dubious claims of being “shadowbanned.” […]

  33. On the one hand, I see a great deal of danger and potential destruction if those hyperbolic calls for censorship of private companies or even trust-busting get acted upon. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those private companies for their own behavior. If there actually is evidence of shadow-banning (and I’ve seen some things considerably more credible than just low likes counts), then the company should be called out for their bias. And there is traditionally nothing wrong with the President using his bully-pulpit as part of that shaming.

    Conflating the two reactions (censorship vs shaming) confuses the conversation and makes actual solutions harder to implement.

  34. Oh go in the kitchen and make a sandwich, you fake libertarian cunt.

  35. […] White House has been putting this forward as a way to “defend free speech,” but as reason points out, the purpose behind this is to restrict speech by allowing Trump to have more control […]

  36. […] online complaint department is stupid and worthless, especially because, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, it is likely to become a dumping ground for dubious claims of being “shadowbanned.” […]

  37. Its tempting to merely laugh at this sort of absurdity, to gawk at the blubbering fools who spent years ranting about easily-triggered liberal “snowflakes” only to literally make it a federal matter when their Facebook account gets suspended.

    Ah, behold the New Libertarianism: cheering on leftist censorship of conservatives and libertarians and mocking people when they try to document this.

  38. […] online complaint department is stupid and worthless, especially because, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, it is likely to become a dumping ground for dubious claims of being “shadowbanned.” […]

  39. Granted social media sites are private businesses and therefore can censor who they want. But in doing so wouldn’t that abrogate their claim they are not responsible for the content their subscribers post, and in reality make them now “publishers”, and therefore make them responsible for posts which are libelous or contain copyrighted material? Can they continue to have it both ways?

  40. You can always use VPN to hide your identity and social media restrictions from Government. I am using free vpn for pc and every thing is working fine on windows PC and Mac. even in near future if Gov will impose any restriction i have solution.

Please to post comments