Soros backed groups demand online censorship

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Twitter sponsors pressured by Soros.

Here is your threat to the democratic process, killing it in darkness.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

39 thoughts on “Soros backed groups demand online censorship”

  1. OOO, the boogeyman is coming for your free speech.

    Not really. Just because Soros supports the groups who signed the letter does not mean he pressured them to do so.

    And according to the excerpts in your link, it appears that the organizations in question have issues with LIES and HATE speech. Election lies, COVID lies, etc. Funny how the lies all come from the Right.

    Advertisers are free to use their advertising dollars where they see fit. If they don’t like what Twitter does, they can FREELY spend their money elsewhere. Advising of their issues is fair.

    But it is NOT an attack on free speech; it IS an attack on lying liars and the lies they tell and those who support, spread or refuse to refute those lies when it is known they are lies.

    Besides, the giant space lasers will just blow up Twitter when it is time. 😇

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Lies and hate are subjective, and thus covered by free speech.

      I regard much of what the IPCC says to be lies, and pretty much everything said by BLM leaders to be hate speech, do I get to ban them?

      Like

      Reply

      1. To paraphrase a recent post, Soros truly lives rent free in the right wing heads.

        Actually, I don’t think Coca Cola would want to advertise on a site that says “Jews will not replace us” or Italian satellites threw the election or Bill Gates implants tracking devices through a 23G needle.

        It will be its choice, however.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. “Lies and hate are subjective,”…

        Lies, when proven to be lies, are no longer “subjective”. Hate is what it is if the one it is directed towards believes it to be so.

        Like

        Reply

          1. By facts and to the people who are suckered in by them.

            Kind of like yourself and Mr. Roberts. But you do it under the guise of “alternative facts”; a term coined VERY early in TFG’s term. And you guys have run with it ever since.

            Like

      3. Free speech is protected from government interference. It is not protected from the political, social and economic consequences of what you choose to do with that free speech.

        For example, last week I was fly fishing in western Virginia. At a certain point I was running low on gas. I came to a gas station and was about to pull in until I saw their sign saying “Let’s Go Brandon.” I took my business elsewhere. The same principle applies to what people choose to say on social media. “Free speech” does not mean that the exercise of it is free of consequences.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Gee, when I need gas, I look at the price sign.

          But sure, if I happened to notice the gas station posted it was a ‘gun free zone’ I would go elsewhere.

          Those places are dangerous.

          Like

          Reply

  2. What a funny story! When privately-owned media companies promote leftist ideology there is no problem. But when a privately-owned media company wants to promote its own version of free speech, it deserves to be boycotted.

    Incoherence reigns supreme on the left. Everything is broken.

    Like

    Reply

        1. The usual. Get a few idiots to spout crap and it becomes the entire party.

          Hannity did that trick for years. You are well behind.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. RE: “The right is pretty incoherent and they are definitely broken. Cults and conspiracies reign supreme.”

      Instead of pointing fingers, can you make a principled argument in support of the proposition that censorship is good?

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’ll let Don handle that question:

        “No spam or advertising, be civil, personal insults and ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.”

        His site, his rules. They may be rarely enforced here, but the policy is definitely censorship.

        Is it a good thing? Ask Don.

        Or ask the “other Don” about Truth Social:

        “7) you may not post any false, unlawful, threatening, defamatory, harassing or misleading statements;”

        “your Contributions are not false, inaccurate, or misleading.”

        https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/

        Those who actually run privately owned sites are your experts. I refer you to them.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I do ask for civility and ban commercial posts(WordPress does a pretty good job of stopping them for me)

          But I do not censor any point of view.

          I don’t think unbiased rules really count as censorship

          Like

          Reply

          1. Using you as an example was just to keep the concept of censorship local.

            The Truth Social Terms of Service is more to the point.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “but the policy is definitely censorship.”

          No, it isn’t. That’s just sloppy thinking.

          Like

          Reply

  3. What is amusing is the very same people on this board and on the left who throw around accusations of racism and hate actively and unabashedly practice both. Then while practicing both, they desire to quiet sensible people who they throw those uncalled for names at because lefties disagree with facts and sensibility. Left wing fantasy land does have strange arrogant inhabitants and Soros pulls the puppet strings.

    Like

    Reply

          3. So was slavery in Jefferson’s time. Then you holler “presentism”.

            Jim Crow was always despicable, but racism prevailed even among our leaders.

            Smearing Sanger is just a sport among those who hate Planned Parenthood as if the organization was a racist effort to wipe out Blacks then and continues today.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. …” who hate Planned Parenthood “…

            Not to mention that those same people forget that PP offers a LOT more than just reproductive services.

            Like

          5. You might choose your “devils” more carefully.

            https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/18/william-obrien/nh-rep-bill-obrien-says-margaret-sanger-was-active/

            I can be generous by saying you are mostly wrong with a kernel of truth. Just like all conspiracies.

            Eugenics was supported by a cross section of leaders, including Hoover and Teddy Roosevelt. WW2 took care of that.

            Her meeting with the women of KKK was described in the link.

            From these tidbits you extrapolate genocide.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Teddy Roosevelt? Are you sure you don’t mean FDR?

            I’ll stick with Sanger’s own words about her KKK meeting and her looking forward to other chapters requests in the link I provided.

            Like

          8. Actually FDR was no saint when it came to races, but Teddy was a proponent.

            Sanger in the cite is quoted.

            But the main point was that her Planned Parenthood was not a scheme to eliminate Blacks as your out of context quote intimated.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. No, it was intended to reduce the population of all the poor and ‘lesser’ races, but Irish and Italians were Catholic and harder to target.

            Like

          11. Currently, it is common practice to find racism wherever there is disparate impact. You’ve claimed that yourself.

            Almost 60% of abortions are by Black(38%) or Hispanic(21%) mothers, more than twice their share of the population.

            So, measured by results, Planned Parenthood is fullfilling Sanger’s goal.

            Like

          12. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have stipulated that our past apartheid for centuries will take time to erase its effects. And denying those effects is ignoring reality.

            So if you want to say PP is trying to wipe out minorities, that is your belief, not mine. And a cheap right wing talking point to boot.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Those quotes are at best out of context as I showed with the one earlier regarding wiping out Blacks but secretly.

            Stay where you are, though, it is just so comfortable.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “Out of context”… is the land where the right wing glitterati on this forum live. In the grand opulence granted them by their CEO. DJT.

            Like

Leave a comment