What do you think of this unconstitutional nonsense?

[Juxtapose]

It is unequivocally unconstitutional since the government cannot use private entities to censor citizens on its behalf.

https://twitter.com/bx_on_x/status/1785363977163137044

I am not red pill but these people deserve the right of free speech just as much as Jenny Jane down the street and the Westboro Baptist Church, all the same under the first amendment.

[goaded]

Trying to stop extremism should be a bipartisan issue, it certainly is when the extremists are Muslim. Social media can't use the same techniques against right wing extremism because it catches Republican lawmakers.

This video got age-restricted by the right, although it contains nothing to warrant it.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/P55t6eryY3g

It can be seen by anyone here: https://archive.org/details/the-alt-right-playbook-how-to-radicalize-a-normie

[Juxtapose]

I completely and utterly repudiate any attempt by the government to combat ANY idea in the open marketplace of ideas.

The government is supposed to be largely impartial, especially the federal government. They should only get involved when federally guaranteed rights are violated.

The open marketplace of ideas is to be left completely unmolested by the government. The citizenry does not need a nanny state to tell them how to think. Fuck that, it's a prelude to 1984.

[Juxtapose]

And you know what we do about Muslims? We treat them like everyone else and don't give them a parallel legal system. If they commit crimes, they do the time. Nothing else really needs to be done about them.

[goaded]

" I completely and utterly repudiate any attempt by the government to combat ANY idea in the open marketplace of ideas."
Why? They're the elected representatives of the people, after all.

"And you know what we do about Muslims?"
You know I was talking about Muslim extremists, not Muslims in general. When they try to recruit people to their side, social media sites silence them via simple algorithms. Try to do the same for right-wing terrorists, and you catch Republican lawmakers who are encouraging them.

[Juxtapose]

1. The government is not supposed to be involved in propaganda. It is Orwellian and like a state religion. The American people do not need a nanny state.

2. Encouraging terrorism is a crime, it's incitement. Punish it equally. What is an example of right wing terrorism to you?

[goaded]

1. The government isn't supposed to inform the populace? They shouldn't tell people there's a hurricane heading their way? They shouldn't tell people there's an active shooter? They shouldn't tell people it's bad to eat lead paint?

2. I expect you've got a truth social account; have a look there for anyone talking about overthrowing the government.

[Juxtapose]

1. Actually yes, besides government-run schools and maybe some sirens for emergencies the government should let the free market take care of it. People can easily educate themselves before ingesting a foreign substance so it's really on them to at least look through the internet. They should have learned how to verify sources in high school. Citations.

2. I don't actually, this and YouTube is the only social media I have because I don't want to be difficult more time than I already do to the internet.

[Juxtapose]

*don't want to spend more time

[goaded]

OMG, how much money can be made from warning people about, say, a fertiliser plant being about to explode? How much from ensuring it won't?

OK, so you don't have a truth social account; do you believe no-one on there has ever suggested violently overthrowing the government?

[Juxtapose]

A lot. People won't wanna do business with someone who kills them without warning. Loss prevention, public relations.. ya know.

I don't know and frankly think that people should focus on non-violent solutions. People should be intelligent, use their leverage, etc. A violent rebellion is a last resort to avoid a far worse fate.

[goaded]

1. "On April 17, 2013, an ammonium nitrate explosion occurred at the West Fertilizer Company storage and distribution facility in West, Texas... Fifteen people were killed, more than 160 were injured, and more than 150 buildings were damaged or destroyed."

Corporations are more interested in saving money than saving lives. After all, it didn't explode in the previous 50 years.

2. OK, we agree that "people should focus on non-violent solutions", but you're being flooded with lies about how a normally functioning, duly elected federal government is, or at least will be, that "far worse fate". That and the whole replacement theory crap that leads to mass shootings of brown people. That's encouraging terrorism, but apparently it's not a crime. Not even sending an armed mob to the Capitol to fight for your lies is.

[Juxtapose]

1. The government found that it was set off deliberately. Disgruntled employee most likely.

2. There's so many lies there it's hard to unpack it. But I will go one by one.

Centralizing authority for a mass amount of land is a bad idea. And no government is free from insane levels of corruption, yours included. It's best to make governments as small as you can stand.

There is not waves of mass shootings of brown people. If anything BLM rioters SHOULD have been shot with all the looting they did.

There was never an armed mob sent to the Capitol that fought. Forked tongue lies.

[goaded]

1. So it wasn't designed to avoid exploding in case of fire. Because that's too expensive.

2. (a) What's different about today's US federal government compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago? Nothing. So why are people like you making out that it's so terrible it justifies violent action against it.

(b) Jeffersontown, El Paso, Charleston, Buffalo, Jacksonville. Isn't that enough for you?

(c) Trump knew they were armed, and we all saw them fighting, especially the over 140 police who were injured that day.

[Juxtapose]

1. Regulate it then lol.

2. The federal government has been criminal since the day I was born, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you think shit like the Patriot Act is okay? How about civil asset forfeiture? How about the torture of prisoners of war? Black people being experimented on with syphilis? Seriously?

For what?

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Guns going off would mean people would die and I am not defending violent agitators. I'm defending the people who walked into the capital with police guidance.

The only person that died that day was an unarmed woman and then the next day several police officers were assassinated and their deaths were framed as suicides.

[goaded]

1. Make up your mind. Less than a day ago you were saying "besides government-run schools and maybe some sirens for emergencies the government should let the free market take care of it", now you're saying "Regulate it then lol.".

2. So the federal government was just as bad when Trump was running it, but you weren't talking about violently overthrowing it then, were you?

You're denying the Jan 6 facts we all saw for ourselves, and now you're claiming "several police officers were assassinated and their deaths were framed as suicides"? Personally, I suspect those suicides were officers who let rioters into the Capitol or even encouraged them; how do you think their colleagues felt about that?

[Juxtapose]

1. Your lack of understanding is not my problem. Regulation is different than the government putting out propaganda. As a classical liberal I am for sensible regulation for businesses but for citizens? Hands the fuck off. Businesses are not people and are not afforded the same luxury.

2. Wasn't I just emphasizing non-violence and now you are talking about me violently overthrowing something? 🤣

3. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. I have already repudiated the violent offenders and do not stand by them. There was plenty of people who were peaceful and they even let a prayer for the police that escorted them throughout the building. Not to mention there was a ton of feds and likely Soros paid agitators there. Just like in the Columbus campus, most of the people being arrested are not even students. Paid agitators. Same tactics the racists would use to make blacks look bad during the Civil Rights era.

[Juxtapose]

You can look up who those people worry yourself. It's pretty clear they were assassinated.

[goaded]

It's not my lack of understanding, it's your lack of consistency. If the government should only do schools and sirens, they shouldn't be regulating companies. Now you say they should be.

You saying "A violent rebellion is a last resort to avoid a far worse fate.", taken with your various lies about the current administration, implies you think violent rebellion is an acceptable possibility, but only when a Democrat is in charge. Even though the government has done worse things in the past.

Tens of military veterans commit suicide every day, it probably didn't help those police seeing people like you minimizing the violence they faced on Jan 6.

Any other year, there might be dozens of people near the Capitol for the certification, Trump is the one and only reason there was a mob there. His lies about the election, his call to DC, his sending them to the Capitol (not to mention his allies who were already in on the plan to stop the certification and are now looking at decades in prison).

[Juxtapose]

You don't understand classical liberalism. I normally don't quote Wikipedia but they actually did a really good job with this summation below:

"Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech."

Limited government, not no government. Businesses are not people and need regulation or they will literally overthrow your country. That is not the same as saying the government should insert itself into the open marketplace of ideas and tell people how to think.

[Juxtapose]

"In contrast to government, private entities are generally allowed to act as they desire so long as they respect the property and other rights that individuals possess."

Getting your business blown up is not respecting property or other rights other people have. That falls under sensible regulation that the federal government is supposed to do and it is completely in line with classical liberalism.

[Juxtapose]

lawliberty.org/.../

[goaded]

Why do you think the government's telling people how to think? Do you think the same about the government programs to remove ISIS recruitment efforts from social media?

Pretzel logic: "Propaganda used to fight more propaganda. So what’s the problem? For one thing, there’s no oversight in place to ensure that these NGOs operate ethically and that their work aligns with the intent of the DHS TVTP grant program." twitter.com/bx_on_x/status/1773805218200752487

So, the government (DHS) isn't controlling them enough? Or are they telling you what to think?

The answer to bad speech is more speech, right? The government represents the people, why shouldn't they speak on your behalf, as long as it's not a pack of lies?

[Juxtapose]

Because the government is literally telling people how to think. And spare me your comparisons of red pill YouTubers to ISIS, a criminal organization.. that is absolutely absurd.

The program should not exist in the first place. They are absolute clowns.

"This program is overseen by an MSNBC columnist named Cynthia Miller-Idriss. You may remember Miller-Idriss for when she was recently flamed online by @ElonMusk for her article relating physical fitness to white supremacy."

The government should not be controlling people at all and that grant should not exist.

The government actually does not represent the people at all. They are an antagonistic force that is unfortunately necessary for our survival and the Constitution is there to put limits on the government rather than give people freedom. Our freedom is assumed, tyranny by the government is assumed. So we put a muzzle on the government and let the people be free.

The relationship between the citizenry and the government should be that the government is afraid of the citizenry rather than the other way around. The government does not represent us, and I sure as hell do not want the government speaking for me.

[goaded]

Are you controlled by what the government says?

You're still ignoring that governments and most social media sites take action to remove Jihadist content. Have you ever been up in arms against that?

[Lliam]

I agree. The government secretly leans on corporations that provide news and information. And it leans on our communication providers to censor what we share with each other.

Then the government can say "We're not violating the first amendment, but we can't stop private corporations from making and enforcing their own rules."

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

The World is all cracked up, that is why

[Justneedtokno]

If you wanna go backwards, just go print you some paper make some news articles and and hand them out in the middle of the street like they do now. Your freedom of speech can never be taken away. It is very powerful. The work itself now there are many ways to silence people, but these platforms media and if we’re talking about social media, they can create another one. It is nothing to create an app we’re talking about China.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I agree it's nonsense. I don't see where the unconstitutional part comes in. I have no idea who any of those "content creators" are, but I don't see where the government is restricting them either.

[Juxtapose]

No offense but you would have if you read it.

twitter.com/bx_on_x/status/1785363977163137044

Department of Homeland Security is funding this.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Didn't see the "show more" part... just thought it was silly-ass Diverging Hate nonsense.

Yeah DHS has no business giving money to lobotomized has-beens from MSNBC

[Juxtapose]

And people want to tell me that MSNBC is a credible source and is not biased hahaha 🤣

[Juxtapose]

State run media folks!

[BoopBoopBeep]

I'm sure both of their viewers feel that way.

[AviatorTom]

YouTube is an international organization, and is not bound by any one country's rules, in particular any free speech laws. When someone joins YouTube, they agree to the rules. That's just the way it is.

[Drewtate]

YouTube is listed as a US company so bound by us laws and us taxes. There are very strict rules for us companies operating abroad.

[Juxtapose]

Did you read the link? The Department of Homeland Security is not supposed to be funding censorship, especially targeted towards individual citizens.

[AviatorTom]

I read the link... made no sense

[strateguy632]

x is a private company, so they can censor, even if unfair , same as any website. they are willing to risk losing users.

[BlissfullyCurSed]

That's why people cannot watch porn on twitt... X anymore.

[Juxtapose]

Really? I get tons of pornographic content off of X.

[BlissfullyCurSed]

in the past, you didn't need to have an account to see them. Now, you have to.

[Juxtapose]

As it is with a lot of websites so they don't get angry parents jumping down their throats.

[OddBeMe]

Is DHS providing funding to research exactly because of why this tweeter says? Or could he be wrong?

[Juxtapose]

You would know if you looked into it more:

freebeacon.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

Anything with a “support 2nd amendment” clickbait at the tops gotta be on the level.

Serisously not seeing any direct evidence DHS funded it to “Inoculate’ Teens Against Extremism”, even though that would be a good thing. It’s a study on extremism.

[Juxtapose]

Bruh

"DHS Awarded $750k Grant to SPLC Partner to ‘Inoculate’ Teens Against Extremism"

"The Department of Homeland Security awarded $749,828 to the group as part of its Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention program, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. PERIL will use the funds to improve "media literacy" to identify extremist ideas and form "inoculation tactics to create off-ramps from violent extremism."

PERIL was featured in SPLC’s latest "Hate and Extremism" report, which classified parents' rights organizations like Moms for Liberty as an extremist hate group and partners with the organization on other projects.

The grant comes as Homeland Security is under fire for a number of initiatives that critics say are used to censor and monitor conservatives."

[OddBeMe]

Bruh that’s what your commentator says. We’ve discussed this. Bruh