FBI Influence on Social Media: Coercion or Cooperation?  

Why? Do you feel that they have to allow anything you choose to say? They obviously didn't just bow down to the Feds, they did what they felt was appropriate. You can disagree and you can also go start your own company and make the decisions yourself but until then, deal with it.

@@robertadams5221 Hopefully ( but not likely), your next comment will be intelligent. The companies can monitor as they choose, but when government agencies pressure those companies, it’s a violation of the first amendment. You’re just not smart enough to understand how much pressure government agencies can bring, with the implied threat of denial of government contracts and “favors”. Now, go outside and play

@@MrJamberee How would this be a violation of the 1st amendment?

You're so intelligent trying to argue on the internet with strangers who you are insinuating are children. I mean it. It's too bad intelligence doesn't​ make life any less miserable. Actually the opposite"@@MrJamberee " 🤗

That is incorrect. Child Pornography, is rampant all over social media, as well as human(and sex) trafficking. All of which is illegal and should be investigated, used to track down perpetrators, and ultimately removed from all forms of social media and other media it has been put on. Any failure to do so should be viewed as a felony and noncompliance will lead to arrests.

You: Guilty Republican SCOTUS: yeah, there is no issue here and the claims are bullshit.

What kind of content was removed? If they were threats of violence then they should be investigated, shouldn’t they?

They can remove whatever content they like. The FBI was alerting them to things that they thought should be removed and the social media companies sometimes agreed and sometimes didn't. You have no right to free speech on their platform, you're granted an opportunity.

@@wallihaley5194it doesn’t need to be removed to be investigated. In fact, removing it would tip off the person making the threat that someone with authority noticed and might be working to stop them.

@@OctagonalSquare , you’re right, but the authorities can also screen shot it as part of their investigation, or preserve it in other ways.

U r a critical thinker.Rare these days!Either listen to what they don't say or believe the exact opposite of the narrative ❤

How do you measure "paying attention"?

Well, it depends on the definition of paying attention. The number should be zero end of topic.

@@albertschikel2814 If there is someone on social media threatening to undertake terrorism, does your rationale state the national security agencies should just ignore that threat?

@@biekgiekthis is not talking about terrorist threats. Nice try tho.

Social media companies are private enterprises. By using them, an individual has to agree to their terms of service. The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech to speak out against the government. It doesn't say a social media company has to let you, or anyone else, say whatever they want. This is not a violation of 1st amendment rights.

​@@biekgiekthe government influencing it is against the law though the government is not allowed to get involved period and their terms weren't violated most of the time as 90% of what they called misinformation was true it just wasn't what the government wanted pushed at the time and freedom of speech doesn't just protect you from speaking out against the government it protects your speech as long as it's not a threat from the government which means they cannot interfere which is exactly what they did....nice try though

What if it was illegal content like CP? Are you a pedo?

​@@biekgiekYour trust in government institutions will lead to our downfall. AND, SCOTUS disagrees with you, thank God.

@@stevenbledsoe4186 aren’t you on social media right now?

​@wallihaley5194 but he learned to think critically FIRST!

No "Social Media" is "Social" it just needs the rest of the letters added now - "Socialist Media"....

​@chrispatriot your not wrong.

Social media, and its effect on people make me think of the movie CELL. Watch it you will be awaken.

What if they were flagging CP? You think that's free speech? Are you a pedophile?

Critical thinkers are rare these days.Listen to what they don't say or believe the exact opposite of the narrative

Because of the FBI? Do tell, if you'd be so kind?

@@whatisthis1491 just reposting things regarding covid. Now it turns out I was right.....the left was wrong. Glad I am not vaccinated with that poison. Can you say the same?!

Lol people are so crazy. Like the FBI just told FB, "these accounts are foriegn nationals that are undermining blah blah blah" and FB can act on it or not, no consequences

Anecdote is kinda irrelevant...

Did you violate the companies terms of service?

They will never believe Mike on anything! He's not believable after everything we've seen!

Waiting for it.

Mike "All this for a damned flag" Aboma(nation)? Who else remembers it saying that?

@@user-dn6qm1uc9o , when was that said?

@@prized_possessions9055 , what actual evidence do you have for your statement? Other than conspiracy theories? On the other hand, the Obamas seem to have a Happy and faithful marriage.

The information she's referring to is from the FBI's activities in the fall of 2020, leading up to the Presidential election (so, under the Trump administration).

@@dw1217 the first amendment only applies to the government, not to private companies.

@@wallihaley5194 true but we're talking about the government calling for the censorship.

The FBI gets evidence this particular FB user is a Russian Bot. They paas that info to FB, and they are free to act or NOT ACT on that evidence. Where did the FBI force FB to do anything?

Is it though?

Not illegal dude. These are private companies that can set their own terms of service. If you as a user don't like it, use another service.

@@bruxi78230 so the rich companies then dictate what information is passed out on their platform without any objections opinion or fact. Listen it’s more important to hear the 1% of objectionable opinion than it is to be awash with the 99%. The more information/facts we have the more informed renewed are and the more informed decisions we can make. Always being fed the same not fully correct information is indoctrination and this is what half the country is trying to undo and prevent in the future. Remember is only a conspiracy theory until it’s proven fact by the objectionable 1% is disseminated. We have to help whoever becomes President (if they want to) drain the swamp, this is how we can help… So, this is how we can circumvent Congress (because they will NEVER limit their terms on their own - it goes against their self interest): we MUST get 37 States to sign on for Convention of States to “It calls for an Article V convention to propose amendments that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Thus far 19 States have signed on, we need 18 more. Biden is the current ringleader (Obama, Hillary &/or whoever is pulling the strings) so he won’t do anything to try and expunge Washington of corrupt/traitorous politicians, lobbyists, appointed judges, DA’s, head of HUD, FEMA, & heads of FBI, CIA, etc. For Trump followers - he can’t do it alone. Congress will NEVER willingly limits terms, tighten the reins on the lobbyists or sending nor do anything about the people who control the Federal Reserve (it’s name implies that it is part of our Govt but it’s not - the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends). The Federal Reserve System is run by seven members, or "governors," who are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed in their positions by the U.S. Senate. The higher the debt the more those people make. Below is the information about States that have signed on, etc. so check the list and if your State has NOT then you and everyone you know (doesn’t matter what party they belong to - we are all being screwed by the Uniparty/swamp/corrupt politicians) - call your State representatives, etc. to get your State to also sign on. States that have passed the Convention of States application (19): 
1. Georgia March 6, 2014
2. Alaska April 19, 2014
3. Florida April 21, 2014
4. Alabama May 22, 2015
5. Tennessee February 4, 2016
6. Indiana February 29, 2016
7. Oklahoma April 26, 2016
8. Louisiana May 25, 2016
9. Arizona March 13, 2017
10. North Dakota March 24, 2017 
11. Texas May 4, 2017
12. Missouri May 12, 2017 13. Arkansas February 14, 2019 14. Utah March 5, 2019 15. Mississippi March 27, 2019 16. Wisconsin January 25, 2022 17. Nebraska January 28, 2022 18. West Virginia March 4, 2022 19. South Carolina March 29, 2022 
States where the Convention of States Application has passed in one chamber but not the other (all time):

New Mexico, Iowa, South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina (active), New Hampshire, Wyoming

States actively considering the Convention of States Resolution in 2024:

Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming Can copy the States, etc. at this site conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application

@@user-ss9qh8kv4d ----- The concept is like you and your house. If you have a dinner party you can decide who to invite. If some neighbor crashes your party and starts talking about something objectionable to your guests, then you can ask the crasher to leave. It is your house. In the social media business they want people to post a wide variety of content and then sell advertising in conjunction with the content. If advertisers object to content such as racist garbage or misogynistic content or fascist content they will not spend the money to advertise. If they don't spend their money you as a social media site go out of business. In the end they are private businesses that listen to advertisers and thus make their decisions based on that.

​@@bruxi78230FBI just gave them info, and FB sometimes acted on it. No one got forced to do anything

Yes it is.

That's literally what she said

Not what she said. She said they only paid attention 50% of the time. Attention is not action. And when it comes to action they could review the contact… determine if there is an issue, remove specific content, restrict future posting, monitor the account. Now this is a super short clip and perhaps there is a longer version… but from this clip, he is saying she said something she simply did not say.

​@@neillcampbell3138exactly. There should have been a follow-up question included to clarify what "paid attention to" means. What content/information that attention included or excluded, did their "attention" include action, etc? Her language was vague, probably intentionally so.

So only one Butt Cheek? Gotcha! Can I choose what Butt Cheek??😃

If FB didnt do what the FBI wanted, what were the consequences?

@@whippinsaw they cdon't need any. They're ideological partners in filth.