Posted on 08/30/2023 5:23:10 AM PDT by RandFan
Brian Darling will never be seen on “The Hill” again!
Yes, Wow.
Ping
Accurate and SAFE political discourse(safe and effective censorship?
More than half a billion people from around the world gather on X to talk about their interests in real-time, and that includes elections. X enables people to directly engage on important topics with elected representatives, local or national leaders and fellow citizens.
During elections, X works to get in front of a range of tactics that people use to target the process. To do this we hire the right people, update our policies and evolve our product.
Our people: We’re currently expanding our safety and elections teams to focus on combating manipulation, surfacing inauthentic accounts and closely monitoring the platform for emerging threats.
Our policies: We have rules in place to help protect the safety and authenticity of conversations on X. During elections, our Civic Integrity Policy provides an extra layer of protection that is applied for a limited period of time before and during an election. We’re updating this policy to make sure we strike the right balance between tackling the most harmful types of content—those that could intimidate or deceive people into surrendering their right to participate in a civic process—and not censoring political debate.
The policy will also be aligned with our updated enforcement philosophy, Freedom of Speech, Not Reach. We will add publicly visible labels to posts identified as potentially violating the Civic Integrity Policy, letting people know when their reach has been restricted.>/i>
Blah, blah, blah; translation: Leftists are going to censor conservatives as usual leading up to the 2024 election.
Yes this is coming from the new CEO of X.
She is trying to mollify “brands” and advertisers
Same old? I dont think Elon will allow mass censorship though and he’s still in overall control
It seems DJT wants to make the GA indictment a freedom of speech issue (perfect phone call) - and I think he will be fine on that regard, but how does a grand jury see evidence and decide hey there’s something here? Said another way, I think there’s more to it than just Trump’s phone call. I could be very wrong here, but do some believe it’s just about him leaning on Raffensberger? I just can’t see that and if you know something I don’t, let me have it!
>The criminalization of politics is a dangerous game that Democrats used to decry, when they thought the shoe might end up on the other foot.
I think this is the key. They no longer really think that an opposition candidate could win. And if one somehow wins an election then he will get the Trump treatment from the agencies and congress. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Exactly !
It’s a guest opinion article. “THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL.”
Democrats would rather jackboot rule a miserable nation in decline that be bystanders in a happy and prosperous republic.
Ditto, my first thought. WOW Hill to permit this article is surprising. The article is pro-Trump.
For openers, indictment by grand jury is NOT PROOF OF GUILT.
Second, any decision in lower courts is subject to appeals to higher courts, all the way to supreme court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.