Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
from the have-fun-with-it-folks dept
When last we checked in on GETTR, the latest in the Gab-Parler trend of very naive people setting up a new social network they hope will become the "MAGA central" social network by claiming, ridiculously, that they "won't censor," it was overrun by furry porn and My Little Pony porn. The site, that is run by former Trump spokesperson Jason Miller, has struggled to understand how content moderation actually works, and is now facing yet another new kind of content moderation challenge: jihadi propaganda from the Islamic State.
Politico has an article about how GETTR is now being flooded with such propaganda.
Islamic State “has been very quick to exploit GETTR,” said Moustafa Ayad, executive director for Africa, the Middle East and Asia at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that tracks online extremism, who first discovered the jihadi accounts and shared his findings with POLITICO.
“On Facebook, there was on one of these accounts that I follow that is known to be Islamic State, which said ‘Oh, Trump announced his new platform. Inshallah, all the mujahideen will exploit that platform,’” he added. “The next day, there were at least 15 accounts on GETTR that were Islamic State.”
As the article notes, the Islamic State quickly urged its followers to build up a big GETTR presence:
“If this app reaches the expected success, which is mostly probable, it should be adopted by followers and occupied in order to regain the glory of Twitter, may God prevail,” one Islamic State account on Facebook wrote on July 6.
And thus, we quickly learned that Jason Miller's commitment to free speech on GETTR isn't as absolute as he would have you believe:
Some of the jihadi posts on GETTR from early July were eventually taken down, highlighting that the pro-Trump platform had taken at least some steps to remove the harmful material.
You don't say? And then this statement is pretty funny as well:
“ISIS is trying to attack the MAGA movement because President Trump wiped them off the face of the earth, destroying the Caliphate in less than 18 months, and the only ISIS members still alive are keyboard warriors hiding in caves and eating dirt cookies,” Jason Miller, CEO of GETTR, said in a statement. “GETTR has a robust and proactive moderation system that removes prohibited content, maximizing both cutting-edge A.I. technology and human moderation.”
Huh. So now you're admitting that any social media site needs a combination of technology and human moderation in order to remove prohibited content? You mean, just like Facebook, Twitter, and basically every other site that has to set up policies for what's allowed and what's not and then enforce it? So very, very interesting.
I am curious, of course, whether or not our regular commenters, who still keep insisting that Twitter and Facebook must be forced to allow "all" speech on their platforms feel that GETTR is a problem as well. Or is that somehow different?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, donald trump, free speech, isis, islamic state, jason miller, propaganda, social media
Companies: gettr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well republicans, this is what the moderation free world you're told you want actually looks like, enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, get your mind out of the Gettr!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read just that, my first thought was "So what? they are doing it from space? is that was Trumps 'space-police' force was for?".
Of course continuing to read illuminated the context that it wasn't meant literally (since goes on to mention some being still alive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Check The Details
From Gizmodo:
If folks would like to espouse political beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. However, the first amendment doesn't protect death threats or foreigners. While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot, which is why they need section 230 to remain immune from lawsuits.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
Or is it case that you agree with GETTR's moderation, and disagree with Facebook's, because one allow you to speak and the other doesn't..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
So you're perfectly fine when people are banned for threatening democrats, healthcare workers, scientists, minorities, spreading rehashed conspiracy theories based on protocols of the elders of Zion and so on then? Funny, you should be fine with the vast majority of people banned for 'conservative beliefs' then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
If they criticized someone, I'm okay with it. If they issued a death threat, then it's no longer speech covered by the first amendment, and I'm not okay with it. It's pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Just as a random example, an image of trump in a orange prison jumpsuit being executed by a 'militant' is claimed to be a death threat. But as political commentary, it is more reasonably assumed to be a prediction or wish of how events will play out, with no impetus from the poster.
A death threat is only unprotected by the first amendment if it is a direct threat and the poster or a direct associate could reasonably be assumed to be capable, or it is otherwise considered harassment. A Photo of trump in jail being killed by militants is not a direct threat, and any reasonable viewer would understand that. Your attempt at a legal position is kinda shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You will stick up for isis beheading videos. I'll stick up for american journalist undercover videos. I think that says everything about our differences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Project Veritas and Andy Ngo, no doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You will stick up for isis beheading videos. I'll stick up for american journalist undercover videos.
You will stick up for isis beheading videos. I'll stick up for american nazis screaming hang mike pence
FTFY, big mouth. I can't see why you just can't scroll past them...isn't that what we're supposed to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
'I'll stick up for american journalist undercover videos.'
Such a champion of journalism, I remember your outrage about the Trump admin probing journalists in the hope of silencing journalists and whistleblowers...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210605/14281546933/gag-order-lifted-yet-anothe r-trump-doj-leak-investigation-that-targeted-journalists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/202 10507/20574146755/trump-doj-investigated-internal-leaks-obtaining-journalists-phone-records.shtml
ht tps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210521/19090446844/another-journalist-informed-trump-doj-otained-t heir-phone-email-records.shtml
Oh, right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
To me, that sounds like a death threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
I don't think that comment really does what he thinks it does...I mean, if the only ones left are hiding in caves, then certainly they're no threat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Koby, I think you need to sit down with Charlie Hebdo and have a serious conversation.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
Gettr's policy was to not moderate. But even assuming they made parlor's promise to only moderate material not protected by the first amendment...
Interesting. So free speech, but only for americans then? Getter isn't a free speech platform, but an american speech platform? Nice shifting of the goalposts.
Worse, you haven't actually shown that anything is from a foreigner or a violent threat as established by 1A precident. Your quote describes posts that might be quite legal under the first amendment (depending on exact wording and context) and could easily be posted by US citizens. You'd think a free speech advocate, particularly a limited US-only free speech advocate, would know that a lot more evidence would be required to establish a breach of first amendment protections.
Facebook cites the same policies Gettr does. Facebook has rules they point to as well. You just don't like those rules. Then again, as I highlighted, im not sure what rules you think are okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
True, Gettr says they are not going to interfere with political opinion. And death threats are not a political opinion.
I have my suspicions. But ultimately I think there should be recourse. If someone wants to appear in an American courthouse and file a lawsuit, I think they should be able to do so. Of course, I'm confident that in this case, the filer would be the one getting arrested and sent off to jail for being a member of ISIS. And so they wouldn't even attempt it. But social media companies should be forced through legislation to provide a reason for removing content, and American citizens ought to be able to challenge it in court.
And although I wouldn't reccomend it, just try editing a video of Obama getting beheaded and watch how fast you get a tap on the shoulder from the secret service. I think we know that you would rightfully be spending a few nights in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You show us a credible threat. That's a threat that some LEO is going to at least investigate. Then we get to compare it with the "political speech" you think is wrongly taken down elsewhere.
Predictions: You are an inconsistent, hypocritical liar, and you like it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You are the one who brought up that certain speech violates the first amendment. I'm just pointing out that under your standard, this material is not barred from the platform.
As Techdirt has repeatedly said, Facebook should be more transparent. But using the courts violates the first amendment.
Interestingly, you didn't just suggest a photo, for a direct comparison. No, I had to do a video edit, which implies more work, time, effort. That tends to imply I am more serious than a cheap photoshop. But I'd also note Obama's head was blown up in Kingsman without much fanfare.
In the modern era, the secret service has to actually assess threats, rather than hammer each one. I know for a fact that not all people claiming a desire for trump to die or to kill trump themselves saw the Secret service. If I put together that video id be looked at because creating that video suggests a deeper level of motivation than shitposting by suggesting trump might get arrested and killed. as Techdirt as repeatedly noted: Context is critical in moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
I did Nazi see that coming from a conservative such as yourself.... Obliterating the 1st amendment such that racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic assholes like yourself don't ever have to face the consequences of your vile speech.
Also, you have never provided a single example of somebody being moderated on social media for the sole reason of expressing traditional conservative views. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Protip: That's unconstitutional censorship you're demanding right there, Koby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
(And unconstitutional compelled speech)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
But Koby never cared about free speech when it comes to censoring political opinions he doesn't like like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
So, by this crack pot theory of yours, the ISIS people who are getting "censored" must have the strongest opinions on GETTR, stronger than all of the conservative views that are still there.
So Koby, tell us what it feels like to be less than an ISIS terrorist on GETTR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh bloody hell, he was stupid enough to post that boneheaded assertion under an article where ISIS was being 'censored'?
As own-goals go 'arguing that ISIS' opinion is the strongest' is one you just could not make up, that kind of stupid takes true dedication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"..that kind of stupid takes true dedication."
...or just the alt-right true to form grasping any argument to back their chosen narrative of "moderation bad" without having the brains to understand what they just argued for.
Consider that Koby and his ilk can't read english well enough to understand two-sentence paragraphs in the US constitution and keep advocating outright marxism as soon as the topic of soapbox ownership comes up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fair I suppose, when your position is utterly lacking in merit any arguments in favor of it are going to be likewise rubbish I just find it funny that he faceplanted so hilariously badly, breaking out an argument that's already total garbage under an article where applying it means showing support for a terrorist organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I just find it funny that he faceplanted so hilariously badly..."
Yeah, almost every time Koby, Shel10, Restless94110 or Baghdad Bob/Chozen/out_of_the_blue/bobmail/jhon smith tries to argue about free speech they end up pulling logic so broken it has them on the same side as ISIS recruiters and jihadists. It's like Trae Crowder said about Parler; "..these people think they're only true americans left and their closest allies are the confederates, russians, nazis and the 9/11 guys...".
I'm pretty sure most of them know damn well they're peddling bullshit in the vain hope that their clownish dog and pony show will result in them being able to bring the N-word back as acceptable public language.
What they keep failing to account for is that absent 230 no platform based in the US would dare let them write a single comment, ever again. We liberals might be inconvenienced. They'd go right back into the dark as Parler and Gab vanished beneath a hundred thousand defamation suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Death threats are not an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Prove that they are legitimate death threats that would be followed up by an investigation from LEOs.
Otherwise, it's just political speech, similar to "Hang Mike Pence!"
Did you consider that chant to be a valid threat against the former VP, or was it just political speech during a kerfuffle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
The proof is that you won't be visiting eastern Syria/western Iraq in the foreseeable future to test it out. We all know that the folks posting this stuff as propaganda will attempt it if given the opportunity. They mean what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You never answered the question about "Hang Mike Pence!"
Was that a legitimate threat, or just propaganda / political speech?
Did they not mean what they said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You probably won't get an honest answer outta Koby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
I hope it was a figurative statement.
But who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Answer the question bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
"Did you consider that chant to be a valid threat against the former VP, or was it just political speech during a kerfuffle?"
We already know Koby's on record as describing jan 6 as a "kerfuffle". So death threats - and literal murder is already registered as "unimportant" in his book.
It's worth remembering that for all that Koby writes in a mild-mannered way he's just fine and dandy with white insurrectionists murdering people.
He's also on record as being far less inclined to overlooking protests where the violence was started by the police, if the protesters were black, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
May not be the best example of ``political speech'', where the speakers had erected a gallows, entered the building with force and arms, and were carrying cable ties with the expressed intent of using them for restraints.
We may discount the threat by the odds that the speakers were goofs. Still, it had enough look of a real threat that it ought to be deemed worthy of investigation, assuming some police were not tied up greeting the ``Black Lives Matter'' protesters with impressive force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Death threats are not an opinion.
Why can't you just scroll past them, big mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Before you need surgery to extricate yourself from the knot you've tied yourself into, take a moment and realize what you signed up for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
“Death threats are not an opinion.”
Oh yes they are absolutely an opinion. Albeit a strong one.
So why do you hate ISIS’s freedom of speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest"
I'm confused. You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
"You're suggesting that Islamic Jihadist propaganda is the strongest because GETTR is censoring it?"
Not suggesting. He's saying that out loud.
This is the alt-right in a nutshell. The loudest screamer holds the strongest argument. In Koby's world and that of his peers on Stormfront, the tantrum-throwing child, the screaming unite-the-righter and the frothing-at-the-mouth jihadi hold more credibility than reasoned and calm fact-based discourse.
This is anti-intellectualism taken to the peak with an entire movement built around chest-beating and primal growls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Details
If folks would like to espouse political beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. However, the first amendment doesn't protect death threats or foreigners.
First off, the 1st Amendment very much does protect foreigners, so that's just factually incorrect. Second, the use of memes including those showing beheadings and such are very much political beliefs. Hell, I was an expert witness in a case (which helped acquit a guy) and a key image in that case that I testified on was him showing the orange jumpsuit beheading still with an FBI agent's head super-imposed on the body about to be decapitated. And... the judge and the jury properly found that to be protected political speech.
While Gettr can articulate rules that were violated that led to post removal, other American social media corporations cannot
This is an outright fabrication Koby. Facebook and Twitter also articulate rules that were violated. It's just that ignorant fools like yourself stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it must be because of your conservative beliefs.
You're a silly person, Koby.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Way to throw your support behind ISIS, Kobes. Bold move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
moderation = removing things i don't agree with (platform never do enough of this)
censorship = removing this a agree with (platform do way too much of this)
and as many stories here have noted both colours politicians seem to have the definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Check The Basement
“Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.”
What incel neckbeard did you steal that from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is an alternative to censorship
Instead of "removing" content, you can just label it and offer filters based on the labels, so that those who aren't interested don't have to see it.
(Of course accurate labelling is a difficult problem in itself; but it's not the same as the censorship problem.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is an alternative to censorship
How is that problem any different from the current moderation problem, as the real difficulty is in making the decision, and not in what action the derision leads to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is an alternative to censorship
"Instead of "removing" content, you can just label it and offer filters based on the labels, so that those who aren't interested don't have to see it."
You could do that, sure. I mean, if you own the property where this all goes down you are quite free to dictate whether someone spouting shit you don't like to hear needs to get lost, gets to stay in your house, or has to go and sit in the corner.
But that's the thing, isn't it? We can argue as much as we like how a house or platform owner ought to implement their rules. At the end of the day, though, that's up to the owner of the house or platform. Not us.
And I hesitate to describe it as "censorship" given that the most a platform owner can do is to not lend you his soapbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maz flings straw from straw man as usual.
He's hell on straw men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz flings straw from straw man as usual.
No one that I know proposes allowing "all" speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz flings straw from straw man as usual.
ONLY that within Common Law and Brandenburg limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maz flings straw from straw man as usual.
And that platforms be mere hosts -- not "publishers" immunized yet arbitrarily discriminate against viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spambot slinging crap
Where's the proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You fail to see the big picture as usual.
In one breath, you say that you're fine with not allowing "all speech" and go on to say what particular limits go too far, and then you say that platforms should just be "mere hosts". Well, which is it? Even if we accept your Brandenburg limit argument (which I had to look up; it's the "imminent lawless action" rule proposed by the SCOTUS in Brandenberg v. Ohio), you have to admit that you still need some level of human moderation to achieve that.
But still, as many others have pointed out, Facebook, Twitter, et. al have their own free speech rights as well. They are private entities, so they have the same right to kick Trump and others off of their platforms like I would have the right to kick you out of my house should you come in and start spewing this nonsense. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say those things; that's protected by the first amendment. But forcing platforms to host everything unless it falls under the Brandenburg limits is still compelled speech, which is prohibited under the first amendment. GETTR has a right to kick a progressive liberal like me off of their platform just as much as Facebook has the right to kick insurrectionists off of theirs. Content moderation is inevitable; it's just a matter of how sites choose to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You fail to see the big picture as usual.
You're not going to get an honest answer out of blue. He's just angry that every single "conservative only" platform his team has tried to run inevitably turned into a fucking shitshow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of speech, Anyone?
Who can explain freedom of speech?
Who can explain, the Common PERSON and his own idiocy?
How easy would it be to trace and track, SOME, of the posts from radicals?
Privacy is privacy and if you want it, you Will NOT publicize it.
Think about what a post does/is.
Its an idiot posting his own comment on the world.
Those that Jump to Like it or dislike it are the ones you MIGHT want to find and watch.
As in.
Posting a Billboard with a GREAT picture(anything you want) to grab peoples attention.
You will get those Standing around LOOKING at it, and those that send it complaints.
You are instigating something, to I.D. certain types of people, its a trap.
NOW if you really want to SORT people out, find those standing and staring at the pic. and SHIP them all to the same country to STAND and stare at OTHER pics, like it.
Making everything illegal, means you are becoming a Puritan. You want everything that temps a person to 'BE THEMSELVES' out of eye sight. OUT of temptations way. WE ARE NOT PERFECT, but if you want to find those responsible, you will post something to get their attention.(SOP)
The real problem is the REAL smart people doing things we consider illegal. THEY probably WONT FALL FOR IT. They would take a quick picture, go home and BLOW IT UP to hang on a wall. NOT stand there STARING at the picture/post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of speech, Anyone?
THIS is the KIND of post I CAN really understand! I need random WORDS shouted at me or i can't CONCENTRATE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of speech, Anyone?
if you need abit of help, it always available.
But make it early and when Im not dealing with my 80+ yo mother, and praying that this was SIMPLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some things, like moderation, have to be learned the hard way
From "Censorship Free" to "Free Censorship"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So gentlemen I hope you can eat each other now, I hope in your failed attempt to make some serious decentralized, open source alternative social media will teach you something, this is what you want...this is what you get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IOW, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Free speech only counts for what we agree with!'
Imagine that, yet another site promised that unlike those other social media platforms they will hold to true free speech and not 'censor' people for their 'political opinions' does an abrupt about-face when the 'political opinions' in question don't align with them.
Even if it's entirely predictable it just never stops being funny, a bunch of scum that were kicked off the other social media platforms create their own where being scum isn't grounds to get booted only to be shocked, shocked I say when scum of a different type shows up and they get a taste of what it's like being on the receiving end, quickly exposing their hypocrisy when they break out the banhammer that they'd decried as tyranny for their own use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I'm upset that the Jihadist Porn is pushing out the My Little Pony Porn. Now where will I be able to find it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just wait for Frank Talk, er Frank Speech to open their doors and it'll all be there!
Mike Lindell's Frank 'Free Speech' Site to Ban Swearing, Porn, Taking God's Name in Vain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mr. Lindell really should stop wasting his money since he's still staring down a 1.3 billion dollar lawsuit from Dominion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just wait for Frank Talk, er Frank Speech to open their doors
It'll never happen. And he'll probably blame AWS for it because...well, to be honest, I really don't know what's going on in that empty fucking head of his.
One journalist observed that Frank was using Amazon Web Services for video hosting despite Lindell's frequent criticism of "Big Tech".[26]
He's lining up a scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Draining the swamp
So when you drain the swamp it all runs down the GUTTR. And if the orange one truly "wiped them off the face of the planet", how can there be any of them left to post on GUTTR? I suppose they'll get on Parlerss next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All hail Twitter
"If this app reaches the expected success, which is mostly probable, it should be adopted by followers and occupied in order to regain the glory of Twitter..."
The glory of Twitter?! That is not where I expected that one to go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO
I'm on GETTR, Parler and GAB. I love trolling there as I do on FOX where I've accumulated over 19.5k likes for posting headlines contrary to the FOX narrative.🎻The five stages of grief are:
denial.
anger.
bargaining.
depression.
acceptance.
2016: "You lost, get over it" 🎃
🇺🇸 President Joe Biden 🇺🇸 USA! USA! USA!
Biden won by 7 million votes nationwide (81,268,924)
Biden won 51 percent of the popular vote, a larger percentage than any Democrat since 1964, save Barack Obama's victory in 2008.
He won 306 electoral votes & every state certified
He won MI/WI/PA by 3x as much as Trump
Trump lost 60 court cases
Supreme Court won’t overturn the results
"No Mr. President, it's not ANTIFA or BLM.....it's MAGA."- Kevin McCarthy, Jan. 6, 2021
"The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding...And a fact-finding commission would be prudent." -- Kevin McCarthy, January 13, 2021
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LMAO
The alt-right are nowhere near the "acceptance" phase, though.
Also, people grieve in different ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech...
Free speech is only allowed as long as people speak about things I like. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great News
So a site the pledges Free Speech is now filled with those who are exercising free speech?
Wow that is such a news scoop you found! People permitted to speak their mind, do speak their mind!!! Amazing!
So we are now back to an era of Free Speech again? What are you writing about? You are pro-totalitarianism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great News
Nice to see you are pro-ISIS in addition to being a Nazi.
I'd say you revealed your true colors, but you did that long ago when you typed out the phrase "lügenpresse".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great News
"I'd say you revealed your true colors, but you did that long ago when you typed out the phrase "lügenpresse"."
Oh, him using rhetoric only found on Stormfront and in germany 1933 wasn't him revealing his true colors. That was just painting another swastika on top, just to clarify.
He's let his allegiance slip quite a few time, because apparently old Restless doesn't realize that the vernacular of neo-nazi groups isn't actually how everyone else describes reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great News
People permitted to speak their mind, do speak their mind!
Yup. ISIS. Glad to hear you mindless fucktards found some other folks to share your views with.
Fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great News
So a site the pledges Free Speech is now filled with those who are exercising free speech?
Did you not read the article dude? The point is that GETTR pulls down those posts, and so it's claim to "support free speech" is the same as every other social media platform. It allows free speech... so long as it doesn't violate its policies.
So we are now back to an era of Free Speech again? What are you writing about? You are pro-totalitarianism?
I have always supported free speech -- unlike you who supports gov't compelled speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“I am curious, of course, whether or not our regular commenters, who still keep insisting that Twitter and Facebook must be forced to allow "all" speech on their platforms feel that GETTR is a problem as well. Or is that somehow different?”
So I don’t quite fit your bill because I don’t think what you think I think.
I draw a line between moderation and censorship.
Must? No! Should? Yes.
Gettr deleted posts. That’s censorship.
These posts could have been moderated by their “system that [censors] sic prohibited content, maximizing both cutting-edge A.I. technology and human moderation”
Gettr supports censorship.
Gettr is part of the problem not the solution.
Evil censoring bastards.
So much for free speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're just insanely envious...
of site thousand times larger
of site thousand times larger -- with the appeal of Free Speech -- when after wasting 20 years that were supposed to be your most productive, all you've got is fewer fanboys than I can count on fingers and toes
and you have to lock out all dissent -- from your manifestly lying plain HTML input box -- 'cause your corporatist assertions are so foul and so easy to disprove
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're just insanely envious...
meanwhile you has to beg to get more than...
same dozen regulars and astro-turfing that they do under other names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're just insanely envious...
So how much begging did you have to do to get ISIS bots on your platform, chum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're just insanely envious...
???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're just insanely envious...
That’s just a severely mental ill man who has decided this website is his black helicopters so to speak.
You’re doing great blue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're just insanely envious...
You're just insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]