suds

Not only are you blind to your own hypocrisy, you're blind to your own stupidity.

So "there's a small amount of truth in that" ...... ya think??? Fox is no different than the rest of them except they support the Republican candidates. Musk openly endorses Trump, and Zuckerberg gives $420 million to local Democrat activists for 'get out the vote efforts'. Fox supports a free press (even for its competition), while the rest of the MSM wants Fox shut down. Personally, I admire both Musk and Zuckerberg. Not for who they support but for what they've accomplished. You're just blind to your own hypocrisy.

I also remember a few years back when a couple of Democrat congressmen tried to coerce a cable provider to pull Fox News off the air using official government paper and letterhead. No real reason given except the contract between Fox and the cable provider was set to expire. The difference is that these Democrat congressmen were serious and Trump is a bullshitter. Was he serious or not? Who the hell knows.

They mostly regulate local TV and radio. What I posted concerning satellite, cable, and online content, comes straight off an FCC website. So I don't disagree.

Congress handed social media over to private entities simply because the people demanded such a platform and private entities are not forced to abide by the 1st amendment. And that's pretty much it.

FCC limitations begin with the 1st amendment. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV is generally not regulated. The FCC does not regulate online content, which is significant in a thread devoted to Musk, and Twitter, being bad for western democracy. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

By what law, or whatever, would give the US government the authority to do that? I seem to have come to a dead end.

I was looking at a CBC poll. Most Canadians support Israel but they also support a Palestinian state (as do I but not the river to the sea kind). The thing is.... is it just a cop-out or can you have both?

Technically on U.S. social media, free speech only applies to the owners of social media platforms. They're the ones who make all the rules concerning what's allowed and who gets to post. Free speech by the users of the platform lies solely at the owners discretion. When a government can get the FBI to coerce an owner into making certain topics off limits, how is that not a first amendment issue?

I can't speak for 1.7 billion Muslims but I'm fairly certain the vast majority of Palestinians don't support Israel's right to exist. And perhaps the question should be if Israel had the right to exist as a Jewish state.

Would have never happened if the Arabs agreed to the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181). In plain language, Palestine would have been partitioned into Arab and Jewish states with Jerusalem under international control. Both Arabs and Jews (upon independence) would have become automatic citizens of the state they resided in (outside of Jerusalem) with all full civil and political rights. Arabs over 18 residing in the Jewish state would have had 1 year to decide whether to stay or move to the Arab state, and same for Jews residing in the Arab state at the time of independence. Basically, Resolution 181 would have become part of any future constitution drawn up by either party. But no, war was a better option.

I never claimed Musk had no obligations only that social media was treated entirely different than news media. For obligations see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Well at least she's being honest. But being honest and being honest with oneself are two entirely different things. There's a political price to be paid for being honest with oneself and letting the chips fall where they may. Ask Jody Wilson-Raybould.

While it's possible that certain things be updated, twitter (X) has between 200 to 250 million users daily. How conceivable is it that Musk be made liable for the content of every one of the 250 million daily users?

At the very least they've learned they have the ability to sway official government policy with their actions. An inherent weakness of democracy that they will exploit at every opportunity and was likely a main reason for them going forward with Oct 7.

I agree except for the flag part. I'd be more concerned if some do-gooder used this incident to propose a bill making the public burning of a Canadian flag some sort of offense. What would it accomplish really? Would it improve our quality of life? I doubt it. Let em burn as many flags as they want so there's no doubt about the way they really feel about us.

Yep, and its root cause is politics. Something that the leaders of all parties are guilty of.

I realize you have the right to protest. But your rights should end when you start threatening Canadian citizens (and it's not the Jews who are doing it).

There is a significant difference between 'news media' and 'social media'. In the U.S. the owners of 'news media' are treated as publishers meaning they are responsible for content, while the owners of the 'social media' giants (such as Musk) are treated as non-publishers and are not held liable for content. However there are some rules but not nearly as stringent as news media for obvious reasons.

Sorry, but it kind of is. Since they're bringing their battles to this country and threatening Canadian citizens.

Here we go with the word games. Sorry, not playin.

I thought we both agreed that it was a 'cultural genocide'? Is a hyphenated genocide not a genocide? The question is one of responsibility.

So what is your point exactly? That governments have a habit of getting things wrong?

Indigenous - born, growing, or produced naturally in a region or country, native Immigrant - a person who immigrates, to come to a country or region to settle there I see a difference. You don't see a difference? The natives had at least some autonomy while under the Crown, not so much while under the Canadian government. When immigrants decide to come to Canada they've made a choice.

I would say when the government amended the Indian Act that (in most cases) forced indigenous children to attend the residential schools. The reality was one of two cultures adverse in every possible respect where the dominant culture laid out plans for the total assimilation of the minority culture's children. And there's more to it than that. The government was warned repeatedly by senior Indian Affairs officials that the residential schools were not separating healthy children from those who contracted tuberculosis. And this supposedly went on for 40 years. https://web.archive.org/web/20160827043602/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/natives-died-in-droves-as-ottawa-ignored-warnings/article4309756/?page=all