GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
881 page pdf:
"THE CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: HOW TOP BIDEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS COERCED BIG TECH TO CENSOR AMERICANS, TRUE INFORMATION, AND CRITICS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION" https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/ev...t_Appendix.pdf
"EXCLUSIVE: Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like "MAGA" and "Trump" as part of an investigation into Jan. 6, warning that purchases of "religious texts" could indicate "extremism," the House Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.
Fox News Digital has learned the committee also obtained documents that indicate officials suggested that banks query transactions with keywords like Dick's Sporting Goods, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops and more."
Source: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in...ons-terms-maga
Why did you not link to the Fox News article that this "source" is a literally a copy of? Is it because you thought the .gov domain and stylesheet would give it more credibility?
Why did you not link to the Fox News article that this "source" is a literally a copy of? Is it because you thought the .gov domain and stylesheet would give it more credibility?
Browsing 101, read a link before you click on it. The words media and maga not enough clue for you or are you one of those who click on a link and wonder how they ended up on a porn site, lol.
For your edification or perhaps, education, "in-the-news" is a repository for articles by several right-leaning news organizations.
By the way, the Dem .gov dis-information domain is here: https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases
There, class over.
https://judiciary.house.gov -- media -- in-the-news -- alarming-surveillance-feds-asked-banks-search-private-transactions-terms-maga
I assume from your non answer that I am correct about your motives, and you actually were intentionally disguising the source, because you knew that if people saw a Fox News domain in the link, the discussion would be over.
Actual source (which you obviously could have just linked to instead, but chose not to) is here:
There was zero reason for you to choose to link to a “repository” instead of directly to the article. Unless you wanted to deny clicks to Fox News, I guess. But you weren’t trying to do that.
Obviously, btw, there is nothing “alarming” there whatsoever. I am not a Fox News viewer.
I assume from your non answer that I am correct about your motives, and you actually were intentionally disguising the source, because you knew that if people saw a Fox News domain in the link, the discussion would be over.
Actual source (which you obviously could have just linked to instead, but chose not to) is here:
There was zero reason for you to choose to link to a “repository” instead of directly to the article. Unless you wanted to deny clicks to Fox News, I guess. But you weren’t trying to do that.
I did answer. It's not my fault you don't know how to navigate the internet without getting your pre-concieved viewpoints rebutted. You are the person who alluded that using a .gov domain was a ploy when in fact both parties use such domains to push a narrative. READ a link before clicking on it.
You’ve had enough chances. Obviously, I am absolutely right, and you did link to a “repository” because you knew that if you linked directly to the article, your argument would collapse.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.