Hillary Clinton openly said this on CNN. Remember lefties, that’s what “fact checks” are. They’re not about the truth. They’re about control.  

Even Cenk Uygur recognizes that Hillary has become the image of Emperor Palpatine.
.
Cenk Uygur: "Hillary Clinton just said on CNN, “we lose total control” if social media content is not more regulated. Exactly! She's accidentally admitting the whole point of their attack on social media. Social media can't be contained and they're losing their grip on power. They hate it!"

how many weak-minded Dems are okay with censorship and being controlled by the party elites.  Some of them even post here.  

All she said was that content platforms should monitor what people post on their sites and remove things that are dangerous lies.
Sometimes a fact check is only a fact check.
Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees a right to lie.
Most of the lies told on this platform are told by righties CDL even admits he lies.

"Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees a right to lie." -- The Ministry of Pravda

Fester is Goebbels, Jr.
Don't forget, Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches in his night table.

what a "dangerous lie" is?   She actually repeated twice that she wants to have government control over speech.    

Fox got caught blatantly lying to their audience! They were telling the peeps j6 was a nothing burger but Hannity, Laura, Tucker, etc were texting Trump chief of staff in real time telling him Trump had to do something as he sat and watched the Republican hoard attack the Capitol to stop democracy! You're funny!

not NEWS REPORTERS, they are hosts of political opinion shows.  They are entitled to state their opinions even if later proven to be wrong.  "Dangerous Lies" are the ones that those purporting to be strict journalists at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC engaged in on a daily basis.  If you want an example, Fox was the only station that called out the Russia Hoax.  These other outlets stuck with Democrat party line and ended up losing market share because of it.  Fox called it bullshit from the beginning and a sizeable number of Democrats switched to Fox for their nightly news.  The ratings of the others went way down (MSNBC was below 1,000,000 viewers) as a result of the "dangerous lies" spread by the MSM.  

As for Fox, its entire evening programming is ENTIRELY these  so-called "political opinion shows." And they are certainly entitled to state their opinions. They are even entitled to lie, to an extent. But if their lies damage people or businesses, as happened with Dominion, then they are liable. In this case to the tune of nearly $800 million. So if you want to respect the views of proven liars, go right ahead.
Oh, and there WAS no Russia hoax. Mueller proved the Russians tried to influence the 2016 election. Remember Don, Jr's "I love it" moment? The "it" he loved was collusion with Russia. Just because Barr The Bagman flushed the report and tried to say it exonerated Trump doesn't make that true.
As for ratings, all the proves is Fox viewer are so toxically stupid they LIKE being lied to.

assume that is why you don't post it.  She said, "The problem is when they lie, we can't control it."  That sounds like censorship on a scale that violates the first Amendment to me.   Then later, she said again, "We can't control it."   They almost had it the way they wanted it until Musk bought Twitter.  Zuckerburg is still playing along with the Dem censorship, so is Google, but Musk is a free speech advocate, and that's the way he will run X.

I didn't post it because it was attached to the OP at the top of the thread. That's how I saw it. And how do you know the "we" she was talking about was the government? It wasn't. She was simply saying that people who own a platform have a responsibility for what is posted there.
As far as Musk, he isn't "running" X, he's ruining it. Musk and his backers have lost half the money they put into it. It's "a vaporization of wealth that had little parallel," says The Washington Post.
May I suggest you stop stepping on your own dick?

their customers at the behest of the government is not a free speech infringement?   I don't see how you can impose a limitation on free speech to be ENFORCED by the platform unless the platform is going to accept civil liability for free-speech violations of its users.  If someone is posting something that they do not have a right to post under the 1st amendment, then it should be up to the government to impose a sanction, not the platform owner.    

The First Amendment is not unlimited. And libel laws exist irrespective of said Amendment. And what is wrong with expecting the owner of a private platform to behave responsibly? Do you think speech is free here on TER, for example? Obviously, the answer is no. It's a private platform with its own rules and we have mods to enforce that. And if you don't like it, you (not you personally) can go somewhere else to post. You distorting what Hillary said is permissible, even if it's wrong.
As for Musk ever making a profit from X, well, anything is possible. But he and his investors are $24 billion in the hole. With a B.

The media for ads supporting Floridas amendment 4, the abortion initiative.
So funny how the right screams “ Freedom of speech”, “My 1st amendment”“ bullshit  
The horror!!!

Could it be he's only for free speech when it's speech he approves of?
Well, Fester???

Elon is trying to make Trump feel better about being a lousy businessman by proving he's just as lousy.

How the richest man in the world, Musk, is a lousy businessman.  

and it's all relative.  24 billion is less than 15 percent of Musk's net worth.  I'm confident in saying that if you and I both lost 15% of our net worth, we would still be doing fine.  From what I know of Happy, he would probably be okay, too.  For guys like Robert, it might mean cutting back a little on some of the things he currently enjoys spending money on.  

I also never said anything about the loss changing Musk's lifestyle. And if you want to trivialize a $24 Billion loss, be my guest.

If there really was Russian collusion, why didn’t Pelosi, Schiff and the rest of the “Russia! Russia! Russia!” gang impeach him for it? There’s only one answer. The special prosecutor found no evidence of collusion.

When Congress decides to impeach a President they generally limit themselves to the most serious charges. They decided said charges were about trying to pressure the Ukrainian government to start a false inquiry into Biden. That does NOT mean no collusion with Russia took place.
"I love it."

which means to Musk, it's trivial, but to those less well off, it's not.  To you, a new Maserati may be trivial, but to a guy who has never driven anything better than a Ford focus, it's not.  

I never said I was buying a "new" Maserati. They are great cars, including a Ferrari-built motor, but they depreciate like Wiemar Papiermarks. I'll buy one two or three years old and let the original owner take the hit. That will happen in the Spring. Until then I'll stick with my Audi.
Claro?

Mueller Report, Vol I: "While the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities", investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined. The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. *****It also identified multiple links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies,***** about which ***several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.***   *****Mueller later stated that his investigation's findings of Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".*****
.
Mueller Report, Vol II: "The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment.  As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; *****however, "it also does not exonerate him",***** **with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.** The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have ***obstructed justice*** while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation"
.
Learn the difference between CONSPIRACY (a crime under the USC) and COLLUSION (not a crime under the USC). Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion. Mueller did NOT exonerate Trump of conspiracy.

But what should one expect from a political hack?