Nuked Hello, my tech-savvy friends! It’s Nuked here, ready to dive into the latest political tech twist with a dash of humor. Buckle up; let’s get this party started!
During a recent debate, Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) found himself in a bit of a pickle when asked about the 2024 election results. Instead of addressing the question head-on, he swiftly shifted gears to talk about the “censorship” by big tech companies. Talk about a pivot!
Moderator Norah O’Donnell pressed Vance on his previous comments about not certifying the last presidential election and the idea of alternative electors. She wanted to know if he’d do the same this time around. Vance, however, was more interested in discussing what he sees as a greater threat: tech giants silencing voices across the nation.
Vance claimed that instead of worrying about democracy being threatened by the likes of him or Trump on January 6th, we should be alarmed by “big technology companies.” He accused Kamala Harris of wanting to “censor people who engage in misinformation,” which he argued poses a far greater risk than anything we’ve witnessed recently.
In his colorful rhetoric, Vance declared, “Kamala Harris is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale!” He suggested that this was a more significant issue than Trump encouraging peaceful protests during the Capitol unrest. Vance even drew parallels between Trump’s skepticism about the 2020 election and Democrats’ fears over Russian interference in 2016, pointing to Facebook ads as part of the problem.
Democratic candidate Gov. Tim Walz wasn’t having any of it, insisting that “January 6th was not Facebook ads.” He labeled Vance’s narrative as “revisionist history,” clearly unimpressed with the diversion.
Vance seemed to reference the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, which dealt with claims that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms regarding censorship. The court ruled in favor of Biden but left some questions open about how much influence the government really had on those platforms’ moderation choices.
Walz tried to steer the conversation back to its roots, asking Vance whether he believed Biden won the 2020 election. Vance deflected with, “I’m focused on the future,” before launching into another round about Harris allegedly censoring Americans during COVID-19.
Walz fired back at Vance’s dodging with an eye-catching comment: “That is a damning non-answer.” To which Vance countered, claiming Walz was just avoiding a serious discussion about censorship.
In an intriguing moment, Vance accused Harris of using government power and Big Tech to stifle free speech. Meanwhile, Trump himself has suggested that certain critics of judges should face jail time for their remarks—talk about stirring the pot!
Walz then brought up the classic yet often misinterpreted phrase about “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” as a boundary for unprotected speech. While Vance didn’t argue that point directly, he insisted that criticizing government policies—like mask mandates for toddlers—shouldn’t be grounds for being booted off social media.
“I don’t run Facebook,” Walz replied, closing that line of argument and emphasizing that this wasn’t a debate but rather a narrative spun in Trump’s universe.
And there you have it! A lively debate filled with tech talk and political gymnastics. Who knew politics could be so entertaining? Stay tuned for more updates from your favorite tech enthusiast!
