0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Jason Fyk Reveals What Everyone is Getting Wrong About Section 230

Streamed on:
3.52K

Jason Fyk has been fighting against Big Tech censorship for the last six years. First he went after Facebook, then he went after the government. Unfortunately, the judges he’s faced have not enforced the United States Constitution, but instead have redefined words and terminology in order to provide cover for these Big Tech companies.

One of the things that we discussed was Section 230. The dirty little secret is that the Big Tech CEOs want government regulation, because they’re in cahoots with the government and can help to set the rules to benefit them. However, what most people don’t realize is that Section 230 is not how it has been explained to you… and all we need right now is just to enforce the letter of the law.

If you’d like to support Jason Fyk and his work within the courts to protect free speech, please visit https://socialmediafreedom.org.

As many of you know, I’m launching my own social media platform called pickax. It will be 100% constitutionally free speech, have algorithms that don’t work against you, not beholden to Big Tech in any way and monetization opportunities for content creators. Sign up today to be among the first people on the platform once we launch beta. Go to https://pickax.com.

Support Mike Lindell by shopping at https://mypillow.com using discount code FFN.

Sign up for FREE to watch Mike Lindell’s symposium where he’s going to lay out his plan to fix our rigged election system. Use code FFN when you sign up to get a free gift at https://lindellevent.com.

1 Comment

  • 0/2000
  • Is it a RESTRAINT OF TRADE issue? A kind of that sort of thing? One would think the "authorities" would provide the businessperson with the option of holding on to their data so they can continue somewhere else on the internet; or the opportunity to announce their departure and new address to their followers/customers/audience/prospects. Just to "disappear" a business -- is that not a form of economic terrorism -- although I find STRETCHING the term "terrorism" to fit any agenda is the wrong thing to do. There is a law brought to reality by Diane Feinstein called The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This act protects businesses that use animals by restricting all citizen activities related to informing the public about inhumane treatment of animals -- including passing out leaflets or demonstrating in front of a business or a business owner. It seems this law was devised not to stop real terrorism, but to protect the specific businesses that use animals. By locking citizens out of the watchdog role, this law has the power to protect businesses even though those businesses break humane treatment laws and abuse animals for profit. Isn't denying YOU of your internet livelihood and digital materials for reasons political, propaganda-related, or even unstated and unknown, a form of terrorism against citizens that is more terrorizing than, say, an animal advocate rescuing tortured animals is terrorism?

    1 like