Connect with us

News

Facebook Rules on Trump Ban in Major Free Speech Decision

This will haunt our nation for decades to come.

Published

on

1984

The Trump presidency will undoubtedly go down in the history books as one of the most memorable of our lifetime, and there are repercussions still piling onto us today that could impact the way in which our nation operates for decades to come.

Near the end of his first term, something previously unthinkable happen to Donald Trump:  He was banned from Twitter and Facebook outright, and arbitrarily.

The two tech giants had decided that there was a real chance that Trump could or would incite violence around the nation, perhaps even via the infamous “storm is upon us” text that Qanon theorists repeatedly spoke of.

Trending: McAfee Dead in Prison After Repeatedly Declaring He Would Not Kill Himself

Regardless of the reason, a sitting US President had just been censored by two incredibly powerful companies for reasons that they didn’t have to justify to anyone.  This was a terrifying adjustment to the way in which we think about free speech in America, and the struggle continues this week.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration? (1)

  • Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Facebook was justified in its decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the company’s Oversight Board said on Wednesday.

That means the company does not have to reinstate Trump’s access to Facebook and Instagram immediately. But the panel said the company was wrong to impose an indefinite ban and said Facebook has six months to either restore Trump’s account, make his suspension permanent, or suspend him for a specific period of time.

Scarier still:  A recent interview with Donald Trump was also removed from Facebook, with the social media magnates declaring that statements “in Donald Trump’s voice” would now be subject to such censorship.

News

McAfee Dead in Prison After Repeatedly Declaring He Would Not Kill Himself

Social media users were quick to remind the world of McAfee’s own words.

Published

on

John McAfee is a computing legend, having pioneered the way in which systems and networks protect themselves from viruses, malware, spyware, and all the other assorted evils of this internet age. But now he lies dead, having allegedly committed suicide in a Spanish prison cell. Antivirus software tycoon John McAfee died by an apparent suicide in a Spanish jail cell Wednesday evening — hours after reports surfaced that he would be extradited to face federal charges in the US, according to local media. The eccentric tech entrepreneur was arrested in October and was awaiting extradition when he was found dead, police sources told the newspaper El Pais. The newspaper reported McAfee was pulled from his cell in Barcelona and police are investigating the circumstances around his death. Authorities aren’t shying away from calling it a suicide already. “Everything points to suicide,” the newspaper reported, citing justice department officials in the country. A second Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, also reported McAfee had died by an apparent suicide in the jail. But here is where it gets strange:  McAfee has been utterly insistent and consistent about the fact that he would never, ever take his own life, explicitly telling his followers on social media that, should he ever be found dead of suicide, he was killed. https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1316801215083225096?s=20 https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1200864283766251521?s=20 https://twitter.com/truthcrumbs/status/1407788935628079113?s=20 The investigation is ongoing at this time.

Continue Reading

News

Lab Finds Zero Fish DNA After Testing Subway’s Tuna Sandwich

You can “eat fresh” at Subway, but can you eat fish?

Published

on

For years we’ve told ourselves that there has to be a better way to do fast food.  Or, at the very least, a healthier way. And so new chains are constantly popping up, while the old staples adapt.  There are salads for sale as places like McDonald’s these days, which is something that kids who grew up in the 80’s might have had a hard time believing would ever occur. In the realm of healthy fast food, there is but one king:  The unbreakable Subway.  Not only did the brand survive having a pedophile as their spokesperson, but they currently operate more physical restaurants in the world than even the aforementioned burger purveyor. But an alarming new study has some wondering if, while they were “eating fresh” with a tuna sub, they were even eating fish. The New York Times published a report Sunday, which revealed that lab tests didn’t find “amplifiable tuna DNA” in Subway’s infamous tuna sandwich. NYT submitted “60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches” from three separate Los Angeles locations for lab analysis in wake of the lawsuit filed earlier this year alleging the sandwich chain was serving customers “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna.” The suit claims that independent lab tests showed the company meant to “imitate” tuna’s appearance by blending together these unknown ingredients. The study, commissioned by NYT, failed to not only identify tuna DNA, but the lab couldn’t even determine the origins of the fish in the provided sandwiches. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species,” the results read. But it’s not all bad news: “There’s two conclusions. One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week