5 ms·
This title should be changed, it doesn't reflect the content of these letters. They do point in a concerning direction, but this is not a demand for censorship.
by jolux 6y ago
This title should be changed, it doesn't reflect the content of these letters. They do point in a concerning direction, but this is not a demand for censorship.
- temp8964 6y ago" 4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken. 5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved. 6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken. 7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why? " Not a demand for censorship?
- jolux 6y ago>Not a demand for censorship? No, those look like questions to me. A demand for censorship would be "stop carrying these channels." Such a demand may follow after these questions are answered, but do they not constitute a demand for censorship of themselves.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoand when the mafia boss says, “You have a beautiful family” he is only complimenting you.
- andyv 6y ago"Nice channel lineup you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it."