by Dennis Crouch
In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. 2022)
In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit has denied Monolithic’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking to escape from Judge Albright W.D. Tex. courtroom for improper venue. Since MPS is a Delaware Corp., the only way venue is proper in W.D. Tex. is if it “has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The company has employees, and various sales-channels within the district, but argues that it lacks a “regular and established place of business.” As an alternative to its improper venue argument, MPS also argued that venue is inconvenient under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and that the case should instead be transferred to N.D. Cal.
Judge Albright denied the motions to dismiss/transfer — holding that the “regular and established place of business” prong of the 1400(b) test was satisfied by three key findings:
- MPS employed local engineers and sales managers in WDTX to serve local customers;
- MPS stored property in WDTX (in the homes of its employees) and that equipment was used to service MPS’s WDTX customers, and
- MPS continually maintain a physical presence within WDTX, including by advertising for replacement employees should any of MPS’s existing WDTX employees leave the company or move to a new location.
In considering these issues, the district court relied upon prior Federal Circuit’s cases such as Cray and Cordis and evaluated the factors established there for non-retail and informal “places of business.”
On mandamus, the majority refused to grant the petition — finding that the distric court’s ruling “does not involve the type of broad, fundamental, and recurring legal question or usurpation of judicial power that might warrant immediate mandamus review.” To be clear, the appellate panel did not endorse Judge Albright’s decision, but simply found that it was not appropriate for mandamus. Rather, MPS should wait until the lawsuit concludes and, if MPS it can still appeal on improper venue. Regarding inconvenient venue, the court found no clear abuse of discretion in refusing transfer.
The majority opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Chen and Stark. Judge Lourie wrote in dissent and argued that the outcome is clear — “Monolithic’s four employees in the Western District do not constitute Monolithic’s ‘regular and established place of business.'” Judge Lourie raised the particular concern that changing work environments (i.e., work-from-home) will potentially open up venue in unexpected ways:
The district court’s erroneous ruling threatens to bring confusion to the law relating to where a patent infringement suit can properly be brought based on the location of employee homes and to erode the clear statutory requirement of a regular and established place of business. Given the increased prevalence of remote work, I think immediate review by way of mandamus would be important to maintain uniformity of the court’s clear precedent.
Slip Op. Lourie Dissent. The majority agreed that the shift to remote work is an important consideration, just not important enough to overcome the strong presumption against hearing a mandamus action:
The dissent may well be correct that the issue of imputing employee homes to a defendant for purposes of venue will become an issue of greater concern given the shift to remote work. But, in our view, at present, the district court’s ruling does not involve the type of broad, fundamental, and recurring legal question or usurpation of judicial power that might warrant immediate mandamus review.
Slip Op. Majority.
The court does not delve into the new W.D.Tex. rules that randomly assign Waco patent cases to a handful of judges (not just Judge Albright). I expect that we will see a sharp diminution in venue mandamus decisions as the court waits to see whether the new approach changes outcomes.
= = =
Notes – The underlying case alleges infringement of several patents relating to electric power modules. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,936,999, 6,949,916, 7,000,125, 7,049,798, 7,080,265, and 7,456,617. The primary accused product is a power management bus (MPM3695) used on integrated circuits
OT, but is not the following IPWatchdog-just-reported Sup. Ct. action unusual? Is it signaling more likely cert grant?:
“On Thursday, September 29, Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order staying the mandate of the Federal Circuit issued this June reversing an earlier panel opinion that had upheld the validity of Novartis’ patent claims covering a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis treatment Gilenya, .. after the dissenting view from the earlier panel opinion upholding patent validity became the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit’s decision on rehearing.”
Am curious if anyone has a better link to the “application to the Court by the Applicant” that sparked this “Hey wait a minute” action by the Supreme Court…
The Supreme Court order itself:
link to supremecourt.gov
The majority in this Fed. Cir. mandamus refusal noted the following patent owner “regular and established place of business” “venue homework”: “Among other things, the [District] court noted that one employee ..“possesses a fair amount of Monolithic’s equipment, including two oscilloscopes, four to five power supplies, two electric loads, a logic analyzer, a soldering iron, a multimeter, a function generator, three to five samples of microcontrollers, MOSFETs, five op-amps, ten to fifteen comparators, twenty inductors, and fifty sample demonstration boards.” Appx6. And Monolithic provided that equipment, “which is not typically found in a generic home office,” for “the sole purpose of allowing Mr. Bone to conduct testing and validation as part of his job.” “
‘generic home office’….
Is that like the (mythical) ‘generic computer’…?
I wonder what the “objective physical structure – including “code” is for that…
Are we supposed to be impressed by his paltry stock of parts?
And what, no resistors (other than the two electric loads, which might not even be resistors)?
I easily have ten times that number of parts. Monolithic should hire me to be their home office.
Link to the District Court decision…?
The article above mentions that Albright did consider controlling law, and ruled that the factors still lent to a finding of proper venue.
On its face, Lourie here makes sense (given controlling law — even as I find the controlling law horribly wrong: based on the simple balance that if a corporation is willing to place itself in a state to gain business benefit, then they should accept the consequence Being In That State of business risk).
Bros were wanting to talk about people making deals at the end of the year being bad, I got not one, not two but four RCE’s in the exact last bi week and 2x of those within 3 days of the end of the fiscal year. Lelz.
I don’t see anything wrong with deal making per se, but the yearly glut of end of year allowances suggests to me that lower standards are being applied during that window.
By all means make deals! But if an examiner is proposing/agreeing to deals in September that they wouldn’t propose/agree to in October, then at least during one part of the year they are not doing their job correctly.
“suggests to me that lower standards are being applied during that window”
It might be, but idk, can also just be people working hard to get things allowed for a little push. I know I’m completely wiped out of energy and all after last biweek and change.
I hope the courts figure out how to distinguish location-independent remote work and location-dependent remote work. Workers don’t need employers to be given another excuse for curtail remote work.
“We’d love to let our employees work from home, but we can’t risk one of you deciding to live in Austin. So we’ll see you all in person at 8am next Monday!”
Nice comment Benjamin.
Why would employers not have every right to dictate work conditions related to remote/non-remote?
I hope the courts figure out how to distinguish location-independent remote work and location-dependent remote work. Workers don’t need employers to be given another excuse for curtail remote work.
I hope the courts figure out how to curtail companies from gaming the system that allows them to physically be in a particular venue while arguing that they should be sued in that venue.
The fact of the matter is that for most national/international companies, infringement isn’t just performed at the corporation’s home office but nationwide. If a corporation wants to take advantage of the profits from selling nationwide they need to accept the consequences, which entails the possibility of being sued anywhere nationwide.
Alternatively, we can create a patent court that has consistent rules nationwide so there is no advantage to suing in one particular venue over another.
Anyone paying attention will note my past observances that ‘the other National patent court’ — the Court of Federal Claims — actively models their patent case procedures on what Judge Albright has done.
Worth remembering that cases where Judge Albright is overturned on mandamus attract a lot of attention, but—even in close cases—Judge Albright is actually affirmed by the CAFC more often than he is overturned. The cases where he is overturned really are egregious, which is why he gets overturned in those cases.
Off topic, but I just saw Noah Smith observe that Facebook’s market cap has shrunk so considerably that it is no longer one of the five largest “tech” companies. Therefore, it no longer makes sense to speak of FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, & Google). Instead, the new acronym should be ATAMA (Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Microsoft, & Alphabet, which is Google’s new name). I thought that interesting enough to share, for whatever little it is worth.
It is the censorship in my opinion. FB is draconian if your views aren’t left wing. Also, I don’t think Alphabet realizes either how much ill will they have built up by their censorship.
My guess is that both Alphabet and FB are going to loose to a site or sites that do what Musk was talking about regarding having a public algorithm that censors.
The ill will that Alphabet and FB have engendered is for some reason not reported. But it is huge.
It is the censorship in my opinion.
Interesting theory, but then how do you explain the fact that Google is going from success to success? If folks are fleeing FB because they do not like its censorship, but Google is also engendering ill will from censorship, then why are people not also fleeing Google?
I think that there is a much simpler explanation here. Apple’s OS used to allow the FB app to track users and collect data. Then Apple changed its OS to stop that. FB is just not nearly as profitable without the ability to track and collect those data. Google, meanwhile, never relied on Apple to collect data, so Google remains mega-profitable (please forgive the pun).
“My guess is that both Alphabet and FB are going to loose to a site or sites that do what Musk was talking about regarding having a public algorithm that censors.”
I’d like Musk to be correct, but Musk’s desperate efforts to avoid being the owner of a competitor site suggests otherwise to me.
+1
>>I’d like Musk to be correct, but Musk’s desperate efforts to avoid being the owner of a competitor site suggests otherwise to me.
This is just a silly comment as you are assuming Musk’s motive. Most informed people feel Musk’s actions are to do with the price as he feels that Twitter has misrepresented the number of bots so that it is way over valued.
We shall see what happens. Maybe Musk will be happy with it at $12 billion. Or maybe Musk just realized that he already has too much on his plate.
Kind of reminds me of how common some of the people on this blog are we I read these comments. You folks just can’t take a step back and see things from both sides. If you are left of center, then you probably don’t feel the censorship from Google and FB.
Of course it’s the price. The point is, that if Twitter was about to eat Facebook (market cap $350 billion) and Google’s (market cap $1.2 trillion) lunch’s, then he wouldn’t be flailing to get out of paying $50 billion for Twitter.
Also, your commentary here that Musk “feels that Twitter has misrepresented the number of bots” demonstrates that you’re far from the rigorous and fair minded analyst that you think you are. Only Musk fanboys believe that Musk is trying to get out of buying Twitter because of a bot problem that he publicly complained about prior to offering to buy twitter. The market went down, Musk regretted the contract he signed, and everything after that is in service of escaping the contract.
Ben, I can tell you know nothing about business.
Twitter may eat into those market caps but that doesn’t mean Musk wants to overpay for it. Plus, it is also clear that at the same time Musk didn’t have as much money as he did before.
“ If you are left of center, then you probably don’t feel the censorship from Google and FB.”
Whining neo-n a z i’s please e f f off and die.
Q.E.D.
Particularly what gets me too is when I do searches and become convinced that Google has buried some of the search results.
I also get quite angered when a comment I make on FB is flagged by the censors and I receive a threat of my account being removed when the comment is mild and just expresses a right of center view on something like crime. Or when I can’t even cite to a podcaster in the UK regarding Covid even though he is a well respected health professional and cites to nothing but facts and papers published in respected journals.
It is well established (for anyone who really wants an objective view) that most all of the (established) Big Tech (and Main Stream Media for that matter) engage in all kinds of view-point discrimination at levels well below those noted by Wt (including shadow banning and “lowering” of coverage.
Sure, one can hunt and find “right of center” viewpoints, but the ‘thumb on the scale’ of public discourse is just NOT deniable.
There is no credibility in those pushing a different narrative.
I know anon. It is funny how the people on this blog make the same sort of arguments about censorship as they do with patents where they deny well-known facts and seem unable to rise above their petty goals. Very telling.
All anyone of them would have to do is watch a few episodes of any the podcasts from people that are right of center.
And then WT lists what FB says they do rather than what others have experienced.
Actually, I am pretty convinced and have seen some articles about it too that Google buries search results of stories that incriminate the left. And even much more subtle things like papers that refute the left’s vision are not easy to find. I know I’ve read others with specific examples of how the search results are altered to make results that refute the left’s position be like result 10,000.
FB is draconian if your views aren’t left wing.
Oh please. Try to accurately characterize what FB is or isn’t doing. I’m no fan of FB. However, I am a fan of accurately characterizing the facts.
I can guarantee you that if you go onto FB right now that you’ll find hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of groups whose views would be considered right wing. Being right wing doesn’t necessarily get one censored on FB.
This are the types of things that Facebook censors:
VIOLENCE AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
Violence and Incitement
Dangerous Individuals and Organizations
Coordinating Harm and Promoting Crime
Restricted Goods and Services
Fraud and Deception
SAFETY
Suicide and Self-Injury
Child Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Nudity
Adult Sexual Exploitation
Bullying and Harassment
Human Exploitation
Privacy Violations
OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT
Hate Speech
Violent and Graphic Content
Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity
Sexual Solicitation
Frankly, I’m OK with a private company making an editorial decision to censor things of those nature.
My guess is that both Alphabet and FB are going to loose to a site or sites that do what Musk was talking about regarding having a public algorithm that censors.
My guess is that you (and Musk) are wrong. Most people are very happy with the kind of censorship described above. FB is popular because of the critical mass of people who are on there. No fun being on a social media site when only 2 out of your 20 friends are on there. Facebook works because 15 of your 20 friends are on there. Regardless, what Musk was proposing is to make Twitter’s algorithms public — like that will do anything. My guess is that .01% of the population wouldn’t know what to do with the algorithms, and the people capable of understanding it wouldn’t necessarily be good actors.
The ill will that Alphabet and FB have engendered is for some reason not reported. But it is huge.
The ill will is because individuals on both side of the aisle have criticized Google and FB.
I wouldn’t worry too much about FB financials. In 2021, they had revenue of $117.9B and earnings of $39.7B. Those are ungodly huge numbers that dwarf that of Tesla ($5.5B earnings on $53.8B revenue).
Wandering, the facts I said are correct. I get edited and threatened by FB for some of my posts that are merely conservative comments. Additionally, when I cite bloggers that cite nothing but facts about Covid are also flagged.
I guess I am not sure of what people you communicate with but the ones I communicate with are constantly being censored. Plus, many conservative or non-mainstream bloggers are censored by Google and FB.
Plus, there are lots of reasons to think that Google modifies searches to remove content that is pro-conservative points of view.
Anyway, not going to spend a lot of time on this. You can do your own research. Just read what some of the main independents have to say.
Musk dodging buying Twitter had more to do with the price than the business model.
We’ll see what happens. My guess is that both FB and Google will lose huge numbers of users if a good competitor with a neutral algorithm is used to censor.
Your post, frankly, Wandering, seems completely out of touch with a large group that use the internet and are very frustrated with being censored. I can’t even link to a major health blogger in the UK without being flagged by FB. And many people no longer trust Google searches.
You sound like you are left of center and thus happy to have the finger on your side of the scale. But people that are right of center (or really haven’t moved as the most of the country has moved to socialism) do not feel the way you do. And all it takes is a few encounters with the censors to become embittered or just a search or two on Google where you are fairly certain that some search results are being suppressed because they support right of center views.
Anyway, somehow I am sure you are going to contest —ridiculously—all that I have said rather than going out there and watching some youtube videos from right of center podcasters that will support my views. But my views come from first hand interaction with Google and FB.
From the span of the likes of Joe Rogan to Congressmen, the “heavy thumb” on the scales of public discourse — read that as view point discrimination by Big Tech — is a well-documented fact.
The pattern is what is interesting the way our fellow bloggers deny reality and trout out their typical arguments of reciting policy, diminishing the harm, denying reality, and do forth. Just amazing the pattern is the same as with patents.
The issue isn’t the fact that they have view point discrimination. The issue is that they deny their view point discrimination. If they were truly transparent, they would acknowledge their view point discrimination and so consumers armed with this fact would chose to (or not) be on their platforms.
Wait, so consumers can only make a choice if the seller admits its flaws? I do not think that is true. If Kroger tells me that it has “the highest quality at the lowest price,” but I find higher quality tangerines at a lower price at Schnucks, I am here to tell you that I buy my tangerines from Schnucks, even if Kroger never admits the point. If consumers dislike the moderation policies that they observe, they are free to go elsewhere, even if the site never admits bias.
So blah — the Section 230 implications are quite in play (never mind how hard Greg clenches tight his eyes).
I get edited and threatened by FB for some of my posts that are merely conservative comments.
Give me an example of a “merely conservative comment” that gets you edited or threatened by FB.
I guess I am not sure of what people you communicate with but the ones I communicate with are constantly being censored.
That explains a lot. And not in a good way. I have little doubt that FB and Google and Twitter and whomever all know that 40%-ish of their user base would be considered “conservative.” I highly doubt that they are going to alienate that great of a percentage of their user base for censoring merely basic “conservative” comments.
many conservative or non-mainstream bloggers are censored by Google and FB
In case you haven’t noticed, glorifying/calling for violence will get one censored. My guess is that the vast majority of those censored were censored for that very reason.
We’ll see what happens. My guess is that both FB and Google will lose huge numbers of users if a good competitor with a neutral algorithm is used to censor.
You mean like Truth Social? Who has already been accused of censoring liberal voices? FB has been accused of censorship for how long now? Its been years and years and years. Again, people go where their friends go — this is why FB is popular. They reached critical mass and for someone to leave FB means leaving most of their friends behind as well as a great number of other technologies that FB has that their competitors don’t have (in large part because FB is a strong believer in efficient infringement and doesn’t hesitate to “acquire” technologies from other companies). Have you been on Truth Social and Gettr? I have. They are about as bare bones as it gets. They have a long, long ways to go before they even get close to being as feature-rich as FB. And in the end, politics is usually not a big part of most people’s lives so they are going to stay with the better product.
I can’t even link to a major health blogger in the UK without being flagged by FB.
Is flagging censorship? Regardless, is the identity of your “major health blogger in the UK” Andrew Tate? If not, name his name so I can do a little research as to why this person causes your posts to be flagged. We can then have a discussion as to whether that is justified or not.
And many people no longer trust Google searches.
What are you searching for on Google that you no longer trust them? My searches are like “good Thai restaurant near me” or “api method call.”
You sound like you are left of center and thus happy to have the finger on your side of the scale.
As I wrote earlier, “I am a fan of accurately characterizing the facts.” On occasion, I listen to right-wing radio, and I understand why people on the right hate liberals. The hosts demonize anything and everything done by anyone left of the far right. Even normal Republicans like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney get called RINOs these days.
rather than going out there and watching some youtube videos from right of center podcasters that will support my views
I’m sorry you’ve gone down that path. I wouldn’t watch youtube videos from right of center podcasters if you paid me (a lot) to do so. I would say exactly the same about left of center podcasters as well. If that is where you get your news, you are in sorry, sorry shape.
I came across a nice quote some time ago. Unfortunately, I cannot remember it word-for-word. It goes something like this:
If the person who is reading you the news is upset, you aren’t getting the news, you are getting propaganda.
I avoid listening to “opinion” pieces as much as possible. Opinion pieces these days are little more than propaganda for one side or another.
WT, that is just rambling nonsense.
Example:
>>In case you haven’t noticed, glorifying/calling for violence will get one censored.
No. Try doing a little research. It doesn’t take much to get censored and I did give you example of quoting to or linking to one of the most popular health blogger in the UK.
The rest of what you wrote is just sad.
I did give you example of quoting to or linking to one of the most popular health blogger in the UK.
I asked you for the name. Who is it? The devil is in the details, and without the details, you’ve given me very little.
>You mean like Truth Social?
No. That does not have a neutral algorithm and has an obvious bias.
You sound like you been watching MSNBC too much.
You sound like you been watching MSNBC too much.
I probably watch 1 minute of MSNBC per month … only if I’m channel surfing and it happens to pass by as I’m surfing. Considering how little TV I watch, 1 minute per month is probably a generous estimate.
>>If the person who is reading you the news is upset, you aren’t getting the news, you are getting propaganda.
Gee, Walter Cronkite would get upset and so would Barbara Walters.
Walter Cronkite very, very infrequently showed emotion. Barbara Walters was news anchor for a few years in the 70s. Honestly, I don’t remember her at all as some reading the news.
Now compare them to Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. Oh wait, they aren’t really newsman. This is from a 2020 judge’s ruling in a slander suit against Tucker:
She wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”
and
The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “
BTW. The judge was a Trump appointee. But go ahead and believe all that you hear from these conservative pod casters. A font of knowledge they must be.
“Walter Cronkite very, very infrequently showed emotion. Barbara Walters was news anchor for a few years in the 70s. Honestly, I don’t remember her at all as some reading the news.”
Yeah there was a really good program on youtube made by a documentary person showing the difference between what the news was back in the day and what it is now, and explains why that was in some detail. IIrc, it all boiled down to the overall ecosystem that it was made in, and it having to basically be a near charity of the networks back when due to various rules etc. And obviously I would add to that the obvious that various ideologies were less allowed into the space, and gatekept out so that they couldn’t turn the whole thing into a gigantic propaganda machine as it is now (on “both” sides btw).
Wt, your comments (so little tv, and apparent disdain for podcasts) make me curious as to where you DO get your news.
Still no answer….
Seeing as on another thread you would rather believe heresay about Joe Rogan and Dr. Lindsay (instead of actually listening and being informed), your reticence does not look good for you.
“Even normal Republicans like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney get called RINOs these days.”
That’s because they literally are.
“If the person who is reading you the news is upset, you aren’t getting the news, you are getting propaganda.”
That’s actually fairly true that what you mention is one among many good hallmarks to ID propaganda, or at least propagandistic effect. Tho obviously it is happening on both sides quite a lot and there are still a whole lot of people in denial about “their side” not pouring it forth in gigantic streams.
That’s because they literally are.
LOL. My guess is that 95%+ of the policy they believe in would easily be considered “rightwing” positions. They are called RINOs because they haven’t pledged fealty to DJT.
The Republican Party I grew up (in the Reagan era) was pro-democracy and anti-dictators. Today, much of the rightwing ecosphere is Russia-apologists and have man-crushes on authoritarians such as Putin, Kim, Bolsonaro, and Orbán. The old Republican Party were globalists that were pro-business. Today’s Republican Party wants to slap tariffs on everything and wants the US to pull away from its leadership role in the world. Today’s Republican Party punishes corporations for speaking their mind (unless it is pro-Republican, which is OK). The policy position of today’s Republican Party could best be described as “own the libs.”
Tho obviously it is happening on both sides quite a lot and there are still a whole lot of people in denial about “their side” not pouring it forth in gigantic streams.
Of course it is happening on both sides, which is why I don’t watch the likes of MSNBC. I’m for facts — not propaganda. However, there is a difference between the two sides. One side is trying really, really hard to delegitimize our entire form of government and demonize the other side. Our external enemies love the approach of “own the libs.” There is the old line from one of Aesop’s fables of “united we stand, divided we fall” that applies here. Our external enemies know that the United States is weakened when we fight amongst ourselves.
You appear to NOT think that the Libs have an equal disdain for their opponents.
Ever hear of OMB-TDS?
Liz and Mitt like war, illegal immigration, and hate blue collar workers. They also like big government.
Wt.’s comment comes across as a bit disingenuous:
“wouldn’t watch youtube videos from right of center podcasters if you paid me (a lot) to do so. I would say exactly the same about left of center podcasters as well.”
How about balanced center (like Breaking Points with Crystal and Saager), or (traditional) Center-Left (like Joe Rogan and Dr. James Lindsay)…?
What you “appear” to ask for has already been provided.
And please do not indulge in the Sprint Left nonsense to 1984 what a Centrist means.
… and of course, no answer here either…
“ The ill will that Alphabet and FB have engendered is for some reason not reported. ”
LOL what planet are you on, you fantastically self-deluded whining crybaby?
The bias of Main Stream Media is well known, and in context here, THAT is the focal point.
But you be you, Malcolm.
“ Frankly, I’m OK with a private company making an editorial decision to censor things of those nature.”
Yes but you’re a normal person who hasn’t been freebasing Faux News and Internet scum sites like grampa googoo brains here.
The legal point (plainly left out here) is at what point do such media companies fall into the Public Square doctrine.
For example, Meta has admitted that they acted under direct orders of the D administration.
Certainly, “private” is different than “government,” and just as certainly, there is more than merely “private” at play here.
The legal point (plainly left out here) is at what point do such media companies fall into the Public Square doctrine.
The Public Forum Doctrine? You mean that fantasy concocted by Alito and Thomas that goes against decades and decades of Supreme Court 1st Amendment law?
For example, Meta has admitted that they acted under direct orders of the D administration.
Oh please — they do not. Post a link if you dare.
See:
link to open.spotify.com
As to Public Square, I have taken the liberty of coining the term based on Town Square and Public Forum.
And you don’t know 1A law (at all) if you think that such would a something made up by Alito and Thomas).
Funny, Wt thinks of a false bravado, and I give him what he claims does not exist.
And he promptly disappears.
“This are the types of things that Facebook censors:”
Lelz, he thinks that’s an even near complete list. WT, bruh, sorry not sorry but they will censor people that are not in line with the leftist paradigm. Several “right wing” etc. people were banned just this last month for wrong think about just routine facts and also sometimes how they personally find it is in their best interests, or in the interests of others to sometimes deal therewith.
Several “right wing” etc. people were banned just this last month for wrong think about just routine facts and also sometimes how they personally find it is in their best interests, or in the interests of others to sometimes deal therewith.
Name names and provides facts. As I stated above, I have no love for FB and would be happy to see it burn to the ground. However, I want my animosity to be born of facts — not mere accusations.
I have no love for FB and would be happy to see it burn to the ground.
Although I have never been on FB, I share your distaste for it. It seems to be an engine for unhappiness and falsehood. The good news is that it is sinking fast. Apple’s changes to its iOS are strangling FB of revenue. FB’s time in the sun appears to be coming to an end.
Wt – check out some of the Congressional interviews and the retreat from shadow banning that occurred when Musk kicked the hornet nest of Twitter.
Comments are closed.