Comments by "J Smith" (@jsmithmultimediatech) on "Trump signs controversial executive order targeting Twitter, Facebook and Google" video.

@jamieh5643 Yeah yeah like this is excellent grammar "Jeremy Smith Haha, what? That needs an edit, mate. " sawdust for brains I'll expect :) Hint it should be a comma after what, not a question mark brain dead dickhead and no I am not your mate :) "Yes it does! I was referring to the incoherent rambling mess you originally posted." Not even going to mention your usage of an exclamation mark in the wrong place as well as others
3
@sambottomley4755 Load of meaningless incoherent rambling there, utterly priceless pmsl
3
Cant do that annoyingly something that was originally called FISA was tested during a foreign to the US intelligence operation which became essentially domestic auto signs in effect anything to do with their work into law automatically yeah its that bad
2
@gregoryashton No it doesnt is completely factual what I said, how do you suppose the mass surveillance got agreed to, was done under the noses of every person lol
2
@gregoryashton FISA or more as a result of... defined as: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism" as a result rather of will mean any bill that goes for intelligence gathering is automatically enacted Think about it had it gone through the normal procedures as any bill there'd be an outrage lol
2
@Jason-mv4go Same happened within the US https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/tweet_deportation/ again freedom of speech or not so much pmsl
2
Maybe wanker should learn how to construct something vaguely resembling a sentence before criticising others pmsl
2
There's an example of what I have said (but think my comment got deleted lol), no channels able to show anything to do with hacking in any form, if one were to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and say they are going to teach some people how to hack so they can develop more secure computer systems, youtube's banned that, would have no rights to freedom of speech since it's a private company
1
Always makes me chuckle when some american babbles on about the 1st amendment, rather is really only to allow citizens to criticise the gov't, if privately funded (like Google, because they don't get funded by the taxpayer) doesnt have to abide by freedom of speech in most cases, if they dont like something they don't have to have it on their platform, same with all other social media platforms
1