CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[frigidweirdo]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

I never thought of that. When no one was getting booted, it didn't matter that there was only one.

Well, that's not really true, is it? Facebook has a similar system. I use similar kinds of things on other platforms. I don't use Twitter.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

 

[Syriusly]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

You seem to be confused about 'freedom of speech'.

The problem is that I apply the principle consistently. Not tailored to suit the situation or victims involved.

Really- tell me how you apply that principle consistently- use actual examples.

The current example will do. PA laws violate free speech. You're ok with that because you think the ends justifies the means. I don't. In fact, the "means" leads to exactly the kind of idiocy we're seeing in this thread.

How do public accommodation laws violate free speech any more than laws against criminal conspiracy?

 

[Syriusly]

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

Just because you want to be able to use FB and Youtube without restriction- but want Infowars and Rush Limbaugh to be able to censor content- such is the ripe hyprocrisy of the Right.

 

[Syriusly]

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

I am looking forward to your proposing the same standard for Breitbart and Infowars......

 

[Syriusly]

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

I am glad to quote the First Amendment specifically

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it say that it is illegal for you- or me- to stifle free speech?

 

[koshergrl]

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

 

[Syriusly]

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

You mean like when a President of the United States stifles free speech by requiring Federal employees to sign NDA agreements- that specifically forbid speech by that employee forever?

See this actually may be a violation of the First Amendment. As it would be the government restricting the free speech of individuals.

 

[Syriusly]

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech,

So you agree that Trump is acting illegally by using his status and power to stifle free speech?

Conway: Trump White House requires nondisclosure agreements

Kellyanne Conway responded to claims from former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman that she was offered “hush money” by saying Sunday that everyone in the West Wing has signed nondisclosure agreements, which she described as a completely normal practice.

She said she was offered a job on the Trump campaign in exchange for signing a restrictive nondisclosure agreement that prevented her from criticizing Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or any of their family members or companies affiliated with their families.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

Thge difference between your web site and facebook is you, unlike facebook, aren't partnering with a NATO think tank to determine what posts are "fake" on your web site.

Facebook actually is. On facebook we have a four person, government funded NATO team, in the form of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) deciding what gets allowed and what does not. Aditionally, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

facebok, of course, is also a top donor to the Atlantic Council, alongside Western governments, Gulf autocratic regimes, NATO, various branches of the US military, and a number of major defense contractors and corporations.

See here - U.S. think tank's tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media


So, yeah. There's the difference. And a damned great reason we dont wanna hear one more word about this so-called Internet Bill of Rights. These are the people who'sd be penning such a thing. Tread lightly, all.

We already have a Bill of Rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

 

[koshergrl]

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

There are a lot of newspapers, and one publisher doesn't own the means by which they are delivered.

"Australia" = you acting dumb and pretending that it makes a difference.

The point is, FACEBOOK THREATENS PRESS and says that "it's our way or the highway"

Which is exactly what I'm saying. They own the public square, the have a monopoly.

And it's a worldwide monopoly.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

Thge difference between your web site and facebook is you, unlike facebook, aren't partnering with a NATO think tank to determine what posts are "fake" on your web site.

Facebook actually is. On facebook we have a four person, government funded NATO team, in the form of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) deciding what gets allowed and what does not. Aditionally, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

facebok, of course, is also a top donor to the Atlantic Council, alongside Western governments, Gulf autocratic regimes, NATO, various branches of the US military, and a number of major defense contractors and corporations.

See here - U.S. think tank's tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media


So, yeah. There's the difference. And a damned great reason we dont wanna hear one more word about this so-called Internet Bill of Rights. These are the people who'sd be penning such a thing. Tread lightly, all.

We already have a Bill of Rights.

I'm not familiar with the Internet Bill of Rights. The internet is an interesting place. I talk with people from overseas all the time on the webs and we all have different rights I suppose. Sounds global governance stuff at first thought or Corporatism.

I'm not sure if using the NATO think tank makes Facebook any different than this board or my site. Some of the stuff I do for work ties in with inventory for several corporations and Facebook on a rudimentary level so maybe I'm not impressed with getting IP's or names from a corporation or government and "xing them out".

Now the Facebook donations and size do impress me. If we can use big government to declare them a monopoly or large enough for government over site we can tell them what to allow. Fair to Mark Z? I dunno. I'm on the fence about that one if I didn't say earlier.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

There are a lot of newspapers, and one publisher doesn't own the means by which they are delivered.

"Australia" = you acting dumb and pretending that it makes a difference.

The point is, FACEBOOK THREATENS PRESS and says that "it's our way or the highway"

Don the Con threatens the press all the time.


….In my opinion the Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2018

 

[Syriusly]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

Thge difference between your web site and facebook is you, unlike facebook, aren't partnering with a NATO think tank to determine what posts are "fake" on your web site.

Facebook actually is. On facebook we have a four person, government funded NATO team, in the form of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) deciding what gets allowed and what does not. Aditionally, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFR Lab) is headed by a former National Security Council advisor for the last four years of the Obama administration, Graham Brookie, who is also its founder.

facebok, of course, is also a top donor to the Atlantic Council, alongside Western governments, Gulf autocratic regimes, NATO, various branches of the US military, and a number of major defense contractors and corporations.

See here - U.S. think tank's tiny lab helps Facebook battle fake social media


So, yeah. There's the difference. And a damned great reason we dont wanna hear one more word about this so-called Internet Bill of Rights. These are the people who'sd be penning such a thing. Tread lightly, all.

We already have a Bill of Rights.

I'm not familiar with the Internet Bill of Rights. The internet is an interesting place. I talk with people from overseas all the time on the webs and we all have different rights I suppose. Sounds global governance stuff at first thought or Corporatism.

I'm not sure if using the NATO think tank makes Facebook any different than this board or my site. Some of the stuff I do for work ties in with inventory for several corporations and Facebook on a rudimentary level so maybe I'm not impressed with getting IP's or names from a corporation or government and "xing them out".

Now the Facebook donations and size do impress me. If we can use big government to declare them a monopoly or large enough for government over site we can tell them what to allow. Fair to Mark Z? I dunno. I'm on the fence about that one if I didn't say earlier.

If the United States did pursue ant-trust against Facebook- which I am not entirely against- the government could break up FB like it did AT&T.

But it still couldn't tell Facebook what content Facebook must have- anymore than the government can tell Fox or CNN what content they must have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

There are a lot of newspapers, and one publisher doesn't own the means by which they are delivered.

"Australia" = you acting dumb and pretending that it makes a difference.

The point is, FACEBOOK THREATENS PRESS and says that "it's our way or the highway"

Which is exactly what I'm saying. They own the public square, the have a monopoly.

And it's a worldwide monopoly.

It is not the public square if you want it to be then you will have to pay taxes to support it
If you want it to be a public utility then you will have to pay to use it

Facebook does not have the power to put any newspaper out of business nor can it tell newspapers what to print. Just because one corporate lackey shoots his mouth off is in no way proof of your claims

If Facebook was a monopoly I would have no choice but to use it and guess what I don't use it at all and I don't have to neither does anyone else.

 

[koshergrl]

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

There are a lot of newspapers, and one publisher doesn't own the means by which they are delivered.

"Australia" = you acting dumb and pretending that it makes a difference.

The point is, FACEBOOK THREATENS PRESS and says that "it's our way or the highway"

Which is exactly what I'm saying. They own the public square, the have a monopoly.

And it's a worldwide monopoly.

It is not the public square if you want it to be then you will have to pay taxes to support it
If you want it to be a public utility then you will have to pay to use it

Facebook does not have the power to put any newspaper out of business nor can it tell newspapers what to print. Just because one corporate lackey shoots his mouth off is in no way proof of your claims

If Facebook was a monopoly I would have no choice but to use it and guess what I don't use it at all and I don't have to neither does anyone else.

A cororate lackey? Lolol.."Campbell Brown, Facebook's global head of news partnerships"

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

 

[dblack]

There is nothing like facebook. Facebook and youtube are the village square.

No they are not the village square they are private property

A private venue is still a private venue no natter if it is unique or not and why is it unique anyway?

There are millions of places on the web where you can express yourself in a forum that others can read.

You think FAcebook and Twitter are unique because of the number of people posting don't you?

We're right back to the part where you are not guaranteed an audience

Facebook threatens Press saying: 'Work with us or end up in a hospice'

Australia?

Last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply in Australia

And FYI newspapers are not public utilities either

There are a lot of newspapers, and one publisher doesn't own the means by which they are delivered.

"Australia" = you acting dumb and pretending that it makes a difference.

The point is, FACEBOOK THREATENS PRESS and says that "it's our way or the highway"

Which is exactly what I'm saying. They own the public square, the have a monopoly.

And it's a worldwide monopoly.

It is not the public square if you want it to be then you will have to pay taxes to support it
If you want it to be a public utility then you will have to pay to use it

Facebook does not have the power to put any newspaper out of business nor can it tell newspapers what to print. Just because one corporate lackey shoots his mouth off is in no way proof of your claims

If Facebook was a monopoly I would have no choice but to use it and guess what I don't use it at all and I don't have to neither does anyone else.

You're missing the point. Trumpsters want to socialize the media. You know, so the truth gets out there.

 

[dblack]

If the United States did pursue ant-trust against Facebook- which I am not entirely against- .

Of course you're not entirely against that. You're a liberal. Socialism is the goal. Trumpsters have no excuse.