Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures
Facebook finally did something right.
It is Facebook right as a private company...
It is Facebook right as a private company...
Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.
Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
It is Facebook right as a private company...
Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.
What do they have a monopoly on???
The difference is that we give the government a monopoly on FORCE. Civilian companies do not have the power of force behind them. That is a MASSIVE difference - one you are completely and utterly FREE to reject, the other will jail or kill you for doing so.It is Facebook right as a private company...
Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.
What do they have a monopoly on???
At this point, they know too much.. It's a knowledge monopoly.. They have the most comprehensive map of social connections ever obtained for such a huge group of people.. Which makes them INVALUABLE to corporate, political parties and other "data-miners".. In a sense, Zuckerberg is in the INTEL business.
Bear with me, I know you're a true Civil Libertarian and care about these things.
That Big Brother NSA Spy machine which was was recently hijacked as a political weapon, requires a lot of clearances and approvals to use.. That's why the FISCourt exists even tho they likely more of a rubber stamp than any safeguard... The purpose and fabric of this Patriot Act 702 system was to catch Jihadis operating in the US by MAPPING ALL OF THEIR "social network" and contacts and transactions...
They may be far ahead but that does not preclude competition from taking them out.Between Facebook and their other 3rd party data-miners, they are the PRIVATE sector equivalent of that Big Brother spy machine.. And all you need is to pony up to Zuckerberg some bucks to join in on ENRICHING the knowledge in that database. Facebook is barely a business in terms of profit or monetization, so the monopoly thing aint a financial one -- but it is nonetheless just as insidious and dangerous...
They'll NEVER go away.. Not even if their bottom line doesn't improve... There are too many powerful corporate interests, political allies and 3rd party hangers-on to keep them healthy and kicking.. They are an Intel collection agency and the members of facebook are their meat and potatoes...
In that sense -- they are an information monopoly already.. FAR ahead of any upstarts without the access to the 2 Billion users that they've enrolled...
Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
Why would he do that? He is on the cusp of making Facebook and Twitter the next Ma Bell. Not to mention the massive power that would convey to him. Forget about Russia interference - you have not seen anything yet.I wish Zuckerburg had the balls to just close up shop.
Nor do I. MOST people on this board, OTOH, do. The left wants them banning the right and the right wants the government to control the private platforms.Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others. The left seeks to silence those who express alternative views.
I can never find anything that I agree with you on candy. CLEARLY we are way past the point where a GED is even a possibility.Social Media is to become a Public Utility.'
BLESS.
So the govt will regulate this board?
Hey, buffoon candycorn
We are talking about Silicon Valley. Pay attention.
This is social media…. Perhaps you didn’t finish 3rd grade. You can still get your GED
He is a minority.You cant be THE social media platform when you are ostracizing massive numbers of people.
'massive numbers of people'Cult45 is a minority at best.
The difference is that we give the government a monopoly on FORCE. Civilian companies do not have the power of force behind them. That is a MASSIVE difference - one you are completely and utterly FREE to reject, the other will jail or kill you for doing so.
They may be far ahead but that does not preclude competition from taking them out.
The exact same sentiment could have been said about Myspace before Facebook.
Nor do I. MOST people on this board, OTOH, do. The left wants them banning the right and the right wants the government to control the private platforms.Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others. The left seeks to silence those who express alternative views.
Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.It is Facebook right as a private company...
Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.
What do they have a monopoly on???
Funny thing is, is that your alternative views were once mainstream views for most American's or at least until these platforms allowed the gathering together of evil minds to then use such platforms in order to change what was once normal views, now into what is deemed by the controllers/owners of this change into radical views. Messed up situation that's for sure.Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others. The left seeks to silence those who express alternative views.
Agree... Shared, and either agreed upon or not.Nor do I. MOST people on this board, OTOH, do. The left wants them banning the right and the right wants the government to control the private platforms.Incorrect. Facebook may not be government but the word ban is not exclusive to government functions - only the legality of it. FB is certainly and actively banning speech on their platform - a legal action by a private entity.It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.
When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.
Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.
If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.
They should also be eviscerated for it by the public but it is doubtful there are enough people that are awake enough to be aware of how dangerous this really is to even make a blip on the radar. The right is just using this as an easy excuse to support massive government control. The left already openly embraces massive government control so they support things like this from the get go. The paltry few percent that actually care are not enough to put into motion what REALLY needs to be done - alternative market solutions.
I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others. The left seeks to silence those who express alternative views.
Can they really be called "platforms"?
For better or worse, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern equivalent of the proverbial town square. They probably SHOULD be regulated in order that all ideas, especially unpopular ideas, can be shared.
Undoubtedly they have a monopoly in their views on content policing, where as there is no opposition strong enough to present an opposing view in good faith any longer, without it being squashed by the ideological views of those who are driving the bus now.It is Facebook right as a private company...
Legally speaking, they are a "platform", which gives them some legal advantages. In reality, they are a publisher who advocate for and against various ideological positions. They are also a monopoly.
What do they have a monopoly on???
The only answer though, is for there to be competition added to the empty space that exist, and that would be filled quickly by millions of conservative's needing a place to land again.
It may be time to separate for competitive reasons, the ideologies, cultures, and characters by allowing true freedom of choice in America again, and let the best group's win the prize's just as it should be.... We shouldn't be allowing any group to hold another group back or hostage, otherwise by way of using the manipulation of government power, private power, and highjacked platforms to do so.. Especially without any way out for those being trapped into it all, for example like a bunch of fish swimming into the nets unexpectedly after it's to late.
This is proof that monopolies are bad for the American people, and they should always be broken up once they get to big.
I don't want to control social media. I just want the opportunity to share my views and to hear the views of others.
