Just say No!

[whitehall]

Democrats would have been laughed out of Washington years ago if the MSM wasn't the propaganda arm of the democrat party.

 

[eflatminor]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Except for Christian Bakers and Catholic Nuns. The State must force them to bake gay wedding cake and provide abortion coverage.

My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.

Sorry to disappoint, but the era of the internet frontier with opportunities for everyone is over. Want an example? Look at how GOOG removed the GAB app from it's platform. Big Internet has built a wall, and is using its massive size to crush any competition from forming. This is why we have Anti-Trust laws; it's time to enforce them.

I do not believe in anti-trust laws. I believe in keeping government the hell out of business. The market always responds to demand. On this point, you'll not sway my opinion. I've heard all the arguments.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Indeed. Just Say No and quit using FB altogether. It is turning out to be the Mother of All Nanny State message boards on steroids.

Facebook is a joke. I got rid of it years ago

 

[LoneLaugher]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Tell it to the bakery owners who refused to make the fag cake.

Again, my point exactly. A business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Go elsewhere if you don't like it.

Dumb argument.

Public companies only exist because they take advantage of protections afforded them by the laws of the community and the
infrastructure which is funded by the community.

A business can refuse to serve a dude because he isn't wearing shoes or because his hair is too long. But they can't
refuse a person due to race, gender, age, religion or disability...because the laws we make as a community, which enable the business to exist, protect people from discrimination.

Want to tell a negro he can't come into your store? Get the laws changed.

FB is telling a customer that they can't use their platform to LIE to people. This has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.

 

[boedicca]

Except for Christian Bakers and Catholic Nuns. The State must force them to bake gay wedding cake and provide abortion coverage.

My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.

Sorry to disappoint, but the era of the internet frontier with opportunities for everyone is over. Want an example? Look at how GOOG removed the GAB app from it's platform. Big Internet has built a wall, and is using its massive size to crush any competition from forming. This is why we have Anti-Trust laws; it's time to enforce them.

I do not believe in anti-trust laws. I believe in keeping government the hell out of business. The market always responds to demand. On this point, you'll not sway my opinion. I've heard all the arguments.

Yes, that sounds very utopian.

How does your philosophy handle a business being so big that if de facto controls the government?

 

[mdk]

Government meddling isn’t required. A free market solution already exists if you don’t like Facebook: Log off and never return.

 

[blastoff]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Tell it to the bakery owners who refused to make the fag cake.

Again, my point exactly. A business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Go elsewhere if you don't like it.

Oh, okay if you insist, moron.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Just Say No and quit using FB altogether. It is turning out to be the Mother of All Nanny State message boards on steroids.

Facebook is a joke. I got rid of it years ago

I signed up for a very short period of time for family purposes. I never posted anything - and quit when a long lost relative I preferred stay long lost, tried to friend me. Creepy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Indeed. Just Say No and quit using FB altogether. It is turning out to be the Mother of All Nanny State message boards on steroids.

Facebook is a joke. I got rid of it years ago

I signed up for a very short period of time for family purposes. I never posted anything - and quit when a long lost relative I preferred stay long lost, tried to friend me. Creepy.

We just text for family things, I don't like my business all over the internet anyway. Our oldest girls have asked about getting accounts....I'm still mulling it over. Pedos all over it bothers me also

 

[eflatminor]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Tell it to the bakery owners who refused to make the fag cake.

Again, my point exactly. A business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Go elsewhere if you don't like it.

Dumb argument.

Public companies only exist because they take advantage of protections afforded them by the laws of the community and the
infrastructure which is funded by the community.

A business can refuse to serve a dude because he isn't wearing shoes or because his hair is too long. But they can't
refuse a person due to race, gender, age, religion or disability...because the laws we make as a community, which enable the business to exist, protect people from discrimination.

Want to tell a negro he can't come into your store? Get the laws changed.

FB is telling a customer that they can't use their platform to LIE to people. This has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.

Not talking about "public" companies, but private ones. Private property is sacrosanct to a free society. Laws that give special favors to some citizens over others erode that freedom.

What's dumb is to think the laws you cited "enable the business to exist". Cuz for sure we all know businesses didn't exist before those laws...

 

[dblack]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Trumpsters don't understand the meaning of the word 'consistent'. Literally.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Just Say No and quit using FB altogether. It is turning out to be the Mother of All Nanny State message boards on steroids.

Facebook is a joke. I got rid of it years ago

I signed up for a very short period of time for family purposes. I never posted anything - and quit when a long lost relative I preferred stay long lost, tried to friend me. Creepy.

We just text for family things, I don't like my business all over the internet anyway. Our oldest girls have asked about getting accounts....I'm still mulling it over. Pedos all over it bothers me also

I would never allow a child of any age to be on FB. It causes mental illness.

 

[dblack]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Except for Christian Bakers and Catholic Nuns. The State must force them to bake gay wedding cake and provide abortion coverage.

No exceptions.

 

[eflatminor]

My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.

Sorry to disappoint, but the era of the internet frontier with opportunities for everyone is over. Want an example? Look at how GOOG removed the GAB app from it's platform. Big Internet has built a wall, and is using its massive size to crush any competition from forming. This is why we have Anti-Trust laws; it's time to enforce them.

I do not believe in anti-trust laws. I believe in keeping government the hell out of business. The market always responds to demand. On this point, you'll not sway my opinion. I've heard all the arguments.

Yes, that sounds very utopian.

How does your philosophy handle a business being so big that if de facto controls the government?

Then we'd have a government meddling outside of it's constitutionally granted powers, wouldn't we? That we can change, as we've proven in the past.

 

[dblack]

Facebook suspends data firm with Trump ties - CNNPolitics

Good for Facebook. American businesses have every right to refuse to participate in propaganda. Actual conservative have always understood this - even championed it. Trumpsters don't understand and don't care.

Other Censorship advocates: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il........

See, that's what I mean. Real conservatives understand that a media outlet editing its content is not censorship. You don't.

 

[boedicca]

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.

Sorry to disappoint, but the era of the internet frontier with opportunities for everyone is over. Want an example? Look at how GOOG removed the GAB app from it's platform. Big Internet has built a wall, and is using its massive size to crush any competition from forming. This is why we have Anti-Trust laws; it's time to enforce them.

I do not believe in anti-trust laws. I believe in keeping government the hell out of business. The market always responds to demand. On this point, you'll not sway my opinion. I've heard all the arguments.

Yes, that sounds very utopian.

How does your philosophy handle a business being so big that if de facto controls the government?

Then we'd have a government meddling outside of it's constitutionally granted powers, wouldn't we? That we can change, as we've proven in the past.

Actually, the Feds have exactly the power to regulate how a global business operates in the U.S.:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

[dblack]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Except for Christian Bakers and Catholic Nuns. The State must force them to bake gay wedding cake and provide abortion coverage.

My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

Well said, comrade!

 

[eflatminor]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Tell it to the bakery owners who refused to make the fag cake.

Again, my point exactly. A business should be able to refuse service for any reason. Go elsewhere if you don't like it.

Oh, okay if you insist, moron.

Golly, the leftist resorts to a logical fallacy. Color me shocked.

 

[dblack]

American businesses (should) have the right to refuse to participate in anything. No one is owed a service.

Let's be consistent, shall we?

Except for Christian Bakers and Catholic Nuns. The State must force them to bake gay wedding cake and provide abortion coverage.

My point exactly. A business is private property, whether it's open to the general public or not. As such, the owner of that property should be able to serve whomever they like or not. The market will respond to any demand. The SC got it wrong, IMO.

Agreed, but here is where you are mistaken. FB has such a dominant market position that there is no real competition. Companies in such situations are utility-like. When FB censors political points of view, it has a broad affect on our public discourse. No company should have that power.

I disagree. If people don't like FB's censorship, an alternative will arise to meet demand. No government meddling required.

It's not called government meddling if YOUR side is doing it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Facebook suspends data firm with Trump ties - CNNPolitics

Good for Facebook. American businesses have every right to refuse to participate in propaganda. Actual conservative have always understood this - even championed it. Trumpsters don't understand and don't care.

Other Censorship advocates: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il........

You'll not find anyone more against censorship that I am. However, you've listed governments that censored their subjects. Facebook is a business, not a government. Don't like it? Stay off Facebook.

You are still are an advocate for censorship