Just say No!

[dblack]

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?

Minimize government to the point that there's little to be gained by controlling it.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Scuze moi, but anarchy is not the answer. The role of government is to protect people from those who abuse their power, whether it's physical or economic. A company with Monopoly Type Powers is able to abuse customers and engage in anti-competitive behavior to the detriment of our society. And spare me the "it's not the government's role to choose winners and losers". By enabling Monopoly Powers due to inaction, the government is choosing a Winner Take All approach.

 

[eflatminor]

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;

Which has nothing to do with a business that "de facto controls the government".

Thanks for playing though.

 

[dblack]

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.

It's the very same argument. Republicans and Democrats both get to wear the hypocrite hat on this one.

 

[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.

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

 

[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?

Minimize government to the point that there's little to be gained by controlling it.

I favor that, but good luck with that when the Monopoly Powers that benefit from the current construct are already in place.

 

[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.

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

My side is the people. I have no side in government.

 

[BluesLegend]

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........

And now Dem's are attempting to use high school students for political propaganda, pretty similar to the Hitler youth of the Nazi party.

 

[boedicca]

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;

Which has nothing to do with a business that "de facto controls the government".

Thanks for playing though.

Actually, it does. When a private platform controls a dominant part of the media and engages in censorship, it has enormous control over our government.

 

[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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

It's the very same argument. Republicans and Democrats both get to wear the hypocrite hat on this one.

Incorrect.

 

[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.

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

My side is the people. I have no side in government.

You may not be interested in the government, but the government is certainly interested in you.

And FB and Google keep them highly informed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

 

[dblack]

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.

Scuze moi, but anarchy is not the answer. The role of government is to protect people from those who abuse their power, whether it's physical or economic. A company with Monopoly Type Powers is able to abuse customers and engage in anti-competitive behavior to the detriment of our society. And spare me the "it's not the government's role to choose winners and losers". By enabling Monopoly Powers due to inaction, the government is choosing a Winner Take All approach.

Yeah, yeah... I didn't say anything about anarchy, so stow the strawman.

It's funny that we can't seem to learn from history, but we went through this same thing with religion. Frustrated by the influence of religion on its people, government sought to control it. But over time, the arrangement blurred - it was hard to tell who was controlling who.

That's where we're at now regarding business colluding with government. With religion, we finally figured out that the only way to keep religion out of government was to keep government out of religion. We have such short memories.

 

[dblack]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

What is the "meat of the issue" if not the distinction between private and public?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Google and FB are left wing.
Left Wingers are against freedom of speech.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

What is the "meat of the issue" if not the distinction between private and public?

I've described it.

Any business which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC must adhere to public accommodation laws. You want to
tell Muslims to stay out....become a members-only business. Simple.

Now.....don't come at me with the same lame argument. It is boring.

 

[dblack]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

What is the "meat of the issue" if not the distinction between private and public?

I've described it.

Any business which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC must adhere to public accommodation laws. You want to
tell Muslims to stay out....become a members-only business. Simple.

Now.....don't come at me with the same lame argument. It is boring.

I know, it must be frustrating.

 

[eflatminor]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

Ironic. The meat of the issue is that business operate because people make voluntary decisions to engage in trade, not because central planners pick and choose winners and losers in exchange for political support.

True, that is to be expected.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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...

If you serve the public...you are a public company for the purposes of this discussion.

Try thinking about how difficult running a business would be without laws, law enforcement, infrastructure and other publicly
funded necessities having to do with health and education.

Businesses only exist because the community affords them the opportunity.

Nope, still private property, still a private business. Public is owned by government. Nice try, but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your world view.

You are playing with words to avoid the meat of the issue. That's to be expected.

Ironic. The meat of the issue is that business operate because people make voluntary decisions to engage in trade, not because central planners pick and choose winners and losers in exchange for political support.

True, that is to be expected.

You didn't spend much time thinking there, did ya?