Liberal Big Tech is a Boot Stamping on Face of Diamond and Silk For EVER

[JGalt]

We've already been through this with the bakery that refused to do business with the gay couple. The courts ruled in favor of the couple and the business was sued.

Now you tell me: Why should anyone be forced to business with people that they don’t want to

A ruling I throughly disagreed with. Nobody should be forced to do business with someone that they don’t want to.

Wow. I see a whole bunch of Amendments that could be struck from the Constitution there.

For instance?

The 1st, 5th, 14th, 21st, to start with. Might as well undo the Civil Rights Act of 1968 while we're at it.

I would be more than fine with rolling back the public accommodation laws found in the Civil Rights Act. Same goes for state PA laws.

Got a ticket for parking in a handicap parking spot once?

I'd just be happy to get rid of all those signs in both English and Spanish.

 

[jillian]

Zuck isn't in charge of YouTube..

Of course he's not. But they were banned from both of them.

Why do you think people have unlimited right to privately owned platforms?

Want to talk about what IS illegal? Donald blocking people on Twitter if his thin-skinned self gets butthurt. Why? Because it’s the moron’s principal way of communicating and the president can’t exclude the public.

Perhaps you should train your whining on that

 

[Dale Smith]

Zuck isn't in charge of YouTube..

Of course he's not. But they were banned from both of them.

Why do you think people have unlimited right to privately owned platforms?

Want to talk about what IS illegal? Donald blocking people on Twitter if his thin-skinned self gets butthurt. Why? Because it’s the moron’s principal way of communicating and the president can’t exclude the public.

Perhaps you should train your whining on that

People are not banned from Twitter page if banned on Trump's page, ya stupid bitch. You had to of been dropped on your head numerous times as a child because NO one can be THAT fucking stupid "naturally". NO one is forced to view Diamond and Silk's page and there wasn't a fucking thing offensive or "unsafe" about their page except to butthurt, snowflake pussies that only want THEIR viewpoint in the public arena.

Seriously, those of your ilk are disgusting parasites and make me embarrassed to be on the same continent as your kind.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Facebook isn’t a utility. If you don’t like what their doing, log off and never return.

FB is effectively a utility now, just like telephones became considered a utility.

No, it isn’t.

It’s amazing to see so many people feel they have a right to a free service. You don’t.

Yes it is.

Try to follow my argument here, dude.

When telephones first came out they were not a necessity and Ma Bells monopoly on the service was not an issue.


But over the decades, people came to rely on the telephone service. People saw their families move further apart, and staying in touch with them required a telphone. Emergency services evolved in such a way that it required people to have a telephone. Businesses offered services that required a telephone, etc, etc.

Soon Ma Bells 'free service' was a necessity for modern life and the monopoly gave Ma Bell an inordinate amount of power over peoples lives.

The realization of that monopolistic power was what prompted the idea that Ma Bell had to be broken up.

The same has happened with Face Book.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Internet isn’t a utility, but watching fainting goats on YouTube and sharing recipes on Facebook is, though.

The internet has become a utility for modern life, it sure has.

When I was applying for jobs, EVERY ONE OF THEM had me apply online.

The internet has become a utility.

Get with the times, bro.

 

[Mac1958]

The complete silence of the liberal establishment on how FB is stifling Diamond and Silk and justifying by asserting that they are a danger to the community tells us many things.

Jim, I've been saying this all along: The Regressive Left is using the culture to get what it wants, and it's going to work. Facebook and YouTube and the rest are merely the latest examples.

They're in the process of essentially strangling the life out of opposing opinion. They're doing it right now, and they're using legal means to do so.

They're authoritarians. That's what authoritarians do - they work within the system to take over the system.
.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I just found the Diamond and Silk facebook page it looks like it's active. They are getting thousands of positive comments not many negative that I saw.

Zuckerburg ordered them back online. He knows congress will slap regulations on them faster than regulations put on a mom and pop bakery for doing the same social discrimination.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You have no more a right to post on Facebook then I have a right to a cake for my homo wedding. People only seem to care about discrimatory business practices when it might affect them. It’s bullshit.

That's how it should be, but the bakers lost their business. What is good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander. It doesn't seem to be.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You have no more a right to post on Facebook then I have a right to a cake for my homo wedding. People only seem to care about discrimatory business practices when it might affect them. It’s bullshit.

That's how it should be, but the bakers lost their business. What is good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander. It doesn't seem to be.

No it is not an even handed application of the law.

What is evil for conservatives to do is AOK for libs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Facebook isn’t a utility. If you don’t like what their doing, log off and never return. If enough people do so they’ll change their ways. You don’t need to go running to govervemt when a free market solution already exists.

The Facebook is the digital version of the public square. If you can't speak there, there is no chance you can be heard. AGW is not settled science, but it appears you can't voice an opinion against it there. Even Flat Earthers should have a public forum in their attempt to convince the public otherwise.

The Leftist Authoritarians are wanting to prevent that. Just look at the colleges and universities banning speech. Good grief people. Fight this shit.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No it is not an even handed application of the law.

What is evil for conservatives to do is AOK for libs

I think we need to tone down our complaints against liberals. True liberals are against the Left's effort to stifle free speech. This war on speech is solely put on Leftist Authoritarians. It looks like liberal's doing this, but that's because a few moron liberals are being duped by the Leftists since they share a few opinions on social issues. These useful idiot liberals will be first on the chopping blocks when the Left takes control.

 

[mdk]

Yes it is.

Try to follow my argument here, dude.

When telephones first came out they were not a necessity and Ma Bells monopoly on the service was not an issue.


But over the decades, people came to rely on the telephone service. People saw their families move further apart, and staying in touch with them required a telphone. Emergency services evolved in such a way that it required people to have a telephone. Businesses offered services that required a telephone, etc, etc.

Soon Ma Bells 'free service' was a necessity for modern life and the monopoly gave Ma Bell an inordinate amount of power over peoples lives.

The realization of that monopolistic power was what prompted the idea that Ma Bell had to be broken up.

The same has happened with Face Book.

It's not that I don't follow your argument, Jim. I get it. I just reject it.

 

[mdk]

The Internet isn’t a utility, but watching fainting goats on YouTube and sharing recipes on Facebook is, though.

The internet has become a utility for modern life, it sure has.

When I was applying for jobs, EVERY ONE OF THEM had me apply online.

The internet has become a utility.

Get with the times, bro.

I was joking, Jim. I fully believe that an internet connection should be classified as a utility. Message boards, chats sites, and, social media platform that are on the internet should not be considered as a utility or right, though.

 

[mdk]

The previous President wanted to make a connection to the internet as an utility, but it was met with great resistance by many Republicans, most conservatives, and, quite a few others as a goverment take over of the internet and regulatory overreach. When the previous FCC made it into an utility in 2015, it was met with lawsuits that the FCC won, but those rules were recently scrapped in December by the new FCC led by Ajit Pai.

Obama's FCC’s Internet Takeover Would Reduce Internet to a Public Utility

FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling

Restoring Internet Freedom

FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules

 

[mdk]

You have no more a right to post on Facebook then I have a right to a cake for my homo wedding. People only seem to care about discrimatory business practices when it might affect them. It’s bullshit.

That's how it should be, but the bakers lost their business. What is good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander. It doesn't seem to be.

If you think bakers should be allowed to turn away gay people seeking a wedding cake, but support forcing social media platforms to host people they don't want to, then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

 

[Mac1958]

You have no more a right to post on Facebook then I have a right to a cake for my homo wedding. People only seem to care about discrimatory business practices when it might affect them. It’s bullshit.

That's how it should be, but the bakers lost their business. What is good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander. It doesn't seem to be.

If you think bakers should be allowed to turn away gay people seeking a wedding cake, but support forcing social media platforms to host people they don't want to, then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

We just can't seem to grasp the notion that "freedom" means we need to be able to put up with shit we don't like now and then.
.

 

[mdk]

We just can't seem to get past the notion that "freedom" means we need to be able to put up with shit we don't like now and then.

I think it is foolish for social media platforms to limit access based on peoples' perfectly legal views, but it is not my business. If these practices are seen as unfair or heavy-handed then they will lose members and their markets shares to their competitors.

 

[Mac1958]

We just can't seem to get past the notion that "freedom" means we need to be able to put up with shit we don't like now and then.

I think it is foolish for social media platforms to limit access based on peoples' perfectly legal views, but it is not my business. If these practices are seen as unfair or heavy-handed then they will lose members and their markets shares to their competitors.

This is all just a reflection of our culture, in my view.

The Right has spent the last couple of decades screaming DITTOS and FREEDOM, while the Left has calmly and patiently taken hold of the culture, pretty much across the board. This appears to be a done deal.
.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

e seeking a wedding cake, but support forcing social media platforms to host people they don't want to, then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple

No. I believe in equal application. The Left supports fining the bakers for denying gays wedding cakes but applauds Facebook refusing conservatives equal access to their forum. Until,that is rectified I feel justified in my criticism.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Right has spent the last couple of decades screaming DITTOS and FREEDOM, while the Left has calmly and patiently taken hold of the culture, pretty much across the board. This appears to be a done deal.
.

This is going to end in a bloody war and I welcome it.