No guns? No anthem, Female singer tells Reno minor-league baseball team

[mdk]

Conservatives support the rights of property owners against government intrusion, it has nothing to do with not wanting to set foot on property that follows rules we don't like.

You don’t think having the government declare Facebook a digital commons an intrusion?

Considering facebook shields itself from suits over user content by saying "that's not us, it's them" it more of a balance between their rights as a platform owner, and the rights of users of that platform. Facebook can't have it both ways.

Either they say all content is theirs, and thus they have a right to control it, or they say user content is user content, and they have the right to express themselves as they see fit, and to be protected in doing so.

Just host Diamond and Silk, Peasant!

To be honest, I am a little surprised with your position on this issue. Bakers don’t have to bake a cake for fag weddings, but Facebook has to host Diamond and Silk.

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.

And then you wonder why no one ever believes you...

Swing and a miss, tard. I think they be should allowed to serve or not serve anyone as they see fit. I have stated on numerous occasions my disdain for public accomdation laws.

 

[mdk]

Conservatives support the rights of property owners against government intrusion, it has nothing to do with not wanting to set foot on property that follows rules we don't like.

You don’t think having the government declare Facebook a digital commons an intrusion?

Considering facebook shields itself from suits over user content by saying "that's not us, it's them" it more of a balance between their rights as a platform owner, and the rights of users of that platform. Facebook can't have it both ways.

Either they say all content is theirs, and thus they have a right to control it, or they say user content is user content, and they have the right to express themselves as they see fit, and to be protected in doing so.

Just host Diamond and Silk, Peasant!

To be honest, I am a little surprised with your position on this issue. Bakers don’t have to bake a cake for fag weddings, but Facebook has to host Diamond and Silk.

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.

And then you wonder why no one ever believes you...

Don't worry MDK, RaceBook is going to be sued into non existence.

For what? Hurting your feelings?

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives support the rights of property owners against government intrusion, it has nothing to do with not wanting to set foot on property that follows rules we don't like.

You don’t think having the government declare Facebook a digital commons an intrusion?

Considering facebook shields itself from suits over user content by saying "that's not us, it's them" it more of a balance between their rights as a platform owner, and the rights of users of that platform. Facebook can't have it both ways.

Either they say all content is theirs, and thus they have a right to control it, or they say user content is user content, and they have the right to express themselves as they see fit, and to be protected in doing so.

Just host Diamond and Silk, Peasant!

To be honest, I am a little surprised with your position on this issue. Bakers don’t have to bake a cake for fag weddings, but Facebook has to host Diamond and Silk.

It's the fact facebook hides behind the whole "it's not our content, it's theirs" law for liability protection, but then decide they can censor such content even though they say they are not responsible for it.

And a single baker is not facebook. I have even said that if a majority of the bakers in an area refused service THEN the government can get involved because of actual harm being done.

 

[mdk]

Conservatives support the rights of property owners against government intrusion, it has nothing to do with not wanting to set foot on property that follows rules we don't like.

You don’t think having the government declare Facebook a digital commons an intrusion?

Considering facebook shields itself from suits over user content by saying "that's not us, it's them" it more of a balance between their rights as a platform owner, and the rights of users of that platform. Facebook can't have it both ways.

Either they say all content is theirs, and thus they have a right to control it, or they say user content is user content, and they have the right to express themselves as they see fit, and to be protected in doing so.

Just host Diamond and Silk, Peasant!

To be honest, I am a little surprised with your position on this issue. Bakers don’t have to bake a cake for fag weddings, but Facebook has to host Diamond and Silk.

It's the fact facebook hides behind the whole "it's not our content, it's theirs" law for liability protection, but then decide they can censor such content even though they say they are not responsible for it.

And a single baker is not facebook. I have even said that if a majority of the bakers in an area refused service THEN the government can get involved because of actual harm being done.

With respect, I totally disagree with that reasoning. There isn’t a need for the government to get involved when a free market solution already exists.

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives support the rights of property owners against government intrusion, it has nothing to do with not wanting to set foot on property that follows rules we don't like.

You don’t think having the government declare Facebook a digital commons an intrusion?

Considering facebook shields itself from suits over user content by saying "that's not us, it's them" it more of a balance between their rights as a platform owner, and the rights of users of that platform. Facebook can't have it both ways.

Either they say all content is theirs, and thus they have a right to control it, or they say user content is user content, and they have the right to express themselves as they see fit, and to be protected in doing so.

Just host Diamond and Silk, Peasant!

To be honest, I am a little surprised with your position on this issue. Bakers don’t have to bake a cake for fag weddings, but Facebook has to host Diamond and Silk.

It's the fact facebook hides behind the whole "it's not our content, it's theirs" law for liability protection, but then decide they can censor such content even though they say they are not responsible for it.

And a single baker is not facebook. I have even said that if a majority of the bakers in an area refused service THEN the government can get involved because of actual harm being done.

With respect, I totally disagree with that reasoning. There isn’t a need for the government to get involved when a free market solution already exists.

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

 

[mdk]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

 

[martybegan]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

the nature of social media platforms make them more viable the larger they are, and the replicability of being on multiple platforms at once is questionable.

A question, do you see facebook as some sort of a digital commons or not?

 

[eagle1462010]

Sorry. I support the 2nd but DontD see the need for wearing a gun to sing the anthem. Stadium is privately owned.

No Dice on this one

 

[mdk]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

the nature of social media platforms make them more viable the larger they are, and the replicability of being on multiple platforms at once is questionable.

A question, do you see facebook as some sort of a digital commons or not?

No, I don’t see them as a digital commons. I view them as a message board which is free to allow or not allow people on their servers as they see fit. Posting on Facebook isn’t a right and nor should it be.

 

[martybegan]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

the nature of social media platforms make them more viable the larger they are, and the replicability of being on multiple platforms at once is questionable.

A question, do you see facebook as some sort of a digital commons or not?

No, I don’t see them as a digital commons. I view them as a message board which is free to allow or not allow people on their servers as they see fit. Posting on Facebook isn’t a right and nor should it be.

well then they shouldn't be protected from liability of what is posted there then. If it's "their site" it's "their content"

 

[mdk]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

the nature of social media platforms make them more viable the larger they are, and the replicability of being on multiple platforms at once is questionable.

A question, do you see facebook as some sort of a digital commons or not?

No, I don’t see them as a digital commons. I view them as a message board which is free to allow or not allow people on their servers as they see fit. Posting on Facebook isn’t a right and nor should it be.

well then they shouldn't be protected from liability of what is posted there then. If it's "their site" it's "their content"

Can you imagine the lawsuits: I am going to sue Facebook b/c someone said something mean to me.

 

[martybegan]

Not sure if the free market here is up to the task. So we would have seperate versions of facebook, each smaller and smaller, and more locked into a given political viewpoint.

Hmmm.. maybe facebook needs to be broken up as a Trust......

Of course the free market is up to the task. If Facebook’s discrimination is as bad as people claim, then another company with different business practices will arise and eat into their share of the market.

the nature of social media platforms make them more viable the larger they are, and the replicability of being on multiple platforms at once is questionable.

A question, do you see facebook as some sort of a digital commons or not?

No, I don’t see them as a digital commons. I view them as a message board which is free to allow or not allow people on their servers as they see fit. Posting on Facebook isn’t a right and nor should it be.

well then they shouldn't be protected from liability of what is posted there then. If it's "their site" it's "their content"

Can you imagine the lawsuits: I am going to sue Facebook b/c someone said something mean to me.

if they want to claim what is on their board is their speech, and they can control it, then they have to control it.

It's more along the lines of facebook not being prosecuted for being parts of crimes plotted on their platform.

There was a case in NYC where a gang plotted a murder on facebook, and they got convicted. Facebook wasn't held liable because it's not held liable for the content posted on it.