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.
Agreed.When we need the opinions of fifth columnist fascist we'll ask you, C_Foghorn_Leghorn.
Today, where the corporate sector ends, and the government begins, is nebulous at best.
It wasn't Cheeto that dragged Stalinburg before an hours-long congressional mau-mau session.What's "nebulous" about it? Unless and until it is socialized by the government (which seems like what many Trump supporters want), it's a privately held corporation.
It sounds to me like FB is being bullied by government too much at it is. I don't think this crackdown was their idea. They have no interest in alienating customers. It's a response to threats from Congress and the President.
It wasn't Cheeto that dragged Stalinburg before an hours-long congressional mau-mau session.What's "nebulous" about it? Unless and until it is socialized by the government (which seems like what many Trump supporters want), it's a privately held corporation.
It sounds to me like FB is being bullied by government too much at it is. I don't think this crackdown was their idea. They have no interest in alienating customers. It's a response to threats from Congress and the President.
THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.
Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?
Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?
I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.
I think that is the best argument I've seen on this issue to date.
Its going to seem like I'm arguing both sides of the issue and in some ways I am because I'm not very decided.
The problem is going to be finding the cut off. If you own the only concert venue in town do you need to let a loud mouth like me put on a show? How about a bakery, gotta bake a cake for everyone?
THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.
Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?
Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?
I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.
Agreed.When we need the opinions of fifth columnist fascist we'll ask you, C_Foghorn_Leghorn.
Today, where the corporate sector ends, and the government begins, is nebulous at best.
What's "nebulous" about it? Unless and until it is socialized by the government (which seems like what many Trump supporters want), it's a privately held corporation.
It sounds to me like FB is being bullied by government too much at it is. I don't think this crackdown was their idea. They have no interest in alienating customers. It's a response to threats from Congress and the President.
The thing about FB and all of these silicon valley start ups, is they would never have happened w/o tax payer supported money.
You can say you support the free market and government non-interference, but silicon valley is the new nexus of the Deep State on their manipulation of the public's mind.
The thing about FB and all of these silicon valley start ups, is they would never have happened w/o tax payer supported money.
Yes. This is the standard playbook for socialists. And by this logic, government owns all of us.
You can say you support the free market and government non-interference, but silicon valley is the new nexus of the Deep State on their manipulation of the public's mind.
I don't follow Alex Jones.
THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.
Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?
Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?
I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.
I think that is the best argument I've seen on this issue to date.
Its going to seem like I'm arguing both sides of the issue and in some ways I am because I'm not very decided.
I can see Big Government declaring Facebook a monopoly and I LOVE Big Government regulating the corporations it gives birth to.
The problem is going to be finding the cut off. If you own the only concert venue in town do you need to let a loud mouth like me put on a show? How about a bakery, gotta bake a cake for everyone?
It wasn't Cheeto that dragged Stalinburg before an hours-long congressional mau-mau session.What's "nebulous" about it? Unless and until it is socialized by the government (which seems like what many Trump supporters want), it's a privately held corporation.
It sounds to me like FB is being bullied by government too much at it is. I don't think this crackdown was their idea. They have no interest in alienating customers. It's a response to threats from Congress and the President.
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
InfoWars was only the beginning...
Now, anyone who has followed these pages for awhile and who doesn't have a pro-government, pro-corporation chip on their shoulder would be more than willing to say that these libertarian and anarchist pages were CENSORED, not removed for spam. These pages violated NO existing policies, and Facebook is LYING in order to claim otherwise.
Liberty Dissident: Facebook Bans The Free Thought Project, Press for Truth, Anti-Media and 248 Other Alternative Media Pages
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?
Who is laughing now, monkey boy?
InfoWars was only the beginning...
Now, anyone who has followed these pages for awhile and who doesn't have a pro-government, pro-corporation chip on their shoulder would be more than willing to say that these libertarian and anarchist pages were CENSORED, not removed for spam. These pages violated NO existing policies, and Facebook is LYING in order to claim otherwise.
Liberty Dissident: Facebook Bans The Free Thought Project, Press for Truth, Anti-Media and 248 Other Alternative Media Pages
Boohoo
Boohoo boohoo
Boohoo boohoo booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooothefuckhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?
Who is laughing now, monkey boy?
Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?
Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?
Who is laughing now, monkey boy?
Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?
Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?
Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.
And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.
But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court will hear a case that could decide whether Facebook, Twitter can censor users
Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?
Who is laughing now, monkey boy?
Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?
Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?
Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.
And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.
But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.
Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.
