Paul Joseph Watson reported, "Facebook removed a post which consisted simply of the word 'honk,' asserting that it was a violation of their community standards.there is a line that sooner or later growth alone makes you cross and the gov can and will step in. i got hired by microsoft in 1992 and lawsuits were just starting and man alive did it change the company.Feminist's Lawsuit Against Twitter the First of Many, Lawyers Say
Are private companies more powerful than governments now?
Yes @grrb
People have always had and claimed rights innately given by God or Nature,
while Government authority depends on what the people authorize by consent.
This has always been true. Only if we give our power to government do
we the people express our authority this way. All institutions depend on
people to empower them. If we reclaim our power directly, and don't give
up authority to others, then we can enforce the laws for ourselves as long
as we follow the same standards and don't abuse such authority.
As for freedom of speech and of the press, yes, again the people retain
this right. So companies that are owned by people are run by their rules
and whatever agreements they make with users, customers or clients.
As long as they don't falsely advertise, misrepresent, or commit fraud,
slander libel or other violations of law, then people and companies
exercise discretion in deciding what content they want to support or not.
As Mark Levin explains it, NOBODY is FORCING you to use these media
companies and outlets. The GOVERNMENT cannot deprive people of
freedom of speech/press who have committed no crime that warrants
penalties and punishment by law.
But any company run by people has the right to refuse certain content
as long as they don't commit misrepresentation, fraud or other violation of laws.
Just make it clear what the policies are in the user agreements
when people sign up for a service; and if they don't agree, they don't have to use that service!
they were told what to put in their products and what they could not put in. they were a monopoly regardless of the fact apple was in fact out there and the hot item when you were mad at bill gates. it changed the culture of the company.
now facebook and other "free" services are in fact using my data and history to sell. *to me* this in fact says i am "paying" something for their services and ergo, it is not free. now if i'm in fact paying something for a service, be it money, or the value they get from my data/traffic, facebook is still profiting from my activity. this being the case it won't be long before this line of thought comes along to tell them they are in fact NOT a free service. facebook, google, amazon - they got hard times coming and it's not just for privacy issues, but their habits of how they put themselves in a position to pick and choose what in the end is right or wrong.
you can go buy a cake anywhere, for example. now why can you sue 1 baker who doesn't want to make you a custom cake? no one was forcing the gay couple to use this bakery. in fact there were several in the area rated higher than this particular baker.
not going for right or wrong - don't care really. but how can people say the business has a right to choose how they operate when clearly, they do not? the left has had a strong tendency to demand you follow their rules but they don't want to follow them. from the lefts point of view they may see the direct opposite and i'd love to listen to a comparison in that regard. if that is facebook then fine. the left is still dictating the rules the right must follow but the do not. the right can't talk politics in their comfort zone but the left can.
are we still on an even playing field?
twitter and facebook want the best of both worlds. to not be held accountable for the content on their site but yet to be able to dictate what content is there. quite the quandrious dilemma it would seem.
that is coming to an end. to see facebook NOT remove pelosi's video was on one hand ironic and funny; but on the other it wasn't long before someone made a video of zuck morphing what he was saying so he was actually saying something very different and NOT what he would say in reality. did that video stay?
if not, he just violated his own policy cause he wanted it both ways.
and in the end, wanting the best of both worlds at no "cost" is what is driving us here. their times are changing and the gov is going to come down hard on them. that's how it works whether we think it's right or not.
"Yes, really.
"The use of the word stems from the ‘clown world’ meme – a nihilistic position many on the right are taking in light of a society in the grip of ‘progressive’ degeneracy run amok.
"Apparently, it’s now verboten to even allude to the meme on Facebook."
"The use of the word stems from the ‘clown world’ meme – a nihilistic position many on the right are taking in light of a society in the grip of ‘progressive’ degeneracy run amok.
"Apparently, it’s now verboten to even allude to the meme on Facebook."
Community standards, eh?
Who voted for them?
You cannot claim to be a community and a private company at the same time. President Trump needs to regulate social media.
