Zuckerberg says he's unaware of Facebook pushback for liberal groups after conservative targeting

[MrShangles]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

If you think it will stop with conservatives being censored, be careful it could easily come back to bite y’all stupid liberals in the buttocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Then why is a bakery not allowed to censor the content they are asked to put on their cakes? They aren’t government, it’s a private business.

If we can force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes and black bakers to make KKK cakes, then Facebook can be forced to allow all political content.

Are you truly that unsavvy about business law?

• Who owns the FB platform? Facebook, not the software developers whose labor FB purchased to have them build the platform for FB. FB was the customer to those developers and FB gets to say what content resides on its platform.
• Who owns the cake "platform?" The customer, not the baker whom the customer engages to build the "platform."

You will only pull your head out of the sand when it affects you, it might be to late by then, but carry on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Agree...except it is almost a monopoly it is so large and pervasive. If there is no real competition for users to turn to then that is a problem.

And that's Facebook's fault? I think not.

• Are you aware of any FB initiatives that have attempted to prevent competitors from entering the market space that FB occupies? I'm not.
• Indeed, if FB has attempted to do so, it hasn't worked, for the fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to FB:
  • Path
  • Pinterest
  • Foursquare
  • Nextdoor
  • Roamz
• Who's fault is it that users have either not sought to discover those platforms' existence? Not FB's.
• Who's fault is it that users have not availed themselves of those platforms to the extent they have FB? Not FB's.
• Who's fault is it that FB's platform implementation is better suited to what users want than are the competing alternatives? Well, that is FB's "fault," but it's not FB's fault that no competitor has yet to invent a "better mousetrap."

Pinterest is a completely different entity. The others I never even heard of which is indicative of how small they are.

Perhaps so. I really don't use any of them. This, and email, of course, is my only "social network" whereby I interact with people whom I haven't met in person. The email, the telephone and video conferencing are my "Facebook" and "Twitter."

 

[Marion Morrison]

Cruz wisely exposed him. Appears FB wants to be publishers, not a provider of a platform between private citizens and a communication device for government.

Zuckerberg says he's unaware of Facebook pushback for liberal groups after conservative targeting

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers Tuesday that he was "not specifically aware" of any instance where the social network had removed content posted by liberal groups amid concerns that the platform is biased against conservatives.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Zuckerberg that "a great many Americans" are "deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship." Cruz then ticked off a list of conservative content that he claimed had been "suppressed" by Facebook, "including stories about [2012 GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney [and] stories about the Lois Lerner IRS scandal."

"In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page ... has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page – with 1.2 million Facebook followers -- after determining their content and brand were 'unsafe to the community.'

first time i watched cruz tear into someone and he had a mission and knew what to go with. zuck kept falling over himself trying to defend their censorship.

as he said, if that's who they are great - then stop billing it to be who they are not.

FB has a big choice to make. either stop much of the censorship and clean up, or be a liberal rag and hope that works for them.

I got $5 says they go with the latter, and the way of AOL.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I get the impression that people think that FB is the only platform they can access conservative sites from. Uh, it isn't. If you don't like how FB runs their business then don't use FB. If enough people jump ship zberg can then decide if his censoring is worth it. Anyone wanting the gov't to regulate FB it nuts. If you allow that they will eventually regulate the internet. Be careful what you wish for. As for FB's tos ... they're selling your info to advertisers and advertisers are showing you ads you're more likely to be interested in? Since when is that a new thing, businesses have always done that. Just because it's a different platform somehow now it's awful? <shrug> btw, only fools see ads anywhere on the web. lol

InfinitySocialNetwork (INS) is suppose to be coming online by the end of the month and is said to be a FB alternative. Gab.ai is an alternative to Twitter.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Terms and Conditions? Like the ones losers signed on homes they couldn't afford, then turn around and blame the institution which provided the loan?

-Geaux

Terms and Conditions?

Yes, though I think Facebook calls them "Terms of Service." Read them.

USMB has them too, and guess what, USMB's also allow its owners to do what they want with the information we provide by posting and clicking on this site.

Terms and Conditions? Like the ones losers signed on homes they couldn't afford, then turn around and blame the institution which provided the loan?

In a manner of speaking, yes, but completely. There, after all, are some material differences, not the least of which FB's terms of service and other descriptive documents are written in the colloquy. They're not at all hard to read and comprehend.

Well, the terms of a mortgage financing agreement are somewhat different in that they call one do some math as part of one's analysis to determine whether one is amenable to them. One really need not do that for FB or any other software product.

Like many folks, I've had mortgages, but I suspect that unlike many folks, I also made the lender send me a copy of the thing prior to my showing up to accept their money so I could read the damn thing and be prepared when we met in person. On a couple occasions, I insisted on a few changes to the terms they initially presented to me. That's just part of negotiating, but what I wanted, they were willing to give. I wasn't asking for the grandes concessions one might have, but they were nonetheless concessions I wanted and I offered them something in return. They wanted to loan me their money as much as I wanted to borrow their money, so they were willing to "play," so to speak.

As for the fact of folks having agreed to mortgage terms that they couldn't afford, well, what is there to say about that? If one doesn't have a clue about one's own finances, finances in general, or how mortgage financing works, and if one doesn't act to find out before signing on the dotted line, whose fault is that? It's nobody's fault but one's own. It's not as though one cannot ask a money lender to explain in gory detail how the financial terms work and what impacts they will have under "such and such" circumstances. One can ask and the lender absolutely will explain it all in gory detail.

Sure, that takes time; it could take a lot of time and perhaps be somewhat daunting and stressful. But it's one's own financial position and the lender is being paid, in part, to take the time if necessary. Plus, whatever time it might take and however daunting or stressful it might be, I suspect it's a hell of lot less stressful than is losing one's home. I suspect too that it's a lot less daunting than is figuring out what one is going to do when one does lose one's home. Accordingly, in my estimation, it's time well spent -- because it's the time one needs to take to determine whether the deal one is being offered is one that won't bring one to near or actual ruin -- regardless of how much time it takes.

Obviously the terms of a software agreement are less directly impactful, but it's still worth reading and understanding them so one at the very least knows what one is agreeing to. Every FB and other software product user is given the option to refrain from involving themselves with that product. FB didn't try to keep secret from people what it was going to do with the data one provides to FB by dint of merely using FB.

 

[iceberg]

I get the impression that people think that FB is the only platform they can access conservative sites from. Uh, it isn't. If you don't like how FB runs their business then don't use FB. If enough people jump ship zberg can then decide if his censoring is worth it. Anyone wanting the gov't to regulate FB it nuts. If you allow that they will eventually regulate the internet. Be careful what you wish for. As for FB's tos ... they're selling your info to advertisers and advertisers are showing you ads you're more likely to be interested in? Since when is that a new thing, businesses have always done that. Just because it's a different platform somehow now it's awful? <shrug> btw, only fools see ads anywhere on the web. lol

InfinitySocialNetwork (INS) is suppose to be coming online by the end of the month and is said to be a FB alternative. Gab.ai is an alternative to Twitter.

InfinitySN - interesting but still buggy just to sign up. nothing big but interesting.

 

[Coyote]

Cruz wisely exposed him. Appears FB wants to be publishers, not a provider of a platform between private citizens and a communication device for government.

Zuckerberg says he's unaware of Facebook pushback for liberal groups after conservative targeting

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers Tuesday that he was "not specifically aware" of any instance where the social network had removed content posted by liberal groups amid concerns that the platform is biased against conservatives.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Zuckerberg that "a great many Americans" are "deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship." Cruz then ticked off a list of conservative content that he claimed had been "suppressed" by Facebook, "including stories about [2012 GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney [and] stories about the Lois Lerner IRS scandal."

"In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page ... has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page – with 1.2 million Facebook followers -- after determining their content and brand were 'unsafe to the community.'

Suckenburg is a screaming liberal douchebag

-Geaux

He is a highly successful businessman. Thought you liked those.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

AT&T is a private firm too but they didn't shut off Diamond and Silk phones

 

[Mindful]

My favorite exchange yesterday came when Senator Dan Sullivan took the microphone. He's a Republican from Alaska, but he could as easily have been a Democrat of a certain disposition. He observed that Mr Zuckerberg had created his spectacularly lucrative global behemoth in his college dorm room at the age of nineteen. And then he said: "Facebook is an 'Only in America' story, right?"

The witness looked befuddled - as I do in, say, Marseille, when a bit of local vernacular runs up against the limits of my conversational French.

So Senator Sullivan attempted to clarify what he meant. "You couldn't do this in China, right?"

Zuckerberg considered the matter, sincerely. "Well, Senator," he said, "there are some very strong Chinese Internet companies."

"Come on, I'm trying to help you," growled the plain-spoken Sullivan, throwing in the towel. "Gimme a break, you're in front of a bunch of senators: the answer is yes." The audience laughed. But the child-man seemed genuinely nonplussed.

"Only in America" is an American expression. Nobody in Belgium says "Only in Belgium", or in Tajikistan "Only in Tajikistan". In 2000, when Al Gore chose the first Jewish running mate on a presidential ticket, Joe Lieberman beamed and said, "Only in America!" Only in America can you be nominated to be vice-president of America: Mark Zuckerberg might have been able to compute that one in a narrow literal sense. But his bewilderment at the phrase's broader talismanic power was revealing. There are plenty of public figures who truly believe "Only in America, right?", as Mr Sullivan does. There are others who don't necessarily but would feel obliged to defer to it because, as Sullivan explained, "the answer is yes". Had some member of the committee brought it up when I testified before the Senate, I would have known enough, even as an unassimilated foreigner, to divine that you're meant to agree.

But Mark Zuckerberg, the most successful American businessman of the 21st century, was baffled.

Only in America?

 

[skye]

Zuckturd and Peloturd

 

[Correll]

My favorite exchange yesterday came when Senator Dan Sullivan took the microphone. He's a Republican from Alaska, but he could as easily have been a Democrat of a certain disposition. He observed that Mr Zuckerberg had created his spectacularly lucrative global behemoth in his college dorm room at the age of nineteen. And then he said: "Facebook is an 'Only in America' story, right?"

The witness looked befuddled - as I do in, say, Marseille, when a bit of local vernacular runs up against the limits of my conversational French.

So Senator Sullivan attempted to clarify what he meant. "You couldn't do this in China, right?"

Zuckerberg considered the matter, sincerely. "Well, Senator," he said, "there are some very strong Chinese Internet companies."

"Come on, I'm trying to help you," growled the plain-spoken Sullivan, throwing in the towel. "Gimme a break, you're in front of a bunch of senators: the answer is yes." The audience laughed. But the child-man seemed genuinely nonplussed.

"Only in America" is an American expression. Nobody in Belgium says "Only in Belgium", or in Tajikistan "Only in Tajikistan". In 2000, when Al Gore chose the first Jewish running mate on a presidential ticket, Joe Lieberman beamed and said, "Only in America!" Only in America can you be nominated to be vice-president of America: Mark Zuckerberg might have been able to compute that one in a narrow literal sense. But his bewilderment at the phrase's broader talismanic power was revealing. There are plenty of public figures who truly believe "Only in America, right?", as Mr Sullivan does. There are others who don't necessarily but would feel obliged to defer to it because, as Sullivan explained, "the answer is yes". Had some member of the committee brought it up when I testified before the Senate, I would have known enough, even as an unassimilated foreigner, to divine that you're meant to agree.

But Mark Zuckerberg, the most successful American businessman of the 21st century, was baffled.

Only in America?

INcredible. Very revealing about who he is.

 

[Mindful]

Zuckturd and Peloturd

How did Nancy get into politics?

 

[skye]

Zuckturd and Peloturd

How did Nancy get into politics?

by a brain fart maybe?

 

[Geaux4it]

Cruz wisely exposed him. Appears FB wants to be publishers, not a provider of a platform between private citizens and a communication device for government.

Zuckerberg says he's unaware of Facebook pushback for liberal groups after conservative targeting

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers Tuesday that he was "not specifically aware" of any instance where the social network had removed content posted by liberal groups amid concerns that the platform is biased against conservatives.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Zuckerberg that "a great many Americans" are "deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship." Cruz then ticked off a list of conservative content that he claimed had been "suppressed" by Facebook, "including stories about [2012 GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney [and] stories about the Lois Lerner IRS scandal."

"In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page ... has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page – with 1.2 million Facebook followers -- after determining their content and brand were 'unsafe to the community.'

Suckenburg is a screaming liberal douchebag

-Geaux

He is a highly successful businessman. Thought you liked those.

You thought wrong and paint with a broad brush

-Geaux

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Zuckturd and Peloturd

How did Nancy get into politics?

Daddy.

Maryland politician.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I get the impression that people think that FB is the only platform they can access conservative sites from. Uh, it isn't. If you don't like how FB runs their business then don't use FB. If enough people jump ship zberg can then decide if his censoring is worth it. Anyone wanting the gov't to regulate FB it nuts. If you allow that they will eventually regulate the internet. Be careful what you wish for. As for FB's tos ... they're selling your info to advertisers and advertisers are showing you ads you're more likely to be interested in? Since when is that a new thing, businesses have always done that. Just because it's a different platform somehow now it's awful? <shrug> btw, only fools see ads anywhere on the web. lol

InfinitySocialNetwork (INS) is suppose to be coming online by the end of the month and is said to be a FB alternative. Gab.ai is an alternative to Twitter.

InfinitySN - interesting but still buggy just to sign up. nothing big but interesting.

I just signed up, waiting on a confirmation email. We'll see.

Oh, it's ISN not INS as I listed above. Hmm, what was I thinking? lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

FB holds an effective monopoly over social media.

It needs to be broken up like Ma Bell and allow its children to compete with each other to provide America with a better service.

Then throw Marky Schmuckerburg in prison for massive violations of American's privacy.

 

[Coyote]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

FB holds an effective monopoly over social media.

It needs to be broken up like Ma Bell and allow its children to compete with each other to provide America with a better service.

Then throw Marky Schmuckerburg in prison for massive violations of American's privacy.

I would go further and say a lot of these huge media conglomerates need to be broken up as well.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is ridiculous. FB is a private firm; it is not the government. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment does not apply to its actions. FB can do whatever the hell it wants with the content placed on its platform. The TOS to which FB users agree indicate as much. If one doesn't like or doesn't care to risk having one's content removed/blocked, don't use FB.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

FB holds an effective monopoly over social media.

It needs to be broken up like Ma Bell and allow its children to compete with each other to provide America with a better service.

Then throw Marky Schmuckerburg in prison for massive violations of American's privacy.

I would go further and say a lot of these huge media conglomerates need to be broken up as well.

Mr Trump should buy CNN then scuttle it

-Geaux