Facebook Bans Populist Consverative Groups Just Before European Elections

[HappyJoy]

So..we can say whatever we want here on USMB and if we are banned or our posts deleted, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Is USMB a service being utilized by ~67% of the American public?

Oh yeah. The 67% clause of the First Amendment. A well known exemption. Not.

Try to wrap your peabrain around this: Given the fact that 220+ million Americans use Facebook, many for communication and business, it has arguably risen to the level of a public utility.

Conservatives want to regulate facebook like a utility? You guys are funny.

 

[satrebil]

So..we can say whatever we want here on USMB and if we are banned or our posts deleted, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Is USMB a service being utilized by ~67% of the American public?

Oh yeah. The 67% clause of the First Amendment. A well known exemption. Not.

Try to wrap your peabrain around this: Given the fact that 220+ million Americans use Facebook, many for communication and business, it has arguably risen to the level of a public utility.

Conservatives want to regulate facebook like a utility? You guys are funny.

Can you give me one good reason why it shouldn't be?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Should this sort of thing be illegal in America?

What if CBS, NBC, ABC, all the major news papers, FB and Twitter all decided to ban the GOP from advertisements? Would that be legal too?

Facebook Shuts Down Populist Italian Pages Before EU Elections

Facebook has shut down 23 major populist Italian pages with 2.5 million followers just two weeks before the European elections.
According to Italian media, the majority of the pages supported the populist parties La Lega (The League) and the 5-Star Movement (M5S) — who currently govern Italy in a temporary coalition.

Facebook has justified its dramatic move by claiming that the sites shared fake news, so-called “hate speech”, and “divisive content” regarding immigrants, vaccines, and Jewish people.​

No, Facebook is a company, owned by the shareholders. They are allowed to do with their product, whatever they want.

I have no problem with this at all.

I think eventually if they keep doing this, enough people will move towards a competitive platform, that has a more free-speech oriented policy.

If that "free speech oriented" platform ever comes to pass, it will be dogpiled by the MSM and the left as a "haven for hate". The headlines practically write themselves. Advertisers will flee, apps will be blocked, the platform will fail to turn a profit and go under.

This is precisely what will happen. Capitalism in action. This says more about your caustic message than anything else. If you claim everyone you encounter is an asshole, than likely the asshole is you.

 

[Andylusion]

Should this sort of thing be illegal in America?

What if CBS, NBC, ABC, all the major news papers, FB and Twitter all decided to ban the GOP from advertisements? Would that be legal too?

Facebook Shuts Down Populist Italian Pages Before EU Elections

Facebook has shut down 23 major populist Italian pages with 2.5 million followers just two weeks before the European elections.
According to Italian media, the majority of the pages supported the populist parties La Lega (The League) and the 5-Star Movement (M5S) — who currently govern Italy in a temporary coalition.

Facebook has justified its dramatic move by claiming that the sites shared fake news, so-called “hate speech”, and “divisive content” regarding immigrants, vaccines, and Jewish people.​

No, Facebook is a company, owned by the shareholders. They are allowed to do with their product, whatever they want.

I have no problem with this at all.

I think eventually if they keep doing this, enough people will move towards a competitive platform, that has a more free-speech oriented policy.

If that "free speech oriented" platform ever comes to pass, it will be dogpiled by the MSM and the left as a "haven for hate". The headlines practically write themselves. Advertisers will flee, apps will be blocked, the platform will fail to turn a profit and go under.

There are already platforms for hate. They exist now. 4Chan 8Chan. And other hate based platforms.

I find it unlikely that what you say will come true, because all you have to do is look at talk radio, and there are plenty of shows that exist, and have existed for decades, that have been relentlessly attacked by the left-wing. They still exist, and are successful.

Advertisers will always back off in the short term, to give the appearance of caving to the rabid hate bait left. But they always come back, because the customers are there.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There are already platforms for hate. They exist now. 4Chan 8Chan. And other hate based platforms

The hate platforms appear to be Facebook and twitter. I'm sending a lot of hate there.

 

[Andylusion]

There are already platforms for hate. They exist now. 4Chan 8Chan. And other hate based platforms

The hate platforms appear to be Facebook and twitter. I'm sending a lot of hate there.

So..we can say whatever we want here on USMB and if we are banned or our posts deleted, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Is USMB a service being utilized by ~67% of the American public?

Oh yeah. The 67% clause of the First Amendment. A well known exemption. Not.

Try to wrap your peabrain around this: Given the fact that 220+ million Americans use Facebook, many for communication and business, it has arguably risen to the level of a public utility.

When that happens, everyone will move to a new platform. Are you going to make every single company that has a social media platform, a public utility? And then what happens when they move to illegal platforms, which already exist?

There is nothing about Facebook, that makes it a public utility. By what logic? Just because people use it? Should USMB be a public utility?

Facebook isn't a 'utility'. It does not provide a 'public service' anymore than Verizon, or McDonald's. How many millions of people use H&R block to file their taxes? Maybe we should make H&R block a public utility?

This is ridiculous. Basically every company on the face of the earth, should be a public utility, by this stupidity.

 

[satrebil]

There is nothing about Facebook, that makes it a public utility. By what logic?

The scale of it's usage.

Facebook isn't a 'utility'. It does not provide a 'public service' anymore than Verizon,

Show's how much you know. Verizon IS a public utility. All phone companies are, moron. Thanks for playing.

 

[Andylusion]

There is nothing about Facebook, that makes it a public utility. By what logic?

The scale of it's usage.

Facebook isn't a 'utility'. It does not provide a 'public service' anymore than Verizon,

Show's how much you know. Verizon IS a public utility. All phone companies are, moron. Thanks for playing.

Since when? I don't think so.... Their copper wire connections are under the domain of being a public utility, that's true. But as far as I am aware their other services, which constitution the vast majority of their business, are consider public utilities. Wireless is not a public utility, as far as I am aware.

Besides that.... it still doesn't make sense at all. Scale of usage, does not make it a public utility.

If there is any case to be made, it would be that the communication itself was the public utility. Well Facebook does not sell communication. You can't cancel your phone service, and cancel your internet service, and purchase Facebook communication, and talk to anyone.

Facebook is operating on a communication service. It is not the communication service itself.

Without a communication service, you can't use Facebook.

 

[satrebil]

Besides that.... it still doesn't make sense at all. Scale of usage, does not make it a public utility.

Oh but it does, because public utilities are, more often than not, monopolies. They are permitted to exist as monopolies because they operate under public utility guidelines, otherwise they would be broken up. As there are no viable Facebook alternatives to social media (yet), and they service over 2/3rds of the American public, only a fool would claim that Facebook is not a monopoly in it's respective field.

If there is any case to be made, it would be that the communication itself was the public utility.

Now you're getting it.

Facebook is a national communications platform that is dictating who may use it's service based on completely subjective rules. What their backbone is, or how it is accessed, is irrelevant. Laws are always lagging behind technology. I can assure you that when this issue lands before the courts (and it will) these major platforms WILL be treated as public utilities. The Supreme Court has already alluded to this by referring to social media sites as "the modern public square" in Packingham vs North Carolina (2017). Furthermore, there is already precedence for this sort of thing. In Marsh vs Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST a private entity for curtailing free speech in a privately owned town:

"The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties."

A phone company cannot terminate your service because they don't like what you're saying. A power company cannot turn off our power because you hurt someone's feelings. Social media has become a prominent, and in many cases essential, service in the lives of hundreds of millions. It can and WILL be regulated as such.

 

[caddo kid]

Should this sort of thing be illegal in America?

What if CBS, NBC, ABC, all the major news papers, FB and Twitter all decided to ban the GOP from advertisements? Would that be legal too?

Facebook Shuts Down Populist Italian Pages Before EU Elections

Facebook has shut down 23 major populist Italian pages with 2.5 million followers just two weeks before the European elections.
According to Italian media, the majority of the pages supported the populist parties La Lega (The League) and the 5-Star Movement (M5S) — who currently govern Italy in a temporary coalition.

Facebook has justified its dramatic move by claiming that the sites shared fake news, so-called “hate speech”, and “divisive content” regarding immigrants, vaccines, and Jewish people.​

So, you don't agree that any web site should have the ability to ban any member they so choose?

And besides that point; Republicans 'claim' they are against regulation.

You assholes want it both ways?

You might as well be bi.

 

[danielpalos]

Should this sort of thing be illegal in America?

What if CBS, NBC, ABC, all the major news papers, FB and Twitter all decided to ban the GOP from advertisements? Would that be legal too?

Facebook Shuts Down Populist Italian Pages Before EU Elections

Facebook has shut down 23 major populist Italian pages with 2.5 million followers just two weeks before the European elections.
According to Italian media, the majority of the pages supported the populist parties La Lega (The League) and the 5-Star Movement (M5S) — who currently govern Italy in a temporary coalition.

Facebook has justified its dramatic move by claiming that the sites shared fake news, so-called “hate speech”, and “divisive content” regarding immigrants, vaccines, and Jewish people.​

The right wing has nothing but bigotry and repeal. We need better solutions at lower cost.

 

[Andylusion]

Besides that.... it still doesn't make sense at all. Scale of usage, does not make it a public utility.

Oh but it does, because public utilities are, more often than not, monopolies. They are permitted to exist as monopolies because they operate under public utility guidelines, otherwise they would be broken up. As there are no viable Facebook alternatives to social media (yet), and they service over 2/3rds of the American public, only a fool would claim that Facebook is not a monopoly in it's respective field.

If there is any case to be made, it would be that the communication itself was the public utility.

Now you're getting it.

Facebook is a national communications platform that is dictating who may use it's service based on completely subjective rules. What their backbone is, or how it is accessed, is irrelevant. Laws are always lagging behind technology. I can assure you that when this issue lands before the courts (and it will) these major platforms WILL be treated as public utilities. The Supreme Court has already alluded to this by referring to social media sites as "the modern public square" in Packingham vs North Carolina (2017). Furthermore, there is already precedence for this sort of thing. In Marsh vs Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST a private entity for curtailing free speech in a privately owned town:

"The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties."

A phone company cannot terminate your service because they don't like what you're saying. A power company cannot turn off our power because you hurt someone's feelings. Social media has become a prominent, and in many cases essential, service in the lives of hundreds of millions. It can and WILL be regulated as such.

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.
No it is not a national communications platform. Again... if I disconnect my internet, and my smart phone... how can I use this "national communications platform"? If I can't do that, then your claim is BS.

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
​

The court was wrong. In fact, this country only exists today, because men of the past wanted to get away from this kind of logic.

Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.​

The court was wrong. Flat out. They are BS crap, and that kind of logic does not work for me, and millions of Americans who are fed up with the government trying to dictate how everyone should live.

If that is really the direction our government is going, then the people need to rise up in revolution, expel all the people who deny personal property rights.

 

[satrebil]

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.

220 MILLION users in the USA alone, literally over 2/3rd's of the country, and you don't think that qualifies as a monopoly?

Yeah, our conversation ends here. You are a Class A dumb shit.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.

220 MILLION users in the USA alone, literally over 2/3rd's of the country, and you don't think that qualifies as a monopoly?

Yeah, our conversation ends here. You are a Class A dumb shit.

That's literally EVERYONE at an age that might ever use it.

25% of the US population is 18 or under.

 

[Andylusion]

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.

220 MILLION users in the USA alone, literally over 2/3rd's of the country, and you don't think that qualifies as a monopoly?

Yeah, our conversation ends here. You are a Class A dumb shit.

Are you trying to suggest, that merely being successful, equals a monopoly?

This explains to me why you constantly come across like an idiot. You are basing your reasoning on ignorance and stupidity.

Merely having a bunch of users, does not make you a "monopoly".

The biggest movie studio Buena Vista, which has almost as much of the global market of movies, as the next 3 competitors combined.

It is not a monopoly.

Let's do something smart, and look at the dictionary for a second.... you know like you should have done in school... (clearly you went to a public school, since you don't know this)....

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

Exclusive. What do you think 'Exclusive' means? It means, no one else has any control, because you have 'exclusive' control.

The reason Buena Vista is not a Monopoly, is because they do not have exclusive control.

There are plenty of other social media sites on the internet. Plenty.

It is not a monopoly. You need to first learn something, before you speak... and then act more mature about how little you know.

 

[Andylusion]

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.

220 MILLION users in the USA alone, literally over 2/3rd's of the country, and you don't think that qualifies as a monopoly?

Yeah, our conversation ends here. You are a Class A dumb shit.

That's literally EVERYONE at an age that might ever use it.

25% of the US population is 18 or under.

Yeah, and that doesn't mean they are actually active users.

I have a facebook account. Every once in a blue moon, people contact me on it. Other than that, I am fairly inactive. I'd say in an average month, I might go to my facebook page.... once? Maybe?

 

[dblack]

I generally don't like to oversimplify issues - but this one seems ripe for it. Is there any way to deny what's going on here? The fascists want to control Facebook because Facebook isn't toeing the party line. **** the fascists.

 

[satrebil]

Facebook is nowhere close to being a monopoly.

220 MILLION users in the USA alone, literally over 2/3rd's of the country, and you don't think that qualifies as a monopoly?

Yeah, our conversation ends here. You are a Class A dumb shit.

Are you trying to suggest, that merely being successful, equals a monopoly?

This explains to me why you constantly come across like an idiot. You are basing your reasoning on ignorance and stupidity.

Merely having a bunch of users, does not make you a "monopoly".

The biggest movie studio Buena Vista, which has almost as much of the global market of movies, as the next 3 competitors combined.

It is not a monopoly.

Let's do something smart, and look at the dictionary for a second.... you know like you should have done in school... (clearly you went to a public school, since you don't know this)....

"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

Exclusive. What do you think 'Exclusive' means? It means, no one else has any control, because you have 'exclusive' control.

The reason Buena Vista is not a Monopoly, is because they do not have exclusive control.

View attachment 261101

There are plenty of other social media sites on the internet. Plenty.

It is not a monopoly. You need to first learn something, before you speak... and then act more mature about how little you know.

One does not need "exclusive" control of a market to be a monopoly, they merely need a large enough market share that makes their competitors irrelevant. Microsoft has competitors too, they were still ruled a monopoly in 2001. Like I said, you're a dumb shit.

 

[satrebil]

I generally don't like to oversimplify issues - but this one seems ripe for it. Is there any way to deny what's going on here? The fascists want to control Facebook because Facebook isn't toeing the party line. **** the fascists.

Wrong. We want to reign Facebook in from being the de-facto thought police. You don't get to reap the benefits of being a platform while acting like a publisher.

 

[HappyJoy]

So..we can say whatever we want here on USMB and if we are banned or our posts deleted, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Is USMB a service being utilized by ~67% of the American public?

Oh yeah. The 67% clause of the First Amendment. A well known exemption. Not.

Try to wrap your peabrain around this: Given the fact that 220+ million Americans use Facebook, many for communication and business, it has arguably risen to the level of a public utility.

Conservatives want to regulate facebook like a utility? You guys are funny.

Can you give me one good reason why it shouldn't be?

You, a conservative want to regulate a piece of the internet? I bet you're pissed about that net neutrality thing, huh?

As far as facebook goes, paid political ads from foreign entities should be banned. Facebook following through with banning people who break their terms of service, I don't have a problem with.