Facebook Changes Content Moderation Rules

[Hollie]

Why? Did they teach you Zuckerbergs political affiliation there?

Why? You are forever clueless?

 

[Curried Goats]

Why? You are forever clueless?

About Zuckerbergs political affiliation? Absolutely. I don't even care.

 

[Hollie]

About Zuckerbergs political affiliation? Absolutely. I don't even care.

Of course you do. His leftist politico- religious ideology was a factor in his decision to censor free expression.

Morons like you need protection from opposing viewpoints.

 

[hadit]

They didn't force them to. Facebook worked with Democrats to fact check when they were in power and now are working to hide facts now that Republicans are in power because they run a business and will work with whoever is in power. If you don't want facts because they bother you, emotionally, Facebook will get rid of them when Republicans are in charge. Simple as that.

If you don't see any problem with private businesses colluding with government to censor speech, I can't help you.

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course you do. His leftist politico- religious ideology was a factor in his decision to censor free expression.

Morons like you need protection from opposing viewpoints.

I don't even have a Facebook account you Moron!

And again, that's not what censorship of free expression is. You don't have the freedom to express yourself on someone else's property without their consent. Fuck you're stupid....

 

[Curried Goats]

If you don't see any problem with private businesses colluding with government to censor speech, I can't help you.

If you don't understand what your right to free speech actually encompasses I can't help you. You're just an idiot.

 

[Hollie]

I don't even have a Facebook account you Moron!

And again, that's not what censorship of free expression is. You don't have the freedom to express yourself on someone else's property without their consent. Fuck you're stupid....

It's irrelevant if you claim not to have a Facebook account, moron.

That has nothing to do with the censorship practices by the company.

You really are that stupid.

 

[Oddball]

 

[hadit]

If you don't understand what your right to free speech actually encompasses I can't help you. You're just an idiot.

The only thing the right to free speech protects is your right to say something. No one has to give you microphone or platform on which to speak. That being said, private platform providers colluding with government to censor speech is a problem. It's not right, no matter what administration is in power.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's irrelevant if you claim not to have a Facebook account, moron.

That has nothing to do with the censorship practices by the company.

You really are that stupid.

They are no more censoring you by not allowing your inanity to exist on their property than CNN is by not giving you a nightly news show. You idiot.

 

[Curried Goats]

The only thing the right to free speech protects is your right to say something. No one has to give you microphone or platform on which to speak. That being said, private platform providers colluding with government to censor speech is a problem. It's not right, no matter what administration is in power.

Why is that a problem? Is that not also an expression of free speech by the owner of said property? Can I as homeowner not host a local political candidate in my house for fundraising and promotion of their political ideas? Is it censorship when I don't do the same for their opponent?

 

[Hollie]

They are no more censoring you by not allowing your inanity to exist on their property than CNN is by not giving you a nightly news show. You idiot.

You are no more credible than the silly teleprompter readers on CNN, moron.

 

[Curried Goats]

You are no more credible than the silly teleprompter readers on CNN, moron.

I don't care how I make you feel emotionally you dumb broad, it's whether you can find fault with my argument that matters.

 

[hadit]

Why is that a problem? Is that not also an expression of free speech by the owner of said property? Can I as homeowner not host a local political candidate in my house for fundraising and promotion of their political ideas? Is it censorship when I don't do the same for their opponent?

When you have control over allowing some voices to be heard on your platform and silencing others, you're in essence turning over that power to the government. It's not a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, but close. Would you accept T-Mobile monitoring your phone calls and texts so they can shut you down when you start saying things inconvenient to TRUMP!? I would not, but that's just me.

 

[Curried Goats]

When you have control over allowing some voices to be heard on your platform and silencing others, you're in essence turning over that power to the government. It's not a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, but close. Would you accept T-Mobile monitoring your phone calls and texts so they can shut you down when you start saying things inconvenient to TRUMP!? I would not, but that's just me.

That isn't really a comparable situation though. Private social media companies are more like houses and business that exist along a public street. Zuckerberg isnt bullying you from the public square, he's just refusing you entry into his house or setting conditions for your invitation. Now that might irk you because his house is a popular spot but it's still private property. And no I wouldn't be cool with your internet provider doing that because internet providers and phone companies are more like contractors who maintain the entrances to public spaces. They're glorified toll collectors along a public access road. The internet and the airwaves are public spaces. Who is cool with it are Republicans though who are against net neutrality regulations.

 

[Hollie]

I don't care how I make you feel emotionally you dumb broad, it's whether you can find fault with my argument that matters.

You have no argument you dumb broad.

 

[Curried Goats]

You have no argument you dumb broad.

I have a great one that you still can't refute.

 

[Hollie]

That isn't really a comparable situation though. Private social media companies are more like houses and business that exist along a public street. Zuckerberg isnt bullying you from the public square, he's just refusing you entry into his house or setting conditions for your invitation. Now that might irk you because his house is a popular spot but it's still private property. And no I wouldn't be cool with that because internet providers and phone companies are more like contractors who maintain the entrances to public spaces. They're glorified toll collectors along a public access road. The internet and the airwaves are public spaces.

False. Facebook was taking orders from the government about what information was allowed to be distributed and what wasn't.

 

[Curried Goats]

False. Facebook was taking orders from the government about what information was allowed to be distributed and what wasn't.

That's no different than me putting up a Harris sign on my lawn and telling Trump to eat shit.

 

[Hollie]

I have a great one that you still can't refute.

You obviously can't articulate the supposed argument you're hoping to make.

You "should of", (should have), made some effort to do that.