Facebook permanently locks conservative children books publisher

[iceberg]

Yes, they all talk about how bad the others are, but that is not the same as a paid ad promoting CNN on FoxNews or a FoxNews ad on MSNBC.

agreed

 

[Penelope]

Read the OP. Some bullshit about disruptive content. More like some twatwaffle leftist got their panties in a twist

I did read the Op. Did you? The OP states they broke the rules on Low Quality or Disruptive Content. It is right there in black and white in your OP

I wouldn't donate a red cent to fox news.

 

[BWK]

I wouldn't donate a red cent to fox news.

FOX news is one big gigantic lie. Always has been.

 

[BWK]

Of course not. These goobers NEVER read their own links.

They see a headline, post a thread about it, then tell you to read the OP. LOL! I just can't get enough of their crazy talk.

 

[daveman]

You have not been told that by me. I have addressed that a few times in this thread.



Isn't that the same for both sides? The same people that supported the baker are against this, and those against the baker are for this....except for a few of us which support both.

Facebook and the other socials need to be treated like publishers, not providers, since they're editing content.

 

[BWK]

But how could this happen? This company seems so...competent

"We began investing in Facebook four months before we launched our first book," she added. "We invested most of our marketing budget on the platform, and now our budget (the money we’ve already spent), as well as our assets and data are gone. Marketing-wise we are back in square one, financially it's even more challenging."

Well duh! They call it a book. Big mistake. It's a political ad.

 

[daveman]

I'm pretty sure GG said he supports the right of someone to not do that.

How 'bout you?

 

[pknopp]

Facebook and the other socials need to be treated like publishers, not providers, since they're editing content.

Publishers pick and choose what they publish.

 

[daveman]

You showed up late to the party. Go back and read his posts.

I know YOU want to have it both ways.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Facebook and the other socials need to be treated like publishers, not providers, since they're editing content.

Every site edits content, including this site.

A publisher pre-approves everything published on their site/paper/book etc.

Until social media sites start to do this, they should not be treated as a publisher

 

[pknopp]

How 'bout you?

Absolutely. I wish they would advertise the fact so I could avoid them but I support their right to do so.

 

[daveman]

Publishers pick and choose what they publish.

Yes. And face consequences when they publish false information.

They claim, however, to be content providers, and have no control over said content.

That is, of course, a flat-out lie.

 

[daveman]

Every site edits content, including this site.

A publisher pre-approves everything published on their site/paper/book etc.

Until social media sites start to do this, they should not be treated as a publisher

"Pre-approval". That's a new and interesting way of moving the goalpost.

 

[daveman]

Absolutely. I wish they would advertise the fact so I could avoid them but I support their right to do so.

It's been pointed out for several years now. You want them to admit it before you'll avoid them?

 

[pknopp]

Yes. And face consequences when they publish false information.

They claim, however, to be content providers, and have no control over said content.

That is, of course, a flat-out lie.

There is no accusations here that Facebook allowed anything not true to be published. They simply said they did not want this business advertising on their site.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"Pre-approval". That's a new and interesting way of moving the goalpost.

Not at all, it is what makes something a publisher.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes. And face consequences when they publish false information.

They claim, however, to be content providers, and have no control over said content.

That is, of course, a flat-out lie.

so you would be good with this site facing consequences when someone post false information?

 

[pknopp]

It's been pointed out for several years now. You want them to admit it before you'll avoid them?

I have no idea what it is you think you are pointing out. I can not avoid doing business with someone when I have no idea whether or not they do something I do not support. I'm wrong for not being a mind reader? Do you even know what you are rambling about?

 

[daveman]

There is no accusations here that Facebook allowed anything not true to be published. They simply said they did not want this business advertising on their site.

Facebook Admits Their 3rd-Party “Fact Checks” Are “Protected Opinions” But Very Effective in Shutting Down Conservative Content on Their Platform​

‘I’ll delete it’: New undercover video shows Facebook content moderators censoring conservatives​

ANOTHER Facebook Whistleblower: Interference ‘On a Global Level in Elections’​

 

[daveman]

so you would be good with this site facing consequences when someone post false information?

This site is a provider. That's clear. No posts or threads are deleted because of ideology...unlike Facebook.