Facebook steering the political narrative..is it different than Russian meddling?

[impuretrash]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

 

[Moonglow]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Just like sexual identity is liberty also yet a business can discriminate if it wants..

 

[caddo kid]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

Speaking of banning folks from social media: Why doesn't Twitter ban that jack ass Trump?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Liberty is not the domain of capitalism.

The point of capitalism is to make the maximum profit. FB thinks that doing this will help them reach that goal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

Speaking of banning folks from social media: Why doesn't Twitter ban that jack ass Trump?

Would be a terrible business decision. Trump is one of their main drivers on tweets, and the number of tweets is what drives their profit.

 

[impuretrash]

Never. They are a legit news organization. They retract errors and have standards for journalistic integrity.

Only morons think they make shit up or purposefully mislead viewers. In fact, that err on the side of causation so as to not even appear biased by allowing known liars a platform on a daily basis.

And this is the problem where the technology has outpaced the law. When it used to be a major expenditure to run a newspaper or a TV station, there was a caution to get it mostly right. Big money was involved, so there were a lot of people making sure it didn't get fucked up.

Now any idiot with a camera and an internet connection can call himself a "Journalist" living in his mothers basement on the salary he gets working at Starbucks. Since they have nothing, there's no deep pockets. Alex Jones can lie his ass off about Sandy Hook and largely get away with it.

So now the big companies that have something to lose - Facebook, YouTube, Twitter - have decided to crack down on the bad actors. This is a positive development.

Only those with near-infinite reserves of wealth, those backed by media corporations should be allowed to post videos and commentary on the internet.

 

[dblack]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

I doubt you ever understood the definition of liberty.

 

[debbiedowner]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

To a more civil society, hopefully.

Alex Jones wasn't banned because he was right. Farakahn wasn't banned because he was left.

they were banned for their behavior of inciting violence and racism.

You are 100% for free speech so long as it aligns with your speech...right Joe?

Where does the constitution say a private company has to honor your free speech?

 

[impuretrash]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Liberty is not the domain of capitalism.

The point of capitalism is to make the maximum profit. FB thinks that doing this will help them reach that goal.

When liberty and capitalism collide...he who has the fatter wallet wins.

Hooray for capitalism.

 

[dblack]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

To a more civil society, hopefully.

Alex Jones wasn't banned because he was right. Farakahn wasn't banned because he was left.

they were banned for their behavior of inciting violence and racism.

You are 100% for free speech so long as it aligns with your speech...right Joe?

Where does the constitution say a private company has to honor your free speech?

It doesn't. This whole thing is an attempt to invert the basic concept of rights. And the left started it. It's like a tag-team race to the bottom.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not right now. But one day you post something that isn’t popular, or runs against the flow of the herd. Then you will get the ban. What Facebook did was wrong. They should put Alex Jones , David Duke, Farrakhan and the rest right out front for the world to see, deject, and ridicule publicly. What they have done now is made all those people martyrs for the first amendment which is sad and disgusting.

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Liberty is not the domain of capitalism.

The point of capitalism is to make the maximum profit. FB thinks that doing this will help them reach that goal.

When liberty and capitalism collide...he who has the fatter wallet wins.

Hooray for capitalism.

There is no need for them to collide.

Under capitalism FB has the liberty to do what it did and you have the liberty to not use FB or start your own version as competition.

When FB started MySpace was the dominant site and it was thought hat FB could not compete...well we all know how that worked out.

The perfect meld of liberty and capitalism

 

[debbiedowner]

You are 100% for free speech so long as it aligns with your speech...right Joe?

no, actually, I'm not.

I'm all for tough hate speech laws. You incite hate, you go to prison.

Done.

There is no such thing as “hate speech” Joe...thats just twisted shit fabricated by the twisted Left...”SPEECH” can not be dissected and compartmentalized. Read the First bud...you should have learned it by third grade.

Joe couldn’t. His story changes so much. At first third grade was in catholic school, but then it was in some upper class neighborhood in Minnesota or Michigan. Joe lies so much it’s hard to nail him down. Vietnam veteran, Army veteran deployed to Beirut which is odd, as I thought it was the Marines in Beirut. Professional writer, oddly, joe comes off as a guy trying to sound like Hemingway. Meh.

There were probably all 4 branches of military in Beirut I was stationed in a Middle Eastern country in 68 to 70 that all they mentioned was the Marines but all 4 branches were there especially around the Embassy's.

 

[debbiedowner]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

To a more civil society, hopefully.

Alex Jones wasn't banned because he was right. Farakahn wasn't banned because he was left.

they were banned for their behavior of inciting violence and racism.

You are 100% for free speech so long as it aligns with your speech...right Joe?

Where does the constitution say a private company has to honor your free speech?

It doesn't. This whole thing is an attempt to invert the basic concept of rights. And the left started it. It's like a tag-team race to the bottom.

So the left banned Farrakan? Again a private company does not have to honor your free speech regardless who you are. What the fuck don't you understand about that?
I should have added that I don't agree with it but we all can be censored by a private company.

 

[dblack]

Let us hear it Lefties....we know, we know...banning a few extremist and regulating speech isn’t exactly meddling in American politics...right?
Where is this headed?

To a more civil society, hopefully.

Alex Jones wasn't banned because he was right. Farakahn wasn't banned because he was left.

they were banned for their behavior of inciting violence and racism.

You are 100% for free speech so long as it aligns with your speech...right Joe?

Where does the constitution say a private company has to honor your free speech?

It doesn't. This whole thing is an attempt to invert the basic concept of rights. And the left started it. It's like a tag-team race to the bottom.

So the left banned Farrakan? Again a private company does not have to honor your free speech regardless who you are. What the fuck don't you understand about that?

I understand that fine. I'm agreeing with you. They're turning the concept of rights inside. It's essentially the same logic used to justify PA laws and the gay wedding cake nonsense.

Rights are protections from government interference. The right to free speech means the government can't make laws dictating what you can, or can't say (or what you must say). It doesn't mean other people have to listen to you. It doesn't mean businesses have to accommodate you. It only means the government can't fuck with you for saying something they don't like. Nor can they tell you what to say and force you to say it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I understand that fine. I'm agreeing with you. They're turning the concept of rights inside. It's essentially the same logic used to justify PA laws and the gay wedding cake nonsense.

Rights are protections from government interference. The right to free speech means the government can't make laws dictating what you can, or can't say (or what you must say). It doesn't mean other people have to listen to you. It doesn't mean businesses have to accommodate you. It only means the government can't fuck with you for saying something they don't like. Nor can they tell you what to say and force you to say it.

We agree on PA laws. Anti-discrimination laws should only apply to the government, not private entities. As soon as the government applies "protected classes" to certain groups but not other groups they have violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

 

[Pilot1]

The Media which is 95%+ Far Left Progressive Democrat as is Social Media and Tech control the narrative. They will never admit their bias, nor that it has any influence on what people think and how they vote. It is a HUGE influence. If the Media were honest most people would see the Democrats for what they are. Anti American liars.

 

[impuretrash]

When will you people learn the first amendment applies to the Government, not private entities.

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Liberty is not the domain of capitalism.

The point of capitalism is to make the maximum profit. FB thinks that doing this will help them reach that goal.

When liberty and capitalism collide...he who has the fatter wallet wins.

Hooray for capitalism.

There is no need for them to collide.

Under capitalism FB has the liberty to do what it did and you have the liberty to not use FB or start your own version as competition.

When FB started MySpace was the dominant site and it was thought hat FB could not compete...well we all know how that worked out.

The perfect meld of liberty and capitalism

We've all got the talking point memorized by now. No need to keep on repeating it.

Facebook for years has hosted PJW's boring, tame videos. Now all of a sudden he's a danger to society. It's not political, it's purely economic. Banning a popular personality and alienating millions of customers...that is a sure fire way to increase profit. Yeah, right.

It's totally not the opening salvo of a political purge just in time to influence the 2020 election or anything. Nah.

...the most well-known "free speech" alternative to twitter is gab, and minds is the alternative to Facebook. Google their web addresses in the news and 90% of the articles are talking about how they're havens for "hate speech" and need to be taken down for the public interest.

 

[dblack]

The Media which is 95%+ Far Left Progressive Democrat as is Social Media and Tech control the narrative. They will never admit their bias, nor that it has any influence on what people think and how they vote. It is a HUGE influence. If the Media were honest most people would see the Democrats for what they are. Anti American liars.

That's fair to say. But do you favor a government crackdown on the media? Because that's fascist horseshit, far more dangerous than a liberal media.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They don't give one flying fuck about liberty. They want power to push the "other side" around. That's ninety percent of politics these days.

Political censorship is liberty? Did we redefine that word at some point? Like how we did with the words obstruction and racism?

Liberty is not the domain of capitalism.

The point of capitalism is to make the maximum profit. FB thinks that doing this will help them reach that goal.

When liberty and capitalism collide...he who has the fatter wallet wins.

Hooray for capitalism.

There is no need for them to collide.

Under capitalism FB has the liberty to do what it did and you have the liberty to not use FB or start your own version as competition.

When FB started MySpace was the dominant site and it was thought hat FB could not compete...well we all know how that worked out.

The perfect meld of liberty and capitalism

We've all got the talking point memorized by now. No need to keep on repeating it.

Facebook for years has hosted PJW's boring, tame videos. Now all of a sudden he's a danger to society. It's not political, it's purely economic. Banning a popular personality and alienating millions of customers...that is a sure fire way to increase profit. Yeah, right.

It's totally not the opening salvo of a political purge just in time to influence the 2020 election or anything. Nah.

...the most well-known "free speech" alternative to twitter is gab, and minds is the alternative to Facebook. Google their web addresses in the news and 90% of the articles are talking about how they're havens for "hate speech" and need to be taken down for the public interest.

It is sort of funny to hear you whine about liberty, but then turn around and want to take away the liberty for companies to run their business as they see fit

 

[Pilot1]

The Media which is 95%+ Far Left Progressive Democrat as is Social Media and Tech control the narrative. They will never admit their bias, nor that it has any influence on what people think and how they vote. It is a HUGE influence. If the Media were honest most people would see the Democrats for what they are. Anti American liars.

That's fair to say. But do you favor a government crackdown on the media? Because that's fascist horseshit, far more dangerous than a liberal media.

NO, I do not favor government censoring Media. I prefer that people be educated as to what the Media has largely become, and then develop more balanced alternatives.