META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[Coyote]

As Facebook and social media has done. Sect 230 isn't perfect but it's as close as we have.

Again, the intent of the law was to not make platforms have to moderate content. We are far far from that.

Ya, but, they have always had terms of service, it is after all private property, and they’ve long had moderate content for criminal activity right.. .like ISIS. I don’t have a problem with TOS, like any other business, I have a problem with stifling competition. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.

 

[iceberg]

Ya, but, they have always had terms of service, it is after all private property, and they’ve long had moderate content for criminal activity right.. .like ISIS. I don’t have a problem with TOS, like any other business, I have a problem with stifling competition. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.

When the TOS becomes selective enforcement, I have a problem.

And by making them publishers, it makes FACEBOOK accountable for what they fact check and publish.

If they don't want that, be a platform and stop fact checking, applying TOS evenly.

Again, s230 means a platform doesn't gage to remove anything since they are not liable.

 

[dblack]

. I don’t think people realize that if you changed the laws to make them publishers a lot MORE content will end up being banned.

They don't give a shit. It's a fake concern, an excuse.

 

[Coyote]

When the TOS becomes selective enforcement, I have a problem.

And by making them publishers, it makes FACEBOOK accountable for what they fact check and publish.

If they don't want that, be a platform and stop fact checking, applying TOS evenly.

Again, s230 means a platform doesn't gage to remove anything since they are not liable.

I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.

 

[iceberg]

I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.

Heh, ok.

Argue with their own study.

Facebook commissioned a study of alleged anti-conservative bias. Here's what it found | CNN Business

Facebook released the results of a year-long, independent investigation of the company's alleged anti-conservative bias on Tuesday. Although Facebook has made some progress in eliminating anti-conservative bias, the company still has work left to do, the investigators say.

www.cnn.com

 

[FA_Q2]

Yet if they claim something is a fact, they publish it.

No, if they create content they are a publisher.

No matter how much you want to twist it, that is what being a publisher is. All sites, including FB and Twitter are responsible for the things they publish. They are not, and should not be, responsible for the things YOU publish. They can, of course, remove anything you publish from their site at any time they wish, it is their server, their hardware and their website YOU are publishing on.

And that does not transfer the liability from YOU to them because they did so.

Finally, removing that curation simply ensures that no site anywhere will be able to give anyone a chance to publish their content as they see fit. This is not good for people or speech. It is nonsensical revenge.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's flim flam is what it is. This has exactly nothing to do with the rights and responsibilities of "publishers”. You're just rationalizing revenge.

This, this and this again.

The right is rationalizing seizure and control of personal property for revenge.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have yet to see any objective evidence that they are not overall applied evenly.

Then you are just ignoring the obvious.

 

[iceberg]

No, if they create content they are a publisher.

No matter how much you want to twist it, that is what being a publisher is. All sites, including FB and Twitter are responsible for the things they publish. They are not, and should not be, responsible for the things YOU publish. They can, of course, remove anything you publish from their site at any time they wish, it is their server, their hardware and their website YOU are publishing on.

And that does not transfer the liability from YOU to them because they did so.

Finally, removing that curation simply ensures that no site anywhere will be able to give anyone a chance to publish their content as they see fit. This is not good for people or speech. It is nonsensical revenge.

They commission the fact checkers.

I'm not playing hide n go semantics.

 

[Coyote]

Then you are just ignoring the obvious.

Show me the data, otherwise it is just more rightwing whining.

 

[FA_Q2]

They commission the fact checkers.

I'm not playing hide n go semantics.

Yes you are.

You are the one that wants to change the basic meaning of publisher to suit your needs. You are the one making claims about 230 that are not related to 230.

And now you are trying to pretend that the points were never made because you do not have an actual counterpoint. If you thought this through tot he conclusion, you would see that you are not presenting a solution here, just rationalizations.

 

[MinTrut]

How does restricting what's posted on a private forum, that you don't pay to use, equate to "hate" for the Constitution?

Who is restricting?

By what means/in what way?

What is a forum?

To which "forum" do you refer?

Is it private in all respects?

 

[MinTrut]

I am wondering how someone posting on this forum can claim there is nowhere else to go

An irrelevant inquiry, and one steeped in ignorance of the issues.

 

[MinTrut]

META, Apple and Google are already separate entities...

Whooooooooooooooosh!

 

[MinTrut]

I haven't gotten my invite to speak at MinTrut house yet. Fascist!

The modern liberal celebrates their willful ignorance, swinging it like a jackboot's cudgel.

 

[MinTrut]

MinTrut is just a troll.

Fallacious derailing.

Just relishing the negative attention.

See above.

But there are people genuinely drawn to the BS he's slinging, and it's dangerous.

See above.

 

[MinTrut]

You just posted free speech.

Perhaps.

But like so many modern liberals, you're willfully missing the point.

Those will kill you by the way.

Perhaps.

 

[Marener]

The modern liberal celebrates their willful ignorance, swinging it like a jackboot's cudgel.

No, that’s modern conservatives who brag openly about how they they only get their information from incredibly dishonest partisan hacks and never consider any sources outside their bubble.

 

[MinTrut]

I am a vehement Constitutionalist.

Do you then see your error above?

You could certainly say that I "prize the Constitution".

You could certainly say this, but I would not.

Facebook has no Constitutional duty to exercise free speech on its platform. It simply doesn't...

It has the right, but not the duty, but you've stated this so badly that I can only guess at what you meant to write.

The issue is restriction of the rights of others, and by what method, and not Facebook's right to express itself.

 

[MinTrut]

Let's clarify.

Sounds good.

Please cite the Constitutional provision supporting your argument.

Which argument?

This thread is such a grotesque tapestry of intensely proud, trolling ignorance that I'm not certain which simple statement of fact I may have made in a specific reply, and to which you may thus refer.

Thanks!