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

[MinTrut]

Nope, I am just like FB,

I'll be over with my noodle shortly then! W00t!

I get to choose who comes onto and uses my backyard.

Ooo - I see you're back in the weeds.

I have a strict no politics allowed rule in it.

Weeds hate politics I hear...

You would not like it at all.

If you have a no noodle policy as well, I might not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'll be over with my noodle shortly then! W00t!

Ooo - I see you're back in the weeds.

Weeds hate politics I hear...

If you have a no noodle policy as well, I might not.

Only noodles allowed are the ones that you eat.

 

[iceberg]

Once again you prove to be completely inept at discussing the topic.

Facebook is a private company.

You do not have a right to use Facebook.

Facebook's terms and conditions give Facebook the right to remove whatever content they wish if deemed to violate their terms of service.

You cannot intelligently refute any of those points; not even a little bit...

Then why was Microsoft forced to make concessions and different product versions?

How come they couldn't do as they wanted?

 

[Canon Shooter]

^ Fallacious retort.

Tough shit. It's all that was warranted...

Read the thread - would you like me to link you to it?

I have. I kinda' wish you'd do the same, dummy...

False.

Not false at all...

Correct - the public.

The public, yes.

My God, but you're stupid.

Target, like Facebook, maintains a space which is open and accessible to the public. But you don't have a "right" to shop there. You can be banned from Target if you break their rules (my neighbor's kid can give you the low-down on that) just as you can be banned from Facebook for breaking theirs...

Under certain circumstances, yes.

Under almost all circumstances. That's the difference between "public" and "private"...

I don't?

No, you don't.

Break their rules and you will be put in "Facebook jail", and rightfully so. Continue to break their rules and you will be banned, again, rightfully so.

Where did you get the stupid idea that you have a "right" to use Facebook?

News to me.

That's because you've fooled yourself into believing that you're important enough that you should be permitted to do as you please. Well, sorry, you don't. In the grand scheme of things you're pretty meaningless, and an absence of yours from Facebook would go largely unnoticed...

Actually, it will require SCOTUS to sort it out.

No, it really doesn't...

Pure projection.

Well, considering that you believe you have some inalienable right to use Facebook, I'd say it's a spot-on assessment...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Projection.

Accurate conclusion...

This has been repeatedly established as a fact, yes.

Okay, so why do you then believe that you have some "right" to use their service?

My businesses are private. They're not public entities. As such, I, and I alone, have the power to decide who we do and do not conduct business with. I have a long list of people who want to be clients...

News to me.

Again, we're all too well aware that you think you have some "right" which, in fact, you do not have...

SCOTUS will weigh in at some point, and Facebook will be required to make significant changes I'm guessing.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

If you don't like how Facebook conducts their business, why in the **** would you agree to their terms off service when signing up?

That's be a pretty stupid ******* thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

More projection?

Well, considering the fact that you've offered absolutely nothing to refute the points I've made, I'd say it's only yet another example of an accurate assessment of you...

 

[Zincwarrior]

As do those utilizing these public platforms.

SCOTUS must at some point weigh in...

No those utilizing them DON'T have free speech rights on private property.

 

[Indeependent]

Many have, you are free to do so at any time. I will not even notice if you do

Which is why you posted this.
I know people just like you and they crave attention.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Deception at its finest... Thier "opinion" is more valuable, and others must be silenced. Zuckerberg even said so openly in court. All of their fact checking is OPINON. Which means they have no legal standing to ban anyone. It is all about political narrative.

you misspelled Fuckerberg

 

[MinTrut]

Tough shit. It's all that was warranted...



I have. I kinda' wish you'd do the same, dummy...



Not false at all...



My God, but you're stupid.

Target, like Facebook, maintains a space which is open and accessible to the public. But you don't have a "right" to shop there. You can be banned from Target if you break their rules (my neighbor's kid can give you the low-down on that) just as you can be banned from Facebook for breaking theirs...



Under almost all circumstances. That's the difference between "public" and "private"...



No, you don't.

Break their rules and you will be put in "Facebook jail", and rightfully so. Continue to break their rules and you will be banned, again, rightfully so.

Where did you get the stupid idea that you have a "right" to use Facebook?



That's because you've fooled yourself into believing that you're important enough that you should be permitted to do as you please. Well, sorry, you don't. In the grand scheme of things you're pretty meaningless, and an absence of yours from Facebook would go largely unnoticed...



No, it really doesn't...



Well, considering that you believe you have some inalienable right to use Facebook, I'd say it's a spot-on assessment...

Amidst your fallacious, ignorant and irrelevant spewing, you bring up Target, which is quite interesting, as they have various set ups at their stores, including dedicated public space which creates all manner of headaches for them due to the laws governing such space.

I hope you can someday grasp the issues here, and in the meantime, we all eagerly await SCOTUS weighing in.

 

[MinTrut]

Accurate conclusion...



Okay, so why do you then believe that you have some "right" to use their service?

My businesses are private. They're not public entities. As such, I, and I alone, have the power to decide who we do and do not conduct business with. I have a long list of people who want to be clients...



Again, we're all too well aware that you think you have some "right" which, in fact, you do not have...



Perhaps, but perhaps not.

If you don't like how Facebook conducts their business, why in the **** would you agree to their terms off service when signing up?

That's be a pretty stupid ******* thing to do, wouldn't you agree?



Well, considering the fact that you've offered absolutely nothing to refute the points I've made, I'd say it's only yet another example of an accurate assessment of you...

Rather than endlessly repeat myself, I'll advise you to read the thread, and educate yourself on the issues.

Good luck!

 

[MinTrut]

No those utilizing them DON'T have free speech rights on private property.

This is what SCOTUS must weigh in on.

It's quite an interesting issue, as if they accept the presumed public space right to free speech (and association) even if that space is privately owned, many platforms, including Facebook, must alter their practices.

If they don't accept this presumed argument, it could undo a great deal of legal precedent in this area.

Hence our eagerly awaiting the inevitable SCOTUS intervention.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Amidst your fallacious, ignorant and irrelevant spewing, you bring up Target, which is quite interesting, as they have various set ups at their stores, including dedicated public space which creates all manner of headaches for them due to the laws governing such space.

What "public space"? What "various set ups at their stores"?

They have no such thing.

Everything within the walls of your local Target store (although I suspect you're more of a Wal-Mart gal) is controlled by Target...

I hope you can someday grasp the issues here, and in the meantime, we all eagerly await SCOTUS weighing in.

What's funny is that you are unable to grasp the issue that you do not have the right to use Facebook.

Tell me, is this issue currently before SCOTUS?

 

[MinTrut]

Which is why you posted this.
I know people just like you and they crave attention.

But when you compare him to Mac, he seems positively benevolent.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Conservative side on me believes that a company has a right to conduct business and decide who their customer is. The Liberal side of me believes that even though a private entity the government needs to regulate Facebook to accept all views.

 

[MinTrut]

you misspelled Fuckerberg

Possible thread win...

 

[Zincwarrior]

This is what SCOTUS must weigh in on.

It's quite an interesting issue, as if they accept the presumed public space right to free speech (and association) even if that space is privately owned, many platforms, including Facebook, must alter their practices.

If they don't accept this presumed argument, it could undo a great deal of legal precedent in this area.

Hence our eagerly awaiting the inevitable SCOTUS intervention.

Dream on. There is no federal issue here.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rather than endlessly repeat myself, I'll advise you to read the thread, and educate yourself on the issues.

Good luck!

Here's the issue: Facebook/META censors people, and you think they don't have the right to do that.

Luckily for you, the math is real easy on this one: Facebook's a private company. You don't have a "right" to do anything on Facebook, and you simply cannot provide an intelligent argument which demonstrates otherwise...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which is why you posted this.
I know people just like you and they crave attention.

and you keep giving it to me....what a good little servant you are

 

[MinTrut]

What "public space"? What "various set ups at their stores"?

Go visit your local Target and maybe you'll see it there.

You may even be approached to purchase a candy bar.

They have no such thing.

I'm as surprised as you that they continue to maintain such spaces, but they do.

Quite the headache for them.

Everything within the walls of your local Target store (although I suspect you're more of a Wal-Mart gal) is controlled by Target...

Yes and no, and I think you're referring to the property lines, though the answer is still the same.

And further complications arise depending on various contractual agreements, the larger layout of their location, and state/county law.

Quite the headache...

What's funny is that you are unable to grasp the issue that you do not have the right to use Facebook.

I don't?

News to me.

Tell me, is this issue currently before SCOTUS?

Only in my dreams.

 

[MinTrut]

The Conservative side on me believes that a company has a right to conduct business and decide who their customer is. The Liberal side of me believes that even though a private entity the government needs to regulate Facebook to accept all views.

I'm not sure anything beyond high court clarification is needed.

Facebook will presumably then adjust its practices to fall in line with any ruling they might perceive as adverse.