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

[Marener]

They are selling my data for me to be there. I have rights under those terms. Rights they do not want to allow.

Good news. By kicking you off they can no longer sell your data.

Read the terms of service. Your rights are clearly explained and they’re pretty minimal.

 

[dblack]

They are selling my data for me to be there. I have rights under those terms. Rights they do not want to allow.

Yep - you have a right to not do business with them. You don't have a right to force them to do things your way.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Facebook is a private entity. Free to make and make users abide by the TOS. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and don't frequent them.

Fairly easy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not when they are being paid, by selling your data. I have the same rights as every left-wing bat shit crazy has and they don't silence them. And that is a tangible disparity.

No, being paid does not mean you lose your rights, period.

There is not even a logical connection there. Try again.

 

[FA_Q2]

They are selling my data for me to be there. I have rights under those terms. Rights they do not want to allow.

No, you do not.

You FREELY enter into that contract and you can end it at ANY TIME.

That you continue to give them your data is a choice YOU make. If you do not like the terms of use then you have the power, right and, indeed, the RESPONSIBILITY to stop using it. Are you so juvenile that just cannot help it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, being paid does not mean you lose your rights, period.

There is not even a logical connection there. Try again.

They are gaining revenue from my being on the platform. They are being paid for me to be there. This gives me rights that they do not acknowledge. The TOS is so vague that any reason can be used to toss you, even your opinion. The problem is that they have become the "town square" So just like any other business that gets this big, they have power, that they are not entitled to, over public discourse.

So, what are your suggestions to remedy that?

This is why the US has Anti-trust laws. Do we break them up into little companies now?

 

[Canon Shooter]

SO, they are allowed to silence whomever they want in the public domain... Double standards or no standards. You cannot have it both ways.

It's not double standards. Facebook is a private company. That's the inescapable reality which negates your argument. If you don't like the platform's stance on what you see as an assault on free speech, well, you're simply not being forced to use that platform. Instagram and Twitter are free to do the same.

Now, when those companies become publicly funded we can revisit your argument.

For the record, I agree that Facebook is awfully heavy handed in their censorship. But I know that and, as a Facebook user, I accept that they have that right. They can't force me to participate. That decision is mine...

 

[GMCGeneral]

Facebook is a private entity. Free to make and make users abide by the TOS. If you don't like it, go elsewhere and don't frequent them.

Fairly easy.

Problem is special Ed. There IS no "other place" Why do you think MeWe and Parler haven't gotten any traction at all?

 

[Vastator]

I thought this board had a hissy fit when posters talk about other social media sites? We’re all supposed to pretend only USMB exists. It’s really insecure like that…

 

[Canon Shooter]

They are gaining revenue from my being on the platform. They are being paid for me to be there. This gives me rights that they do not acknowledge.

No, it grants you no such rights.

I own two businesses. I have my set business practices, and we rarely deviate from them.

Would you suggest that someone who chooses to use my business has the right to demand that I alter our business practices to suit their desires? Because that's exactly what you're doing with regards to Facebook.

If someone doesn't like the way my companies do business, they are free to go elsewhere. I'll take no offense at all. But if someone demands that we alter the way we do business to a way which better suits them, well, they can go piss up a rope...

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, it grants you no such rights.

I own two businesses. I have my set business practices, and we rarely deviate from them.

Would you suggest that someone who chooses to use my business has the right to demand that I alter our business practices to suit their desires? Because that's exactly what you're doing with regards to Facebook.

If someone doesn't like the way my companies do business, they are free to go elsewhere. I'll take no offense at all. But if someone demands that we alter the way we do business to a way which better suits them, well, they can go piss up a rope...

Your business doesn't have the same power over public discourse as META does. Two very different things. Big Tech has made it impossible to create a startup to challenge them. They crash your servers and prohibit you from doing business by controlling the access flow. META and Google have already been caught doing this. Parler anyone?

So this avenue is a dead end.

Is it time to break them up into small little pieces now?

 

[FA_Q2]

They are gaining revenue from my being on the platform. They are being paid for me to be there. This gives me rights that they do not acknowledge.

Again, NO IT DOES NOT.

Where do you think these 'right' are outlined? What asinine rights do you claim because they are getting paid? What a vapid idea. If I own a restaurant you do not get to barge in and do whatever the hell you want. I can even refuse service without reason or cause because I own the damn business.

The TOS is so vague that any reason can be used to toss you, even your opinion. The problem is that they have become the "town square" So just like any other business that gets this big, they have power that they are not entitled to over public discourse.

So what are your suggestions to remedy that?

This is why the US has Anti-trust laws. Do we break them up into little companies now?

Bullshit. Anti-Trust laws were created because companies were able to monopolize entire industries. Facebook is not a monopoly nor are they using any business practices that deny entry into the market.

There is a very simple remedy, DO NOT USE THEM. Create your own damn website rather than demanding that the government come in and take theirs so you can use it. It is ironic as hell that the right bitches about communism over and over and over again when the core tenant of communism and socialism is public control of the means of production. The EXACT thing that the right, and you, in this thread is calling for, public control of Facebook.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Problem is special Ed. There IS no "other place" Why do you think MeWe and Parler haven't gotten any traction at all?

And that is by design. These companies have banded together in an effort to kill any new startup which could challenge them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Problem is special Ed. There IS no "other place" Why do you think MeWe and Parler haven't gotten any traction at all?

Because whiners like yourself do not go there and use them rather than Facebook.

No, you want Facebook because they are a better service. Well, tough. Right out of the communist playbook, cant create an equal product just take over the one someone else created.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, NO IT DOES NOT.

Where do you think these 'right' are outlined? What asinine rights do you claim because they are getting paid? What a vapid idea. If I own a restaurant you do not get to barge in and do whatever the hell you want. I can even refuse service without reason or cause because I own the damn business.

Bullshit. Anti-Trust laws were created because companies were able to monopolize entire industries. Facebook is not a monopoly nor are they using any business practices that deny entry into the market.

There is a very simple remedy, DO NOT USE THEM. Create your own damn website rather than demanding that the government come in and take theirs so you can use it. It is ironic as hell that the right bitches about communism over and over and over again when the core tenant of communism and socialism is public control of the means of production. The EXACT thing that the right, and you, in this thread is calling for, public control of Facebook.

Wrong... Fascitbook is a monopoly. They and other tech gurus have made it impossible to create a startup that they can't shut down. Google redirects people from all conservative sites and information. IT is done on pourpose.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong... Fascitbook is a monopoly. They and other tech gurus have made it impossible to create a startup that they can't shut down. Google redirects people from all conservative sites and information. IT is done on pourpose.

Yup, we own it because we want it. Who cares who created it.

If you are just going to blankly make things up then there is no point. It is just a fact that Facebook is not a monopoly, period. Declaring it so just because you want to use Gestapo tactics to take it over just reveals the lack of core values.

It is funny that the fairness doctrine was brought up, there is no functional difference between it and what you are all demanding the government does to Facebook.

 

[westwall]

Or the platforms have to change their contract and terms of services to explicitly say they only support one side of the issues.

And lose their government protections.

 

[hadit]

If you do not like the free service they provide, do not use them.

It seems so simple yet you all just cannot figure it out.

Why is that?

What's wrong with calling out an organization for bias that effects their users?

 

[dblack]

They are gaining revenue from my being on the platform. They are being paid for me to be there. This gives me rights that they do not acknowledge.

What rights are you imagining this gives you?

The problem is that they have become the "town square"

Nope. You're just saying that because you want them to bend to your will.

So just like any other business that gets this big, they have power, that they are not entitled to, over public discourse.

So, what are your suggestions to remedy that?

Stop using their service. I did. It's not hard.

This is why the US has Anti-trust laws. Do we break them up into little companies now?

Because politicians are jealous of the power of private wealth.

 

[Marener]

What's wrong with calling out an organization for bias that effects their users?

It’s not bias. It’s just that conservatives are much more prone to breaking the rules.