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

[martybegan]

Yet you're here begging for enemies to promote your shit speech. Grow some balls *****.

Not promote, allow, your side is the one that needs help because the truth of your views is that they are shit.

 

[Curried Goats]

Mkay. Do have anything intelligent to say? Or are you just trolling at this point?

I guess you can't multi-task.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not promote, allow, your side is the one that needs help because the truth of your views is that they are shit.

You don't need our permission to post your shit meme to the internet Soy Boy, you need Facebooks permission to post it to Facebook. Are you going to cry this hard if FOX News doesn't promote BLM? Do all your political strategies involve flailing on the ground and crying like little bitches?

 

[Marener]

Yet you're here begging for enemies to promote your shit speech. Grow some balls *****.

They’re not just begging. They’re trying to get the government to force them to do it.

 

[dblack]

I guess you can't multi-task.

trolling it is.

 

[OKTexas]

So if some obnoxious boozer gets bounced from a bar they should just sue the bar because bar was just enforcing its own rules? I thought conservatives were pro-business.

It's not a business when they become a quasi government agency. Are they filing with the FEC for in kind contributions to the commiecrats? And the whole point of sec 302 is to keep dialog open, where all opinions can be heard, we're talking about the internet, not some bar.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So this site should also lose the same exemption as I have had my post edited/removed.

How long do you think this site will continue to operate under such conditions?

Do you seriously think this site is acting in concert with the current regime on a broad scale?

.

 

[multivita-man]

It's not a business when they become a quasi government agency. Are they filing with the FEC for in kind contributions to the commiecrats? And the whole point of sec 302 is to keep dialog open, where all opinions can be heard, we're talking about the internet, not some bar..

What is section 302 - section 302 of what?

Did you mean section 230?

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure, and that is a fair complaint after what happened to Hillary. Is that an example of ideological bias or a bad decision given that at the time the story was full of unfounded speculation and unconfirmed? Either way it was a bad decision on their part.




“They say”….

The problem is there doesn’t seem to be any actual data to support the claim. What does Islamic apologist have to do with it?

Of course it is an ideological bias. It was a direct attempt to suppress a popular conservative talking point.

I give you a data point and you just pretend it does not exist and say its 'just a bad decision.'

Go find a corollary on the left. There simply is not one. And this is an oft repeated instance.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am simply pointing out when you grow so big, the rules change.

No, they don't. You demanding that is the case does not make it true.

And you entirely walked away from your own darn point here since it simply does not back up your demand that government tell FB what they can and cannot curate.

Microsoft was forced to create OSs no one wanted.

But I do find it hilarious for a mindset to call for a business to do what they want also wants to force bakers to bake cakes.

And that has to do with me or any point I have made because....

If you say no abuse, then...

SkewTube: New video-sharing sites thrives on misinformation and hate

Video sites BitChute and Odysee serve up extremism to millions of viewers in a warped reality where COVID and mass shootings are fake, and Trump won in 2020.

www.reuters.com

Googke and Apple banning apps from their store. Parlor accused of serving up violence while the big boys do far worse.

Where did I say there was no abuse or that what they are doing is good or correct. I have maintained one position this entire time.

You choosing to pretend it's just fighting "disinformation" is cute.

Again, never said by me ANYWHERE.

I will tell you what is really telling. You have been utterly unable to address one single point and because of that you have had to go off to liberal land and fight points that I do not agree with, have never stated and have never backed. It shows how truly empty your position actually is.

Dblack hit the nail on the head earlier, all you are doing and have been doing is rationalizing why YOU get to use governmental force to control the property of others. Conservatives rightfully fought the 'fairness' doctrine and here they are demanding the same bullshit when the medium changes.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are probably OK with losing as long as you die with your principles intact.

That statement make it very clear where the right has gone wrong here.

**** principals, it's about WINNING. If it takes becoming the same thing as a democrat in everything but label, that's fine. As long as we can say we won. And that is why pir politics are spiraling towards authoritarianism.

 

[iceberg]

No, they don't. You demanding that is the case does not make it true.

And you entirely walked away from your own darn point here since it simply does not back up your demand that government tell FB what they can and cannot curate.

And that has to do with me or any point I have made because....

Where did I say there was no abuse or that what they are doing is good or correct. I have maintained one position this entire time.

Again, never said by me ANYWHERE.

I will tell you what is really telling. You have been utterly unable to address one single point and because of that you have had to go off to liberal land and fight points that I do not agree with, have never stated and have never backed. It shows how truly empty your position actually is.

Dblack hit the nail on the head earlier, all you are doing and have been doing is rationalizing why YOU get to use governmental force to control the property of others. Conservatives rightfully fought the 'fairness' doctrine and here they are demanding the same bullshit when the medium changes.

I've addressed the points just fine.

You simply don't like them. I don't care.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've addressed the points just fine.

You simply don't like them. I don't care.

lol.

No, you have not. Not one thing stated other than demanding government control things you don't like. No core values or principals whatsoever. This is sad.

 

[dblack]

Obama calls for tech regulation to combat disinformation on social media

Former President Barack Obama said on Thursday that tech "platforms seems to be tilting us in the wrong direction."

www.cnbc.com

 

[iceberg]

Do you seriously think this site is acting in concert with the current regime on a broad scale?

.

He doesn't let the scope of operations change things.

They do

 

[iceberg]

lol.

No, you have not. Not one thing stated other than demanding government control things you don't like. No core values or principals whatsoever. This is sad.

You assume what I like and don't like, ergo my motivations.

Cute.

Stupid, but cute.

 

[busybee01]

The point is, the problem needs to be addressed and corrected. It shouldn't be used as an excuse for even more ill-conceived legislation.

This is what scares me about DeSantis. Unlike Trump, who only threatened and blustered, DeSantis is pushing this shit into law. He openly engages in retaliatory government - targeting and punishing political opponents, for purely political reasons. And, as you suggest, the Court doesn't give a shit. Neither do voters.

I'm honestly surprised that Congress hasn't whipped up some omnibus bill claiming significant control over social media. If they do, I look for many Republicans to join them. They're demanding it.

DeSantis does more than that. He attacks free speech, he is a racist, and like Hitler he scapegoats various groups much as Jews were.

Any such bill would likely be declared unconstitutional.

 

[busybee01]

Not if they are a platform which gives them the abity to be protected from what others say on it. Oddly enough sect 230 was to keep sites from having to censor others.

If they want to dictate what content is, that's publisher status and can be held legally liable for what they and others say.

They take the best of both and responsibility of neither.

If someone sends hate mail then should the post office be held accountable for someone sending you a nasty letter? Publishers pay authors for their contribution. Social media companies do not so they are not publishers.

 

[busybee01]

AT&T WAS Ma Bell. Once they broke it up, it fractionated and now the telephones are essentially unusable because of constant, never-stop spam and scam. (DESPITE all the NOMOROBO and Comcast spam blocks, etc., etc. We have to leave the ringer off and just use phones -- both kinds -- to call out.)

I'd love to see Facebook broken up. Or made a public utility: whichever works to stop the censorship, which has gotten completely out of control.

Good ambition to be King of Texas, once Texas secedes.

Social media companies have a right to censor. You cannot go into a Walmart and start preaching without permission from the manager.

 

[iceberg]

If someone sends hate mail then should the post office be held accountable for someone sending you a nasty letter? Publishers pay authors for their contribution. Social media companies do not so they are not publishers.

But if publishers and platforms are private companies also, why do they have responsibilities? I mean private company n all.

why does social media get a pass on defining the business to avoid any responsibility at all?