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

[dblack]

Boy, it sure is: mostly the Dems trying to destroy Trump before he can take power away from them.

Yep. Desantis going after Disney, etc, etc .. principles are a thing of the past, just get your shots in when you can.

 

[dblack]

Does everyone bar none get to use telephones? Yes. And say what they want? Yes.

So everyone also should get to use Facebook and Twitter freely.

Free shit!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

No. They haven't. They have more power to influence society than you like, so you want government to "reign them in".

Wrong again. They are actively choosing the narrative and banning those who do not toe the liberal bull shit line.

 

[FA_Q2]

Does everyone bar none get to use telephones? Yes. And say what they want? Yes.

So everyone also should get to use Facebook and Twitter freely.

They are not a telephone. Communication on a telephone is not hosted anywhere. Communications on Facebook are hosted on a privately owned computer.
Communications through a telephone are PRIVATE. Communications through Facebook are not private in any shape or form.

So no, you cannot claim that FB should not curate the content hosted for the public on THEIR OWN PROPERTY is similar to a telephone which hosts NONE of your communications anywhere and is private.

 

[hadit]

The rules apply to both sides. That’s not bias.

Of course it's bias when someone can show that they got banned for saying something far less noxious than what opponents are saying. You can say the rules apply to both teams in an NBA game, but if the referee only calls fouls on one team, there's bias.

 

[FA_Q2]

The government did something about it when it repealed the (un)Fairness Act and allowed the market to pick winners and losers on the radio. Worked very well, too. And it really doesn't matter who's yelling now that the government has to do something about it when a different platform can do whatever it wants too.

This holds, of course, as long as FB doesn't get what it wants by getting called in to help write the new internet regulations like they've been claiming they want.

And you are here advocating for a fairness doctrine. The very same concept that was deemed 'communist' by the right when the left tried to take over talk radio. But now it is the bastion of freedom, right?

The hypocrisy is so obvious I fail to understand how you can attain this level of doublethink.

 

[Marener]

Of course it's bias when someone can show that they got banned for saying something far less noxious than what opponents are saying. You can say the rules apply to both teams in an NBA game, but if the referee only calls fouls on one team, there's bias.

Reality is that conservatives on social media are just way more likely to say very noxious things.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course it's bias when someone can show that they got banned for saying something far less noxious than what opponents are saying. You can say the rules apply to both teams in an NBA game, but if the referee only calls fouls on one team, there's bias.

Or they call a flagrant foul on nothing at all to toss you out for the game so the other team wins... Throwing the game...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reality is that conservatives on social media are just way more likely to say very noxious things.

IN YOUR OPINION... And there we have it.... Fascistbook justification for tossing someone you disagree with...

 

[Circe]

What? Is Facebook cocaine now? God help you if you ever take an actual drug, you will never be able to get off it.

It took me less than a second to get off Facebook. One day I decided to simply stop using it. 2 years later I logged on for the hell of it and my account had been hacked by some random company trying to sell sunglasses. Likely still doing so....

You try to actually close out your account and see how long that takes you ---- you may be surprised.

Still, I know what you mean. That happened to me on eBay --- I stopped buying and several months later logged in to find a record of a whole lotta cheating and stealing going on and ever more frantic messages from eBay and finally they closed me down by inactivating the password.

That's when I learned that a password does need to be a little harder than firstname-eBay. When firstname is also my email.

 

[Circe]

They are not a telephone. Communication on a telephone is not hosted anywhere. Communications on Facebook are hosted on a privately owned computer.
Communications through a telephone are PRIVATE. Communications through Facebook are not private in any shape or form.

So no, you cannot claim that FB should not curate the content hosted for the public on THEIR OWN PROPERTY is similar to a telephone which hosts NONE of your communications anywhere and is private.

Ma Bell was private.

Until the government declared it a public utility. That's what I want.

 

[hadit]

They are not a telephone. Communication on a telephone is not hosted anywhere. Communications on Facebook are hosted on a privately owned computer.
Communications through a telephone are PRIVATE. Communications through Facebook are not private in any shape or form.

So no, you cannot claim that FB should not curate the content hosted for the public on THEIR OWN PROPERTY is similar to a telephone which hosts NONE of your communications anywhere and is private.

A publisher can moderate the content they publish. It can decide who can use their services. In return, they are susceptible to lawsuits for the content they allow to be published. That's why you can sue a book publisher for publishing a book in which an author calls you out by name as a democrat (Obviously an unpleasant thing).
A platform cannot do so. It is required by law to provide a service accessible to everyone. In return, they are protected from lawsuits for the content they allow to be published. You cannot, for example, sue a phone company if someone called all their friends and told them you are a democrat.

FB and its leftwing supporters attempt to be both. When it comes to their right to control content, they want to be a publisher, free from regulation that they have to provide the service to all. When it comes to getting in trouble for what they do allow, however, they want to be a platform and protected from lawsuits.

 

[Marener]

IN YOUR OPINION... And there we have it.... Fascistbook justification for tossing someone you disagree with...

The right wing violence and misinformation culture on social media is well documented.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Because social media is now the digital commons, and one side has decided only their viewpoint is allowable in said commons?

You avoid answering. Again, why use it? You don't have any constitutional right to social media. When you can reconcile with that fact, maybe it ain't all that necessary.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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

You have these sites and a number of sites on the "dark" and no so dark web, as well as the message boards of literally thousands of alt-right sites. Why don't you go play on one of these? Or better still..."special"...start one of your own.

Either way, stop bitching about it. Conform and play by the rules, or take your opinions and your money and go somewhere else.
Easy.

 

[hadit]

And you are here advocating for a fairness doctrine. The very same concept that was deemed 'communist' by the right when the left tried to take over talk radio. But now it is the bastion of freedom, right?

The hypocrisy is so obvious I fail to understand how you can attain this level of doublethink.

Nope, if you read what I wrote, you would see I'm not advocating for a FD. It's unfortunate that FB and their ilk are so infested with leftwing think, but that's not the government's concern. I do think, moreover, that FB should be vulnerable to lawsuits from people who can demonstrate damage caused by content they allow, such as parents suing them for cyber-bullying that drove their daughter to suicide. They need to pick one or the other, either protected and not allowed to censure content, or allowed to censure and vulnerable to legal action.

 

[Circe]

You have these sites and a number of sites on the "dark" and no so dark web, as well as the message boards of literally thousands of alt-right sites. Why don't you go play on one of these? Or better still..."special"...start one of your own.

Either way, stop bitching about it. Conform and play by the rules, or take your opinions and your money and go somewhere else.
Easy.

Nope. Make me.

See how that works? That's free speech.

 

[hadit]

You have these sites and a number of sites on the "dark" and no so dark web, as well as the message boards of literally thousands of alt-right sites. Why don't you go play on one of these? Or better still..."special"...start one of your own.

Either way, stop bitching about it. Conform and play by the rules, or take your opinions and your money and go somewhere else.
Easy.

And if you can demonstrate damage caused by the content they allow, take them to court, or get them to settle out of court.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Nope. Make me.

See how that works? That's free speech.

I don't have to make you do anything. The company sets the rules, tiger. That's also free speech.
But I will call you a douche for constantly whining about it.

 

[Circe]

They need to pick one or the other, either protected and not allowed to censure content, or allowed to censure and vulnerable to legal action.

...................................................................................