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

[dblack]

How do you know it will make it worse?

How in the world will it make it better? You're complaining that the government is (corruptly and illegally) forcing these companies to do their bidding. If you give them a bunch of regulatory power over these companies, it will only be easier for the state to bully them. Legally. How can you not see that?

Right now if the imbalance continues it will get worse for us and better for them no matter what.

Have you considered that the "imbalance" you're fixated on might just be the way things are? That most people just don't like the whackadoodle shit that Trump puts out there? That they prefer FB censor it, rather than have to see it in their feed?

 

[martybegan]

They do control most of it, and had fits when Rush Limbaugh single-handedly controlled AM talk radio for decades. They were yammering on for the reinstatement of the (un)Fairness Doctrine, little expecting that if they had, it could be used against them as well.

The thing is they had no shortage of shows they tried to throw against him, the shortage was of shows that could stay on the air.

 

[martybegan]

How in the world will it make it better? You're complaining that the government is (corruptly and illegally) forcing these companies to do their bidding. If you give them a bunch of regulatory power over these companies, it will only be easier for the state to bully them. Legally. How can you not see that?

Have you considered that the "imbalance" you're fixated on might just be the way things are? That most people just don't like the whackadoodle shit that Trump puts out there? That they prefer FB censor it, rather than have to see it in their feed?

All you do is pass through the 1st amendment speech restrictions down to them.

That's all.

 

[OKTexas]

So every Pro-Trump story put out by the GWP or Pro-Biden story by MSNBC should be counted as political contributions?

That would be awesome!

WTF is GWP? And why are you trying to conflate news stories with social media censoring opposing political views.

.

 

[Curried Goats]

Why not? Do you consider the term "liberals" to be a childish insult? Like "white winger"? Interesting.

I consider generalizing about "liberals" and "white wingers" to be the same sort of insult, "childish" is simply a subjective measurement of your feelings.

Yeah. I've read some of your other shit. You're exactly the kind of "Liberal" that created the Trump movement. Congrats.

I'm not responsible for white hate, at least not in any way you can discern with reason and logic. They are individuals who can decide for themselves if they want to embrace violence and inanity. I'm not a sorcerer.

Because the Trump voters are mostly just crackpots. Dems are busy working on the legislation to make it happen.

Trump voters want changes because they don't like private entities shuddering their doors to them. If I'm thinking about the same legislation as you liberals want to crack down on violent hate speech. It's important to address the contexts of these proposals. They are not equivalent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

WTF is GWP? And why are you trying to conflate news stories with social media censoring opposing political views.

.

The Gateway Pundit.

I am talking about news organizations that behave in a purely partisan manner. Why is it ok for them to do so, but not FB and Twitter?

 

[hadit]

The thing is they had no shortage of shows they tried to throw against him, the shortage was of shows that could stay on the air.

Yup. They couldn't compete on a level playing field, so they screeched for the field to be tilted, even though they had far more outlets for their viewpoints.

 

[Curried Goats]

For that to be true then Facebook and twitter would have to claim said content on the sites is THIER content, thus making them a publisher.

Didn't think that one through, did ya?

I don't think you have. In what way would they have to declare as a publisher just because they continue to ban Trump misinformation? In your fantasy cuck world where you get to make demands of them?

 

[hadit]

How in the world will it make it better? You're complaining that the government is (corruptly and illegally) forcing these companies to do their bidding. If you give them a bunch of regulatory power over these companies, it will only be easier for the state to bully them. Legally. How can you not see that?

Have you considered that the "imbalance" you're fixated on might just be the way things are? That most people just don't like the whackadoodle shit that Trump puts out there? That they prefer FB censor it, rather than have to see it in their feed?

Better to give users filters they can use if they are afraid to see things that upset their tender sensibilities than allow an unaccountable NPC decide for them.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The truth is leftists, if you didn’t have a rigged game you couldn’t get a democrat dog catcher elected.

 

[OKTexas]

The Gateway Pundit.

I am talking about news organizations that behave in a purely partisan manner. Why is it ok for them to do so, but not FB and Twitter?

Oh like the LSM having 97% negative coverage of Trump while pretending to be nonpartisan. People that go to the GWP know what they're getting up front.

.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think you have. In what way would they have to declare as a publisher just because they continue to ban Trump misinformation? In your fantasy cuck world where you get to make demands of them?

What I'm saying is that to be covered under Citizen's united they would have to claim sponsorship, which is why you now hear the whole "paid for by" lines from PACs. Without that they would just be someone illegally benefitting the Dem nominee's campaign.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

How in the world will it make it better? You're complaining that the government is (corruptly and illegally) forcing these companies to do their bidding. If you give them a bunch of regulatory power over these companies, it will only be easier for the state to bully them. Legally. How can you not see that?

Have you considered that the "imbalance" you're fixated on might just be the way things are? That most people just don't like the whackadoodle shit that Trump puts out there? That they prefer FB censor it, rather than have to see it in their feed?

911 dispatcher, what’s your emergency?

“There’s things I disagree with on my Facebook feed!”

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh like the LSM having 97% negative coverage of Trump while pretending to be nonpartisan.

Yeah, like that. Why is that allowed but FB cannot be partisan?

People that go to the GWP know what they're getting up front.

And people should know that about FB and twitter, or even this site if they just pay attention.

 

[Curried Goats]

What I'm saying is that to be covered under Citizen's united they would have to claim sponsorship, which is why you now hear the whole "paid for by" lines from PACs. Without that they would just be someone illegally benefitting the Dem nominee's campaign.

What the **** are you talking about? Facebook can donate at much as it wants to a "Biden" super pac and not have to declare as a publisher or whatever nonsense you were mumbling about in your last post.

 

[martybegan]

What the **** are you talking about? Facebook can donate at much as it wants to a "Biden" super pac and not have to declare as a publisher or whatever nonsense you were mumbling about in your last post.

They are the ones allowing the posts, it's not about their donations, it's about the content provided.

 

[Curried Goats]

They are the ones allowing the posts, it's not about their donations, it's about the content provided.

Again. What are you talking about? Facebook has every right to moderate content posted to their site, including content about political candidates.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, like that. Why is that allowed but FB cannot be partisan?



And people should know that about FB and twitter, or even this site if they just pay attention.

Perhaps because FB advertises they are there to bring people together, the don't say only the people who's opinions they agree with.

.

 

[iceberg]

For that to be true then Facebook and twitter would have to claim said content on the sites is THIER content, thus making them a publisher.

Didn't think that one through, did ya?

so when they correct a post and put up their warnings, are they publishing that?

there is simply no good SINGLE definition for social media but to pretend they are a private company and can do what they want is simply bullshit.

the same people crying this crap also said the baker must make gay cakes. the hypocrisy is off the charts these days.

 

[Marener]

Yup. They couldn't compete on a level playing field, so they screeched for the field to be tilted, even though they had far more outlets for their viewpoints.

But they didn’t reinstate the fairness doctrine, which was applicable to broadcast since the spectrum is a limited public resource.

But the roles are reversed now and it’s conservatives who can’t compete on the level playing field and want laws changed to tilt it in their favor.