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

[Harpy Eagle]

That is correct. They created this place and now are exerting control over the space they should not have.

It is their damn place, why should they not have control over it.

Do you not have control over the things you own?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just as we do over air TV and Radio. This is the new medium that must also be included.

and we allow people to be as biased as they wish over TV and Radio and nobody whines about it.

Did you ever whine about Rush Limbaugh being too biased?

 

[multivita-man]

How long are you going to keep tap dancing around the fact that the social media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business?

I don't think they are. I see all kinds of right wing MAGA supporters who are on Twitter, from Jesse Watters to Jack Prosobeic to Tucker Carlson. They apparently know how to use the platform without getting banned. You seem to equate Alex Jones' vicious trolling and Donald Trump's blatant lies with legitimate political speech - I don't. That's the difference. Conservative twitter is doing just fine, but if they want to post death threats and bang the civil war drum, then I guess what Twitter and FB are saying is do that on another platform. It's really not that hard.

 

[Curried Goats]

it's called the heckler's veto, and of course you would be a fan of it. It gives lie to your "just do it yourself" bullshit.

I'm a fan of anything that shits on the white wing but that's besides the fact that you are indeed free to "do it yourself".

Until your side tries to get their hosts to drop them.

That's freedom of speech. Cry about it.

Scratch an SJW's skin and you get nothing more than a bully underneath.

I absolutely admit to agreeing with bullying you pussies off the political and social playground.

A gutless bully, who's only confident in numbers.

Awww. So sad.

 

[Marener]

Because they have substantial social, economic, and political impact and as such, some regulation is in the public interest. Obviously, two reasonable people can disagree over what the "public interest" is or isn't.

Lots of things have substantial social, economic and political impact that we shouldn’t and can’t regulate.

 

[multivita-man]

Lots of things have substantial social, economic and political impact that we shouldn’t and can’t regulate.

My position is, we should regulate social media, and we can.

People will always disagree over how much and what to regulate, but that doesn't mean we can't try to approach this effort in good faith. The terms of service is, in my mind, a fair compromise because it forces *both* parties to honor the legal promise. I actually agree with conservatives on this: in a lot of cases, it's the user that's bound by the terms and not the platform. Force the platform to be more transparent about what will and will not get someone banned, and then enforce consistently. That way there's no surprise when someone gets de-platformed.

 

[tshrimp]

I'm a fan of anything that shits on the white wing but that's besides the fact that you are indeed free to "do it yourself".

That's freedom of speech. Cry about it.

I absolutely admit to agreeing with bullying you pussies off the political and social playground.

Awww. So sad.

Racist much?

 

[dblack]

Making someone live by the principles of the 1st amendment is "doing anything"?

Forcing individuals individuals or businesses to "live by" the First Amendment is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I'm an Engineer, I look for solutions to problems.

Then keep looking. Sicking government on them will only make matters worse.

 

[dblack]

Because they have substantial social, economic, and political impact and as such, some regulation is in the public interest.

Oh, it'll be in someone's "interest" alright. Freedom of the press is a direct challenge to authoritarian regimes, and one of the first things authoritarians go after.

Obviously, two reasonable people can disagree over what the "public interest" is or isn't.

See, this is what I've been saying. Democrats and Republicans fundamentally agree on this issue. They both think that social media companies have too much power and government should take it. Is it any more complicated than that?

 

[dblack]

Lots of things have substantial social, economic and political impact that we shouldn’t and can’t regulate.

This should be in all-caps.

 

[Marener]

My position is, we should regulate social media, and we can.

People will always disagree over how much and what to regulate, but that doesn't mean we can't try to approach this effort in good faith. The terms of service is, in my mind, a fair compromise because it forces *both* parties to honor the legal promise. I actually agree with conservatives on this: in a lot of cases, it's the user that's bound by the terms and not the platform. Force the platform to be more transparent about what will and will not get someone banned, and then enforce consistently. That way there's no surprise when someone gets de-platformed.

It’s impossible. You can’t make a list of things that would get one banned. People are clever. They will come up with new, totally objectionable things to say that aren’t on the list. Consistency is also a problem. It will always come down in one way or another to subjective judgement. There will be differences from one moderator to another.

It sounds fine, but it just won’t work.

 

[OKTexas]

The big difference between that and this is that in the case of the baker he was discriminating against a customer. You are not Facebooks customer. You are a free user. If you were their customer they would be bound by the same constitutional protections all Americans enjoy, to be free from a denial of service due to race or sex. You're right, as a guest, to say whatever you want on someone else's property simply doesn't exist.

What does being a faghadist have to with race or sex?

.

 

[dblack]

Lots of things have substantial social, economic and political impact that we shouldn’t and can’t regulate.

Like, for instance, religion, speech, the press, etc...

Yet, with a straight face, some here are arguing that the First Amendment is the reason we must regulate social media. WTF???

 

[OKTexas]

I don't think they are. I see all kinds of right wing MAGA supporters who are on Twitter, from Jesse Watters to Jack Prosobeic to Tucker Carlson. They apparently know how to use the platform without getting banned. You seem to equate Alex Jones' vicious trolling and Donald Trump's blatant lies with legitimate political speech - I don't. That's the difference. Conservative twitter is doing just fine, but if they want to post death threats and bang the civil war drum, then I guess what Twitter and FB are saying is do that on another platform. It's really not that hard.

And what of the medical doctors that were posting legitimate medical opinions? Is the CDC and St. Fauci the end all and be all of medicine and any other opinion must be silenced? The CDC is now admitting much of what they put out was total crap.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm a fan of anything that shits on the white wing but that's besides the fact that you are indeed free to "do it yourself".

That's freedom of speech. Cry about it.

I absolutely admit to agreeing with bullying you pussies off the political and social playground.

Awww. So sad.

Wow, you really are a POS racist. Animals like you are one of the best arguments for abortion I can think of.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So what. That is their right to do.

TV media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business and you do not seem to care.

Radio media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business and you do not seem to care.

Well we seem to be making a bit of progress, radio and tv can be sued when they take it too far. It's time social media lives by the same standards.

.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not individuals, a virtual space created by them that acts as a virtual commons.

Where is the Constitutional authority?

Well we seem to be making a bit of progress, radio and tv can be sued when they take it too far. It's time social media lives by the same standards.

.

No airwaves dumbass. The Constitution appears to mean nothing to you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well we seem to be making a bit of progress, radio and tv can be sued when they take it too far. It's time social media lives by the same standards.

.

Which would be even more reason for the social media companies to censor even more than they do now if you are going to hold them responsible for what anyone/everyone post on their sites.

Just imagine if this site was legally responsible for what we all post, do you think it would stay in operation?

 

[Marener]

Like, for instance, religion, speech, the press, etc...

Yet, with a straight face, some here are arguing that the First Amendment is the reason we must regulate social media. WTF???

Thats because they’re worried about their speech and not anyone else’s.

 

[multivita-man]

Oh, it'll be in someone's "interest" alright. Freedom of the press is a direct challenge to authoritarian regimes, and one of the first things authoritarians go after.

I think this is another one of those slippery slope fallacies: if we allow the government to create the FCC, the government will control the media. If we allow the FTC to control advertising, the government will ban advertising on whim. Except that neither happened. In both cases, there's a regulatory framework that's not at odds with the First Amendment. That's possible with regulating social media companies as well.

I'm sure I'll get called a commie, which is fine, but I think we as a society are terrified of government doing anything because we have somehow bought into the notion that citizens are completely separated from it, and that it's inherently out to oppress us. We forget that we can vote, that we can organize, that we can protest, and so forth. The government is whoever we send to represent us. I don't fear government regulation per se; I fear sending the wrong people to Washington to do the regulating. We can prevent that though.