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

[iceberg]

It is certainly possible.

FBI blasted after Zuckerberg revealed their warning ahead of the Hunter Biden laptop story: ‘Collusion'

Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed on The Joe Rogan Experience that Facebook censored information about Hunter Biden's laptop after an FBI tip about Russian disinfo.

www.foxnews.com

their site - they can do what they want.

no. sooner or later you get too big to use that as a defense. period.

 

[FA_Q2]

FBI blasted after Zuckerberg revealed their warning ahead of the Hunter Biden laptop story: ‘Collusion'

Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed on The Joe Rogan Experience that Facebook censored information about Hunter Biden's laptop after an FBI tip about Russian disinfo.

www.foxnews.com

their site - they can do what they want.

no. sooner or later you get too big to use that as a defense. period.

Sooner or later you get so rich that we should take everything you own.

Sooner or later you get so influential government should tell you what news you can and cannot report on.

Sooner or later, you control to much talk radio that we need a fairness doctrine.

Sooner or later you get so big that authoritarianism is fine and dandy. That is where the core values of the right are today, right there with the left.

 

[multivita-man]

Those who maintain public space, even if that public space is privately owned or leased (as with Target's privately owned/leased dedicated public space discussed in this thread), must abide by certain non-exclusionary conduct.

So your suggestion is a poor one.

Their house, their rules. Getting kicked off of a website for not knowing the difference between shit and shampoo isn't an example of exclusion. It's quality control. Like I pointed out elsewhere, there are plenty of bloviating, dissembling conservatives on twitter, FB, instagram, and whatever else.

 

[iceberg]

Sooner or later you get so rich that we should take everything you own.

Sooner or later you get so influential government should tell you what news you can and cannot report on.

Sooner or later, you control to much talk radio that we need a fairness doctrine.

Sooner or later you get so big that authoritarianism is fine and dandy. That is where the core values of the right are today, right there with the left.

Except that isn't what I said.

 

[iceberg]

Their house, their rules. Getting kicked off of a website for not knowing the difference between shit and shampoo isn't an example of exclusion. It's quality control. Like I pointed out elsewhere, there are plenty of bloviating, dissembling conservatives on twitter, FB, instagram, and whatever else.

Platforms and publishers must play by federal rules.

These are private companies also.

Why then, such rules?

 

[multivita-man]

Platforms and publishers must play by federal rules.

It depends. Are you saying that bars have to allow drunk assholes to verbally harass other patrons? You're saying that bars can't kick assholes out of their own bars because "free speech" and stuff? Funny, because that kind of "free speech" gets shut down probably hundreds, if not thousands, of times each night in bars across America.

 

[iceberg]

It depends. Are you saying that bars have to allow drunk assholes to verbally harass other patrons? You're saying that bars can't kick assholes out of their own bars because "free speech" and stuff? Funny, because that kind of "free speech" gets shut down probably hundreds, if not thousands, of times each night in bars across America.

No. It does not depend or there wouldn't be the rules of engagement.

Everyone tries to believe they don't have to follow the rules because they don't like them.

 

[multivita-man]

No. It does not depend or there wouldn't be the rules of engagement.

Everyone tries to believe they don't have to follow the rules because they don't like them.

You don't need to use Facebook to do anything. You're not entitled to a Facebook account. Where is social media access mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[iceberg]

You don't need to use Facebook to do anything. You're not entitled to a Facebook account. Where is social media access mentioned in the Constitution?

You are not entitled to use a platform or a publisher.

They have rules of engagement. Why not Facebook?

 

[FA_Q2]

Except that isn't what I said.

It's different when you do it. I know.

When democrats think you have to much money that is different because.... just because.

 

[OKTexas]

Sooner or later you get so rich that we should take everything you own.

Sooner or later you get so influential government should tell you what news you can and cannot report on.

Sooner or later, you control to much talk radio that we need a fairness doctrine.

Sooner or later you get so big that authoritarianism is fine and dandy. That is where the core values of the right are today, right there with the left.

You're a damn liar. Explain why FB and probably other regime friendly sites getting briefings from the FBI. And zuckerbucks said it wasn't a one off.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're a damn liar. Explain why FB and probably other regime friendly sites getting briefings from the FBI. And zuckerbucks said it wasn't a one off.

.

Where is the lie.

Go on, point it out. You should try and find the post, anywhere, where I support the FBI or ANY government agency saying ANYTHING to Facebook. Indeed, I condemned it in this very thread.

That makes YOU the liar. Partisan hacks only see 2 sides and zero truth whatsoever so I am not surprised. Because I do not think the government should take authoritarian moves against private companies I must be on the left of every issue and aspect of this conversation.

 

[OKTexas]

Where is the lie.

Go on, point it out. You should try and find the post, anywhere, where I support the FBI or ANY government agency saying ANYTHING to Facebook. Indeed, I condemned it in this very thread.

That makes YOU the liar. Partisan hacks only see 2 sides and zero truth whatsoever so I am not surprised. Because I do not think the government should take authoritarian moves against private companies I must be on the left of every issue and aspect of this conversation.

Sooner or later you get so big that authoritarianism is fine and dandy. That is where the core values of the right are today, right there with the left.

We just have a problem with social media companies carrying the water for the regime and the permanent bureaucracy, against the interest of the country.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

We just have a problem with social media companies carrying the water for the regime and the permanent bureaucracy, against the interest of the country.

.

So do I.

The difference is that I am not going to act like a democrat and call for federalization of the industry because of it.

I notice you did not find a lie. You just pretend that you are not all calling for this bullshit. Fictionally the same thing as the 'fairness' doctrine.

 

[OKTexas]

So do I.

The difference is that I am not going to act like a democrat and call for federalization of the industry because of it.

I notice you did not find a lie. You just pretend that you are not all calling for this bullshit. Fictionally the same thing as the 'fairness' doctrine.

Who's calling for federalization? I'm damn sure not. But regulation for force transparency is a different story. Like when commiesaki said they were flagging things on FB and twitter, there should be mandatory reporting of such interactions between social media companies and appropriate congressional committees. They can't have transparency if they're reporting to executive branch agencies.

.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who's calling for federalization? I'm damn sure not. But regulation for force transparency is a different story. Like when commiesaki said they were flagging things on FB and twitter, there should be mandatory reporting of such interactions between social media companies and appropriate congressional committees. They can't have transparency if they're reporting to executive branch agencies.

.

So, functionally the fairness doctrine. Again. Something that you have been avoiding directly addressing.

How do you think this is any different than what the democrats have been calling for the past few decades?

 

[OKTexas]

So, functionally the fairness doctrine. Again. Something that you have been avoiding directly addressing.

How do you think this is any different than what the democrats have been calling for the past few decades?

Nope, just reporting of government interference or attempts to squash a narrative/news.

.

 

[multivita-man]

You are not entitled to use a platform or a publisher.

They have rules of engagement. Why not Facebook?

They should be required to honor their terms of service just as their users are - I agree with that, which is why I've proposed maybe revising federal law/regs to require major social media platforms to make public all their data on their enforcement of TOS. Maybe there could be a regulatory board that users can appeal to in the event they feel they've been deliberately targeted.

But as a general rule, social media platforms are like any privately-owned business or storefront: just because it's public-facing doesn't mean that the public owns the platform or that members of the public can behave any way they wish. In the end, the private business has the discretion to deal with people who are just bad for their business.

 

[MinTrut]

And this, sad to say, is the thread win:

Trump's Truth Social barred from Google Play store over content moderation concerns

As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one can compete with Facebook, Twitter, et al because the gatekeepers of the new public square will shut them down, forcing The People back onto their platforms.

SCOTUS must weigh in.

 

[dblack]

And this, sad to say, is the thread win:

Trump's Truth Social barred from Google Play store over content moderation concerns

As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one can compete with Facebook, Twitter, et al because the gatekeepers of the new public square will shut them down, forcing The People back onto their platforms.

SCOTUS must weigh in.

The government must take over. Only the omnipotent power of the state can save us.