NY Congressman is opposed to Freedom of Speech.

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

 

[daveman]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

 

[daveman]

Platform, or Publisher?

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Did I call it, or what?

you sure did.....but then its blaine....what would you expect?....

 

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

 

[Oddball]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

I'm as free speech and private property as you will find....The tech Robber Barons are operating the way they are because of gubmint intervention, not despite it.

They're exploiting the legal distinction in section 230 between publishers and platforms.....This is established fact.

Not to mention that the tech Robber Barons are all falling in line behind the left, lest they end up like Microsoft did with the idiotic Internet Explorer lawsuit...They're not morons...They know who the bullies are, and will do anything to keep them off their backs.

Go back to the internet being the wild-wild west, and Fascistbook and Twaffler would be burned to the ground.

 

[daveman]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

 

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

 

[daveman]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

He didn't incite any riots, you moron sheep.

 

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

I'm as free speech and private property as you will find....The tech Robber Barons are operating the way they are because of gubmint intervention, not despite it.

They're exploiting the legal distinction in section 230 between publishers and platforms.....This is established fact.

Not to mention that the tech Robber Barons are all falling in line behind the left, lest they end up like Microsoft did with the idiotic Internet Explorer lawsuit...They're not morons...They know who the bullies are, and will do anything to keep them off their backs.

Go back to the internet being the wild-wild west, and Fascistbook and Twaffler would be burned to the ground.

Established fact according to whom? What court determined that and when? Again if you want to make that argument you have to apply it to EVERYONE that's in the same market space as Facebook including USMB.

I don't like Facebook anymore than you do, it's a giant surveillance and manipulation platform, however that doesn't mean I'm going to go along with utilizing government as a club to violate the property rights of its shareholders just because I don't care for its business model.

 

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

He didn't incite any riots, you moron sheep.

ROFLMAO! trying to substitute invective for an actual argument I see, you think that convinces people that your argument is sound?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

You lose.

... anyways, doesn't matter what I think or what you think about his part in that riot, it only matters what FACEBOOK MANAGEMENT thinks, and they specifically pointed out what they perceived as a public safety threat posed by Donny when they kicked him off there platform.

If it makes you feel any better it looks like they're going to let Donny back on the platform in 2023, 2 year ban.

 

[daveman]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

He didn't incite any riots, you moron sheep.

ROFLMAO! trying to substitute invective for an actual argument I see, you think that convinces people that your argument is sound?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

You lose.

... anyways, doesn't matter what I think or what you think about his part in that riot, it only matters what FACEBOOK MANAGEMENT thinks, and they specifically pointed out what they perceived as a public safety threat posed by Donny when they kicked him off there platform.

If it makes you feel any better it looks like they're going to let Donny back on the platform in 2023, 2 year ban.

I don't care. I didn't follow him when he was posting on FB.

We get it. You hate Trump. And you think it's a personality.

 

[NightFox]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

He didn't incite any riots, you moron sheep.

ROFLMAO! trying to substitute invective for an actual argument I see, you think that convinces people that your argument is sound?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

You lose.

... anyways, doesn't matter what I think or what you think about his part in that riot, it only matters what FACEBOOK MANAGEMENT thinks, and they specifically pointed out what they perceived as a public safety threat posed by Donny when they kicked him off there platform.

If it makes you feel any better it looks like they're going to let Donny back on the platform in 2023, 2 year ban.

I don't care. I didn't follow him when he was posting on FB.

We get it. You hate Trump. And you think it's a personality.

I don't hate Donny, I don't like him for a long list of reasons, the least of which is his personality, no need to go into them since no matter way I say, it's not going to change your view of him, which is fine, you're just as entitled to your opinion as I am. Conversely no matter how much you sing his praises, it's not going to change my mind, the only person that can do that is Donny himself and the only way he can do that is by his actions.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

That's true only if it doesn't edit their content. Since Facebook does edit their content, it's responsible for it.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, no one has a right to social media account. Not you, not me, not anyone. I know this hits some people in their feels, but that's just tough shit.

It's a monopoly

Facebook isn’t a monopoly, they have plenty of competition, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo, just to name a few, all of them operate successfully in the same market space.

Yes it is, according to the DOJ definition of the term.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, no one has a right to social media account. Not you, not me, not anyone. I know this hits some people in their feels, but that's just tough shit.

It's a monopoly

No, it isn’t. It’s just wildly popular and widely used, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly.

So was Standard Oil, but the DOJ broke it up anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Then Fascistbook is a publisher, not a platform.

As such, they waive their privileges and immunities under 230.

No, it doesn't work that way, what Facebook (and every other site on the Internet including THIS ONE) is immune to is lawsuits stemming from content posted by it's USERS. If Facebook, it's employees or designated representatives libel you on Facebook, then you can sue Facebook for it.

If we want to remove that protection then might as well shut down every site on the Internet that allows its users to post on it because who in there right mind is going to open themselves up to liability for what every Joe User happens to post, it's not feasible nor DESIRABLE.

As a platform not as a publisher, which is the road that Fascistbook and Twaffler have chosen to walk.

How is Facebook and its business model any different than USMB? Do you want to classify USMB as a “publisher” and remove its liability protections as well? If you do, why would Facebook or any other site that hosts user posted content stay in business, Can you imagine the volume of frivolous lawsuits that would follow if they did?

Unlike Facebook, USMB only edits for illegal content.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, no one has a right to social media account. Not you, not me, not anyone. I know this hits some people in their feels, but that's just tough shit.

Yes they do, turd.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

No they don't, turd.

 

[bripat9643]

Did I call it, or what?

Yeah but that’s a pretty easy call Oddball , given that Facebook IS a private corporation and NOT a government entity.

A private corporation given special dispensation from libel and anti-trust laws....That's not a "free market" by any stretch.

Sure it is, it’s regulated but it’s still free. Government isn’t inserting themselves into the transactions between Facebook and its customers (other than to take its cut), from what I understand they don’t have any special immunity to anti-trust laws though, I mean other than their ability to buy politicians that is.

Facebook has all the same rights to regulate speech on its platform (I.e. it’s PROPERTY) as you do to throw some schmuck off your property for planting campaign signs on your front lawn.

By censoring ideas they do not agree with, they are a publisher, not a platform, and should not be granted the protections platforms enjoy.

Publishers censor content they don’t agree with, always have,.

Indeed. Yet the socials insist they're platforms and are not responsible for their content.

Every company is responsible for the content that the company’s directors, it’s employees or designated representatives publish acting on the companies behalf. What Facebook isn’t responsible for is the content its USERS “publish” on it’s platform, same reason USMB isn’t responsible for USER generated content on its platform. However they are still required to remove ILLEGAL content (such IP theft, child porn, etc..,) posted by their users and can be held liable for not doing it.

IMHO it’s a good system that promotes free expression while protecting the private entities that facilitate it.

When Facebook curates the non-illegal content its members post, it's acting as a publisher.

So says YOU, the law and common sense says otherwise and thank the heavens for it, if it didn’t neither of us would be posting “curated, non-illegal” content on USMB right now.

The law does not say otherwise. Common sense damn sure doesn't say otherwise.

Just go ahead and admit you like it when conservatives are silenced.

LOL, okay apparently you are operating in a vacuum where you can make up the law as you go, and your presence on THIS site is all the evidence required that you agree that common sense is on my side.

Why would I “like it” when conservatives are silenced? I’m conservative myself, and I’m not advocating for anybody to be silenced, YOU ARE, you’re advocating what amounts to putting Facebook out of business, not because they silenced Donny (he hasn’t been “silenced” he talks all the time and gets published when he does) but for kicking him off their PRIVATE PROPERTY because of his behaviour, they didn’t do it to him, he did it to himself, time for Donny to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions.

Uh huh. Horseshit, all of it.

You know what Trump's terrible, awful, no-good last Facebook post was?

View attachment 497440

How utterly mean and bad!

This is the part where you look like an idiot. You don't have to acknowledge it.

ONCE AGAIN, he was kicked from Facebook for HIS BEHAVIOUR, Facebook didn't want to be associated with him after Jan.6 and didn't want him using their platform to incite any more riots.

I didn't say anything about what he posted or didn't post.

Learn how to read.

He was kicked from Facebook because he's a Republican, and for no other reason.