NY Congressman is opposed to Freedom of Speech.

[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 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.

It also matters what judges and politicians think, moron.

 

[basquebromance]

laws are not panacea. you can't arrest your way out of the problem anyway. let people speak!

 

[meaner gene]

A backwards NY Congressman is opposed to Freedom of Speech.
Congressman Jerald Nadler support's Facebooks censorship of President Trump.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Friday praised Facebook for its decision to suspend Trump until at least Jan. 7, 2023.
"I think Facebook was right. I think that they have an absolute right to ban liars and the president - the former president - is an absolute liar. It's not a question of free speech, because free speech is a question of the government limiting free speech, and there's no question of that here," Nadler said Friday.

He's right. Facebook can set it's own standards and terms of service. If you don't believe in it, just try to post uncensored pictures of naked people on this site and claim it's a first amendment right.

 

[basquebromance]

oh brother

 

[mdk]

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.

No, they don’t. Not to worry, as a gentleman I’ll take your feelings out to dinner before I **** em.

 

[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.

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.

It's funny you think I need your permission.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I never ever see you ***** about my freedom of speech when I get a vacation from USMB....

Trump is no more special than I am....

/——/ You should not be banned from ISMB.