Political censorship is fake right lefties?

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

So what are you going to do about it? Get your fascist government thugs to threaten them into submission?

Nah, rescind section 230 protections from them to start. if they want to play publisher, let them play publisher.

Also, people should sue them for not holding up to their own terms of service.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't. If you want to be tthe arbiter of a website and its content.....make one.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

They don't get to interpret them unilaterally, because any TOS is actually a contract, and you can't just lie about your contract components.

I am insisting if they say they are open and neutral, that they actually ACT open an neutral.

You just like the fact they only really cull people you disagree with. Admit it.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS and claiming they don't remove due to political viewpoints but they actually do. They come up with some bullshit about said viewpoints "violating" another TOS part.

Again, just fucking admit you are only OK with this because its viewpoints you don't like being impacted.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

They don't get to interpret them unilaterally, because any TOS is actually a contract, and you can't just lie about your contract components.

Yes, they do. Read the terms of service. They're crystal clear that Facebook decides when its terms of service have been violated.

And you've agreed to those TOS when you join.

You insisting that you and ONLY you get to make these decisions unilaterally doesn't change a single letter of the TOS you agreed to.

I don't think you understand how contracts work.

 

[Skylar]

Here are the relevant portions of the Facebook TOS, Marty:

If we determine that you have clearly, seriously or repeatedly breached our Terms or Policies, including in particular our Community Standards, we may suspend or permanently disable access to your account. We may also suspend or disable your account if you repeatedly infringe other people’s intellectual property rights or where we are required to do so for legal reasons.

They determine if their TOS has been violated. Your agreement isn't necessary for them to make that judgement.

And yes, they can make that determination unilaterally.

Your rights aren't 'violated' because you agreed to their TOS. You were wrong about every part of this.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion. Holy shit is that fucking lame. I am commenting, and you don't want to engage over the merits, you want to snipe about process and cop outs.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

They don't get to interpret them unilaterally, because any TOS is actually a contract, and you can't just lie about your contract components.

Yes, they do. Read the terms of service. They're crystal clear that Facebook decides when its terms of service have been violated.

And you've agreed to those TOS when you join.

You insisting that you and ONLY you get to make these decisions unilaterally doesn't change a single letter of the TOS you agreed to.

I don't think you understand how contracts work.

They can say that all they want, when they breach the TOS they are breaching the contract. and the TOS is made possible by rule 230.

Remove it. let them be responsible for the content if they want to police it and dictate it.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion.

I'm saying that Facebook determines when their own TOS has been violated. Not you.

By the terms you've agreed to with the terms of Service. Read them.

If you 'feel' that that violates your right, then leave.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

They don't get to interpret them unilaterally, because any TOS is actually a contract, and you can't just lie about your contract components.

Yes, they do. Read the terms of service. They're crystal clear that Facebook decides when its terms of service have been violated.

And you've agreed to those TOS when you join.

You insisting that you and ONLY you get to make these decisions unilaterally doesn't change a single letter of the TOS you agreed to.

I don't think you understand how contracts work.

They can say that all they want, when they breach the TOS they are breaching the contract. and the TOS is made possible by rule 230.

Remove it. let them be responsible for the content if they want to police it and dictate it.

Breached.....according to who? Facebook is the only party that has the authority to determine when their own terms of service has been violated per the TOS you've agreed to.

You're still stuck at square one. As you're presenting your feelings as a legal authority. And they're not. That you feel that the contract has been breached is meaningless. As its Facebook that has the sole authority to determine what breaches their TOS. Your agreement isn't a pre-requisite for them to curate content on their own site.

Is this really it? You offering your feelings as legal evidence? If so, that was easy.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion.

I'm saying that Facebook determines when their own TOS has been violated. Not you.

By the terms you've agreed to with the terms of Service. Read them.

If you 'feel' that that violates your right, then leave.

I am saying they violate their TOS and you suck their dick because they silence people you want silenced.

Just admit you are a fascist cum bucket.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.

Which they interpret. They are the arbiters of what violates their standards of conduct. Read the Terms of Service.

You're insisting that YOU are the only authoritative arbiter of what violates their standards of conduct. And that they don't get a say on their own website.

You've got it backwards.

They don't get to interpret them unilaterally, because any TOS is actually a contract, and you can't just lie about your contract components.

Yes, they do. Read the terms of service. They're crystal clear that Facebook decides when its terms of service have been violated.

And you've agreed to those TOS when you join.

You insisting that you and ONLY you get to make these decisions unilaterally doesn't change a single letter of the TOS you agreed to.

I don't think you understand how contracts work.

They can say that all they want, when they breach the TOS they are breaching the contract. and the TOS is made possible by rule 230.

Remove it. let them be responsible for the content if they want to police it and dictate it.

Breached.....according to who? Facebook is the only party that has the authority to determine when their own terms of service has been violated per the TOS you've agreed to.

You're still stuck at square one. As you're presenting your feelings as a legal authority. And they're not. That you feel that the contract has been breached is meaningless. As its Facebook that has the sole authority to determine what breaches their TOS. Your agreement isn't a pre-requisite for them to curate content on their own site.

Is this really it? You offering your feelings as legal evidence? If so, that was easy.

The FCC can regulate, and can remove section 230 protection. They can be sued for violating their TOS as it is a contract.

I am giving you an opinion, and all you can argue back is procedure and "you don't have the right to an opinion" Pathetic.

Fuck off and die.

 

[danielpalos]

Not taking right wing fantasy seriously is not censorship but the morality of true witness bearing.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion.

I'm saying that Facebook determines when their own TOS has been violated. Not you.

By the terms you've agreed to with the terms of Service. Read them.

If you 'feel' that that violates your right, then leave.

I am saying they violate their TOS and you suck their dick because they silence people you want silenced.

Just admit you are a fascist cum bucket.

You're saying that they violated their TOS because you *feel* they did.

But you aren't the authority on whether or not their TOS is violated. They are.

You can't establish a TOS violation. You're still stuck at square one.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion.

I'm saying that Facebook determines when their own TOS has been violated. Not you.

By the terms you've agreed to with the terms of Service. Read them.

If you 'feel' that that violates your right, then leave.

I am saying they violate their TOS and you suck their dick because they silence people you want silenced.

Just admit you are a fascist cum bucket.

You're saying that they violated their TOS because you *feel* they did.

But you aren't the authority on whether or not their TOS is violated. They are.

You can't establish a TOS violation. You're still stuck at square one.

I am giving my opinion, you are arguing nothing other than "I get what I want, fuck you"

All you do is suck fascist dick.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

Nope.

If you want to share your ideas, feel free to do so on your own website. You're demanding that you get to decide what goes on someone ELSE's site, and that they don't get a say.

Oh, they get a say.

You didn't directly answer my entire point about controlling the narrative.

Just shows how gutless you are.

Oh, your entire narrative is just your opinion. You can believe whatever you'd like.

The issue isn't what YOU believe. Its what Facebook believes, as they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service. That you disagree with their judgments is irrelevant.

Read the TOS. You don't get a say as to what violates their terms of service. They do.

Your entire narrative is premised on YOU being the sole arbiter of what violates those terms. And, of course, you aren't.

My premise is on them lying about their TOS

Lying....according to you. Violating their TOS...according to you.

But you're nobody. That you disagree with Facebook judging violations of its own terms of service is irrelevant. And doesn't constiitute any violation of your rights.

As Facebook decides what violates its terms of service. Not you.

That you have an opinion doesn't mean that Facebook is bound by it. That you believe yourself the sole authoritative judge of what violates Facebooks terms of service....doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

If you want that kind of power, make your own site.

You are saying my opinion is an opinion.

I'm saying that Facebook determines when their own TOS has been violated. Not you.

By the terms you've agreed to with the terms of Service. Read them.

If you 'feel' that that violates your right, then leave.

I am saying they violate their TOS and you suck their dick because they silence people you want silenced.

Just admit you are a fascist cum bucket.

You're saying that they violated their TOS because you *feel* they did.

But you aren't the authority on whether or not their TOS is violated. They are.

You can't establish a TOS violation. You're still stuck at square one.

I am giving my opinion, you are arguing nothing other than "I get what I want, fuck you"

All you do is suck fascist dick.

And your 'opinion' is that YOU get to authoritatively determine when Facebook's TOS is violated.

The TOS, the contract between you, says otherwise.

And your feelings don't trump the terms of the TOS. That you have an emotion or an opinion doesn't change the TOS, contract law, or any factor involved. Nor does it mean your 'rights' have been violated.

You're still stuck at square one. As you can't even establish a TOS violation. Facebook can.

The bug of lawsuit or demands for 'regulation' is going to splatter on the windshield of contract law. As you've agreed to the TOS that clearly states that FB is the arbiter of TOS violations. Not you.