CDZ Social media has become too big to remain private.... YES or NO?

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

Again, just because conservatives have an unwarranted hostility toward social media because that media appropriately prohibit rightwing hate speech, misinformation, fake news, and lies is not ‘justification’ to subject social media to unnecessary government regulation.

Facebook is not a reliable news source and it doesn't claim to be. So anyone that believes the crap people post there are naive to the point of being mentally retarded

So, that makes their abuse of their power and their intent and actions to mislead the American People ok?

LOL!!!!!

Once again Facebook is not a credible news source. People who think it is are idiots

The problem isn't Facebook but rather the fact that it seems most Americans are idiots

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

No I'm not. And Facebook cannot violate your right to freedom of speech. You are more than free to start a blog and publish it so you can say whatever you want.

Facebook or any other private website can ban anyone they want from posting

Sure they can. They have created a public space, invited the population as a whole to enter it, some to create content, others to view content, based on the Good Faith following of their rules.


Instead they have betrayed that Good Faith, harming many creators and preventing the free flow of information and discussion of ideas, that is supposed to be occurring.


That they currently have the legal power to do this, does not make it right, nor does it mean that society does not have a valid interest to protect in regulating them.

And people who use it agree to the terms set by Facebook.

And it's not a public space it is a privately owned venue

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

Which is why they put a muzzle on Trump.

Nope. THey are fine with supporting lies from the left.

Unequal application of any rules, is cheating.

YOu people are scum of the earth.

This is the CDZ. Watch your mouth.

Private entities can do whatever they want.

Thanks for not denying that they are doing censorship or that what they are doing is wrong.


But, society has an interest having a healthy public discourse. Allowing one side to silence the other, is bad for society and our nation.


So, no they cannot do what ever they want. We can and should regulate.

USMB censors people all the time kid. Yet you're here supporting them with click rates and whatnot.

The rules of the site are not designed to censor speech but to encourage speech. If they are applied fairly and equally, with the intent of facilitating debate, not suppressing it, that is not, imo, censorship.


If they were to abuse the system to instead just silence one side, and allowed the other side to violate the rules and generally get a pass, so that the conversation instead of a search for Truth, because Propaganda,


then it would be censorship.

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

Which is why they put a muzzle on Trump.

Nope. THey are fine with supporting lies from the left.

Unequal application of any rules, is cheating.

YOu people are scum of the earth.

This is the CDZ. Watch your mouth.

Private entities can do whatever they want.

Thanks for not denying that they are doing censorship or that what they are doing is wrong.


But, society has an interest having a healthy public discourse. Allowing one side to silence the other, is bad for society and our nation.


So, no they cannot do what ever they want. We can and should regulate.

USMB censors people all the time kid. Yet you're here supporting them with click rates and whatnot.

The rules of the site are not designed to censor speech but to encourage speech. If they are applied fairly and equally, with the intent of facilitating debate, not suppressing it, that is not, imo, censorship.


If they were to abuse the system to instead just silence one side, and allowed the other side to violate the rules and generally get a pass, so that the conversation instead of a search for Truth, because Propaganda,


then it would be censorship.

Do you never stop whining?

Facebook has the absolute right to censor anyone that posts on the site they own.

Don't like it, don't use it.

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

Again, just because conservatives have an unwarranted hostility toward social media because that media appropriately prohibit rightwing hate speech, misinformation, fake news, and lies is not ‘justification’ to subject social media to unnecessary government regulation.

Facebook is not a reliable news source and it doesn't claim to be. So anyone that believes the crap people post there are naive to the point of being mentally retarded

So, that makes their abuse of their power and their intent and actions to mislead the American People ok?

LOL!!!!!

Once again Facebook is not a credible news source. People who think it is are idiots

The problem isn't Facebook but rather the fact that it seems most Americans are idiots

Your opinion on that, does not address my point, that their actions are an abuse of power, with the intent and effect of misleading the American People.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

No I'm not. And Facebook cannot violate your right to freedom of speech. You are more than free to start a blog and publish it so you can say whatever you want.

Facebook or any other private website can ban anyone they want from posting

Sure they can. They have created a public space, invited the population as a whole to enter it, some to create content, others to view content, based on the Good Faith following of their rules.


Instead they have betrayed that Good Faith, harming many creators and preventing the free flow of information and discussion of ideas, that is supposed to be occurring.


That they currently have the legal power to do this, does not make it right, nor does it mean that society does not have a valid interest to protect in regulating them.

And people who use it agree to the terms set by Facebook.

And it's not a public space it is a privately owned venue

Yep. They agree to those terms, in Good Faith and then the rules are applied in Bad Faith, with the intent and effect of censorship.


And it is a public space.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

Again, just because conservatives have an unwarranted hostility toward social media because that media appropriately prohibit rightwing hate speech, misinformation, fake news, and lies is not ‘justification’ to subject social media to unnecessary government regulation.

Facebook is not a reliable news source and it doesn't claim to be. So anyone that believes the crap people post there are naive to the point of being mentally retarded

So, that makes their abuse of their power and their intent and actions to mislead the American People ok?

LOL!!!!!

Once again Facebook is not a credible news source. People who think it is are idiots

The problem isn't Facebook but rather the fact that it seems most Americans are idiots

Your opinion on that, does not address my point, that their actions are an abuse of power, with the intent and effect of misleading the American People.

WHat power?

The power they exercise over their private property?

They can do whatever they want within the confines of their property

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.

View attachment 427351

You two are the ones supporting censorship.

No I'm not. And Facebook cannot violate your right to freedom of speech. You are more than free to start a blog and publish it so you can say whatever you want.

Facebook or any other private website can ban anyone they want from posting

Sure they can. They have created a public space, invited the population as a whole to enter it, some to create content, others to view content, based on the Good Faith following of their rules.


Instead they have betrayed that Good Faith, harming many creators and preventing the free flow of information and discussion of ideas, that is supposed to be occurring.


That they currently have the legal power to do this, does not make it right, nor does it mean that society does not have a valid interest to protect in regulating them.

And people who use it agree to the terms set by Facebook.

And it's not a public space it is a privately owned venue

Yep. They agree to those terms, in Good Faith and then the rules are applied in Bad Faith, with the intent and effect of censorship.


And it is a public space.

And so the fuck what?

It's no different than you being at a cocktail party and the owner of the house asks you to leave because he doesn't like what you're saying.

But I suppose you think that is an abuse of power right?

And no it is a space paid for and provided by FAcebook therefore it is a private space

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

Which is why they put a muzzle on Trump.

Nope. THey are fine with supporting lies from the left.

Unequal application of any rules, is cheating.

YOu people are scum of the earth.

This is the CDZ. Watch your mouth.

Private entities can do whatever they want.

Thanks for not denying that they are doing censorship or that what they are doing is wrong.


But, society has an interest having a healthy public discourse. Allowing one side to silence the other, is bad for society and our nation.


So, no they cannot do what ever they want. We can and should regulate.

USMB censors people all the time kid. Yet you're here supporting them with click rates and whatnot.

The rules of the site are not designed to censor speech but to encourage speech. If they are applied fairly and equally, with the intent of facilitating debate, not suppressing it, that is not, imo, censorship.


If they were to abuse the system to instead just silence one side, and allowed the other side to violate the rules and generally get a pass, so that the conversation instead of a search for Truth, because Propaganda,


then it would be censorship.

Do you never stop whining?

Facebook has the absolute right to censor anyone that posts on the site they own.

Don't like it, don't use it.

Calling my complaints "whining" is just you admitting that you cannot refute my points.

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

Which is why they put a muzzle on Trump.

Nope. THey are fine with supporting lies from the left.

Unequal application of any rules, is cheating.

YOu people are scum of the earth.

This is the CDZ. Watch your mouth.

Private entities can do whatever they want.

Thanks for not denying that they are doing censorship or that what they are doing is wrong.


But, society has an interest having a healthy public discourse. Allowing one side to silence the other, is bad for society and our nation.


So, no they cannot do what ever they want. We can and should regulate.

USMB censors people all the time kid. Yet you're here supporting them with click rates and whatnot.

The rules of the site are not designed to censor speech but to encourage speech. If they are applied fairly and equally, with the intent of facilitating debate, not suppressing it, that is not, imo, censorship.


If they were to abuse the system to instead just silence one side, and allowed the other side to violate the rules and generally get a pass, so that the conversation instead of a search for Truth, because Propaganda,


then it would be censorship.

Do you never stop whining?

Facebook has the absolute right to censor anyone that posts on the site they own.

Don't like it, don't use it.

Calling my complaints "whining" is just you admitting that you cannot refute my points.

you have no point.

You want to force your control on a PRIVATE company that provides a FREE service because you say whining like a 5 year old, "It's not fair".

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.