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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does 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.

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

 

[Donald H]

Just plow through all the bullsh-t and get to the point. America has to either choose freedom of the press in a democratic country.

or

Fascist suppression of the rights of the free press.

The battle lines have been drawn. Choose your side!

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

When he responds, can you select-quote him? I keep getting notified and you won the argument about 18 hours ago. TIA

 

[Correll]

Just plow through all the bullsh-t and get to the point. America has to either choose freedom of the press in a democratic country.

or

Fascist suppression of the rights of the free press.

The battle lines have been drawn. Choose your side!

It's not a "Free Press" if one side is heavily suppressed.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan 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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

 

[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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

 

[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

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.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can