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

[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.

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

 

[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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

 

[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.

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

 

[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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

 

[candycorn]

Again, can you guys use selective quoting? I'm tired of your pi**ing contests. Correll you lost about 24 hours ago. Give it up...or at least don't quote me any more.

 

[Blues Man]

Again, can you guys use selective quoting? I'm tired of your pi**ing contests. Correll you lost about 24 hours ago. Give it up...or at least don't quote me any more.

Just ignore the notification if you don't want to be part of the thread anymore.

 

[sartre play]

Am not on face book, my choice. That we have become the kind of people who are willing to lie & distort in an effort to Win at any cost is sad. The willingness to disregard political propaganda from either side is also a choice.

 

[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!

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

The press and the media appeal to the wishes of the people who support their advertising. It's always been that way and will continue that way. They appeal to all the people who aren't just the extremist few. The media would squander away their credibility if they showed any support for Trump's nonsense.
Consider what you're asked the media to support?? Even Fox News is refusing most of 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.

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

I'm glad the conversation wandered off topic to this. Now we get to see that you are not serious.


Sure. We have "Freedom of Speech". All you have to do, is build your own venue, and build your own information network and provide your own security force, and it better be stronger than the police force too., and you are good to go.

An absurd level of barrier for one side to speak, all the while the other side is constantly abusing their positions and authorities to drown the society as a whole in propaganda and indoctrination.


When discussing "facebook" you managed to pretense a false pretense of credibility.

Now the mask is off. THanks.

 

[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.

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

 

[Correll]

Again, can you guys use selective quoting? I'm tired of your pi**ing contests. Correll you lost about 24 hours ago. Give it up...or at least don't quote me any more.

Dude. You people are scum of the earth and you support brown shirt style tactics. So, screw you.

 

[Stryker___777]

Facebook is not a life-giving appliance. When you turn on the faucet, Twitter doesn't pour out.
I have never used Facebook or Twitter in my life. There is nothing avantgarde about their design. Same thing with reddit. They all use basic technology that can be made by anyone. The ONLY reason they are so powerful is because so many people unwittingly use them.
Don't use Facebook or Twitter. Cut them out of your life 100 percent. There is absolutely nothing essential about them.
Google I must confess, is another matter. I'm forced to have a smartphone in order to maintain employment. Too many employers depend on apps that I'm forced to get on Google Play.
The best thing that could happen is for smaller companies to invent new smartphones that compete against Google. Android has regressed severely, all it does is update without permission and shove unwanted notifications in my face. We need a much better phone.

Handing control to the government won't fix anything. It's still a bureaucracy with access to ALL your information: where you are at all times, who you talk to, who you text, where you go, what you look up online, most importany what YOU MIGHT BUY.
Its on US for allowing us to depend on crap like Google when we were fine without it in the 90s.
We need alternatives, not regulation. Google is the biggest threat. Facebook and Twitter are non-essential, but Google is literally tracking every breath I take, they are even watching me type this.

 

[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.

The press and the media appeal to the wishes of the people who support their advertising. It's always been that way and will continue that way. They appeal to all the people who aren't just the extremist few. The media would squander away their credibility if they showed any support for Trump's nonsense.
Consider what you're asked the media to support?? Even Fox News is refusing most of it.

It might have been that way in the past. But the modern liberal has convinced themselves, that being "progressive" and supporting "social justice" or various bullshit causes, is more important than their professional responsibilities.

Hell, look at the way that Fox exploded, when they hit the industry? They way I heard it explained, was, they found a niche market. Half of America.

 

[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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

I'm glad the conversation wandered off topic to this. Now we get to see that you are not serious.


Sure. We have "Freedom of Speech". All you have to do, is build your own venue, and build your own information network and provide your own security force, and it better be stronger than the police force too., and you are good to go.

An absurd level of barrier for one side to speak, all the while the other side is constantly abusing their positions and authorities to drown the society as a whole in propaganda and indoctrination.


When discussing "facebook" you managed to pretense a false pretense of credibility.

Now the mask is off. THanks.

You can rent your venue or you can apply for a permit to use public property. You can video yourself and post it on a website etc etcetcetcetc

Why do you think that other people have to provide you everything you think you need so that you can exercise your right to free speech?

And since you have a hard time understanding what I write I gave facebook no credibility at all when it comes to being a source for information

And why don't you give me proof that a police force stormed in with weapons drawn to stop anyone from giving a speech.

 

[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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

 

[candycorn]

Again, can you guys use selective quoting? I'm tired of your pi**ing contests. Correll you lost about 24 hours ago. Give it up...or at least don't quote me any more.

Dude. You people are scum of the earth and you support brown shirt style tactics. So, screw you.

CDZ son. Don't make me tell you again.

 

[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.

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

I'm glad the conversation wandered off topic to this. Now we get to see that you are not serious.


Sure. We have "Freedom of Speech". All you have to do, is build your own venue, and build your own information network and provide your own security force, and it better be stronger than the police force too., and you are good to go.

An absurd level of barrier for one side to speak, all the while the other side is constantly abusing their positions and authorities to drown the society as a whole in propaganda and indoctrination.


When discussing "facebook" you managed to pretense a false pretense of credibility.

Now the mask is off. THanks.

You can rent your venue or you can apply for a permit to use public property. You can video yourself and post it on a website etc etcetcetcetc

Why do you think that other people have to provide you everything you think you need so that you can exercise your right to free speech?

And since you have a hard time understanding what I write I gave facebook no credibility at all when it comes to being a source for information

And why don't you give me proof that a police force stormed in with weapons drawn to stop anyone from giving a speech.

Not wanting a violent mob, working with the police, to shut me down, is not asking for other people to provide me with anything.


That you support that, shows that your focus on " provide with everthing" is not your real position, but just your excuse for the censorship.

 

[Correll]

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

What do you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


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


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


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

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

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

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

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

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


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


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


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


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

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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

 

[Correll]

Again, can you guys use selective quoting? I'm tired of your pi**ing contests. Correll you lost about 24 hours ago. Give it up...or at least don't quote me any more.

Dude. You people are scum of the earth and you support brown shirt style tactics. So, screw you.

CDZ son. Don't make me tell you again.

Funny, I click on the notification that I got a reply, and your post don't seem like CDZ posts. They seem like pretty normal lib trolling.

 

[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

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

I'm glad the conversation wandered off topic to this. Now we get to see that you are not serious.


Sure. We have "Freedom of Speech". All you have to do, is build your own venue, and build your own information network and provide your own security force, and it better be stronger than the police force too., and you are good to go.

An absurd level of barrier for one side to speak, all the while the other side is constantly abusing their positions and authorities to drown the society as a whole in propaganda and indoctrination.


When discussing "facebook" you managed to pretense a false pretense of credibility.

Now the mask is off. THanks.

You can rent your venue or you can apply for a permit to use public property. You can video yourself and post it on a website etc etcetcetcetc

Why do you think that other people have to provide you everything you think you need so that you can exercise your right to free speech?

And since you have a hard time understanding what I write I gave facebook no credibility at all when it comes to being a source for information

And why don't you give me proof that a police force stormed in with weapons drawn to stop anyone from giving a speech.

Not wanting a violent mob, working with the police, to shut me down, is not asking for other people to provide me with anything.


That you support that, shows that your focus on " provide with everthing" is not your real position, but just your excuse for the censorship.

And you have yet to prove that has ever happened even once.

And no private individual or business can violate your right to free speech.

And no one is censoring you.

These words have meanings and if you have many ways to say what you want then you are not being censored.

No one has to allow you to use their property for your free speech.

You can be told no we don't want to hear what you have to say and you will not be allowed in this establishment and it is still NOT censorship or a violation of the First Amendment.

And don't try to tell me what my real position is because I have stated it quite plainly so that even you can understand it.

No one is entitled to a venue provided by any private individual, business etc and no one is entitles to an audience for their words.

You can say what you want in any of a thousand ways that are not dependent on other people to provide anything for you.

Hence you are not being prevented from saying anything.