Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fair is a subjective term.You agree to the terms when you sign up for the FREE service so by definition it is not tyrannyIt is tyrannical- one entity forcing its will on others is tyrannical- it doesn't have to a gov't- the gov't isn't allowed to, allegedly, per the rules for it- private enterprise can, per the rules for it.There’s nothing ‘tyrannical’ about how social media platforms edit their content.
And you do not have to use social media if you don't like the way they work
If they are not applying the standards in a fair manner, according to the terms of service, it is tyranny.
and like I said you don't have to use social media.
When one group is often banned or silenced for behavior or saying things that another group is allowed to do,
that is unfair.
And saying I don't have to use social media, is not an answer to that, or the other points people have brought up.
Do you people ever stop whining.
Complaining about real grievances is not "whining".
That is just you supporting the injustice.
It's not a real grievance. It's you stomping your feet and whining "It's not fair"
My god it's fucking Facebook and all Facebook is is a place to sell advertising
This thread is yet another example of the authoritarian right: compel conformity and silence dissent with more government, bigger government.
Why is that boomer screaming 16 paragraph screeds at me?This thread is yet another example of the authoritarian right: compel conformity and silence dissent with more government, bigger government.
Why is that boomer screaming 16 paragraph screeds at me?This thread is yet another example of the authoritarian right: compel conformity and silence dissent with more government, bigger government.
Doesn't sound like you understand which "side" I'm on.This has NOTHING to do with Trump and has to do with the long standing larger problem of your side using every avenue available to you, to silence your enemies.
Your calling it "weak ass" or saying "Trump" is you expressing your support for the behavior, but being unable to explain WHY.
The truth is that you WANT censorship and oppression. Because you know that you cannot win any debates based on the merits of your ideas.
I explained the real difference using your analogy."It's different when we do it". Except that it isn't. You're hypocrites.
You failed to address it, at all. That is you implicitly admitting that my point was valid, that the censorship is real and and is a real problem that does justify regulation of some sort.
Yet you support the censorship by Big Tech, because you know that Free Speech is a threat to your political agenda.
If they wanted to avoid regulation, they should not have behaved like asshole tyrants looking to cause harm to society.
You mean like Fox News?These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.
That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,
Makes regulating them a valid issue.
If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.
Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.
Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.
FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.
It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.
i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.
Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???
The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.
The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.
Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".
The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.
If they do that, they are not providing a platform for publishers, but BEING a publisher.
And violating their own stated terms of service with their content creators. Often causing them serious hardship.
AND, if they are harming society with their shitty actions, society has a right to respond.
Again, I just don't buy the weak-ass excuses. I don't believe you give a shit about publishers, or platforms, or terms of service, or harming society. You want to punish FB and Twitter because they didn't cater to Trump as you'd like. It's quite transparent.
This has NOTHING to do with Trump and has to do with the long standing larger problem of your side using every avenue available to you, to silence your enemies.
Your calling it "weak ass" or saying "Trump" is you expressing your support for the behavior, but being unable to explain WHY.
The truth is that you WANT censorship and oppression. Because you know that you cannot win any debates based on the merits of your ideas.
Doesn't sound like you understand which "side" I'm on.This has NOTHING to do with Trump and has to do with the long standing larger problem of your side using every avenue available to you, to silence your enemies.
Your calling it "weak ass" or saying "Trump" is you expressing your support for the behavior, but being unable to explain WHY.
The truth is that you WANT censorship and oppression. Because you know that you cannot win any debates based on the merits of your ideas.
A company refusing to cater to your views isn't "oppression". And they have every right to "censor" what is on their websites. That's a vital element of free speech, one that you want to suppress.
I explained the real difference using your analogy."It's different when we do it". Except that it isn't. You're hypocrites.
You failed to address it, at all. That is you implicitly admitting that my point was valid, that the censorship is real and and is a real problem that does justify regulation of some sort.
Admitting nothing, implicitly or otherwise. Your arguments are weak excuses.
Yet you support the censorship by Big Tech, because you know that Free Speech is a threat to your political agenda.
Again, I don't think you comprehend my political agenda. I also don't think you understand "Free Speech". A website banning trolls, or censoring them, is not a violation of free speech.
Here's the thing. You're just like any other liberal statist who doesn't understand the difference between a business and the government. At the end of the day, a business can't force a goddamned thing on you. The government can. Facebook might be able to delete your posts, but they can't have you thrown in a gulag. You can tell them to piss off and find somewhere else to post. If government takes over, you might not have that option.
If they wanted to avoid regulation, they should not have behaved like asshole tyrants looking to cause harm to society.
Yes. The refrain of statists everywhere.
But rest easy - now that Democrats are leading the charge, your regulatory wet dream is inevitable. I expect Congress to be pushing for social media regulation right out of the gate. And they'll have lots if misguided Trumpsters cheering for it.
You sure are sticking up for the tyrant. Would also have stuck up for Hitler when everything was being censored in Nazi Germany? I think you would and you would also be a part of turning the jews in and telling on your neighbors.
Fair is a subjective term.You agree to the terms when you sign up for the FREE service so by definition it is not tyrannyIt is tyrannical- one entity forcing its will on others is tyrannical- it doesn't have to a gov't- the gov't isn't allowed to, allegedly, per the rules for it- private enterprise can, per the rules for it.There’s nothing ‘tyrannical’ about how social media platforms edit their content.
And you do not have to use social media if you don't like the way they work
If they are not applying the standards in a fair manner, according to the terms of service, it is tyranny.
and like I said you don't have to use social media.
When one group is often banned or silenced for behavior or saying things that another group is allowed to do,
that is unfair.
And saying I don't have to use social media, is not an answer to that, or the other points people have brought up.
Do you people ever stop whining.
Complaining about real grievances is not "whining".
That is just you supporting the injustice.
It's not a real grievance. It's you stomping your feet and whining "It's not fair"
My god it's fucking Facebook and all Facebook is is a place to sell advertising
www.corbettreport.com
Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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.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?
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?"
Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.
Government should be in charge of misinforming the people.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.
Not sure there is a law being broken, but, they may lose their 230 status with the federal government.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?
I do think the big tech giants should be able to be sued if they censor you. You better believe they will be more careful in who they censor if they can be sued for it.
I am curious what you think the basis for the lawsuit would be?
www.cnet.com
Government should be in charge of misinforming the people.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.
|
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?
I do think the big tech giants should be able to be sued if they censor you. You better believe they will be more careful in who they censor if they can be sued for it.
I am curious what you think the basis for the lawsuit would be?
Libel and slander laws just like any other form of publisher......if they edit content, they are a publisher, not a platform...
Excellent excuses, comrade. Next, we go after TV and newspapers!Government should be in charge of misinforming the people.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.
Well, they kind of are because the CIA and DARPA pretty much created Google, who owns YouTube.
How the CIA made Google.
Google: seeded by the Pentagon
In 1994 — the same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA — two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1medium.com
Google: A DARPA enterprise run by the CIA.
So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA
It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
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.
No, we need government regulation. Something like the Ministry of Truth.
Internet access should be regulated like a utility.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?
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.
As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"
When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.
Which is why they put a muzzle on Trump.
