The Great Fakebook Purge of 2018

[C_Clayton_Jones]

THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.

Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?

Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?

I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.

Wrong.

Such an ‘argument’ cannot be made.

Comparing FB to public utilities or common carriers fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Again, the nature of the internet affords everyone ample opportunities for expression absent access to FB or similar platforms.

However, your argument does have merit in support of net neutrality, where ISPs and wireless companies would be appropriately subject to Federal regulation pursuant to the common good and the public interest.

 

[percysunshine]

What? Me worry?

 

[Correll]

Facebook has become to the point, although they can do whatever they want since they are a company; and they solely rely on advertising more than anything else. More and more people are leaving the site. I am one of those people who are tired of the BS, so I left. I just canceled my account a few months ago. And have not been back there since.
I am on Twitter, but I am hardly tweeting on there like I used to.

I do wonder if Myspace didn't go the route they did, if they would be the same as Facebook or/and Twitter today? Or would they just be one of those platorms restricted Free Speech.

‘Free speech’ concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations, such as FB.

How FB edits its content has nothing to do with ‘free speech.’

Does anyone else remember all the times liberals bitched about what private businesses, were doing with their speech, such as Hollywood supporting racist or feminists stereotypes?

 

[sparky]

THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.

Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?

Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?

I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.

Wrong.

Such an ‘argument’ cannot be made.

Comparing FB to public utilities or common carriers fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Again, the nature of the internet affords everyone ample opportunities for expression absent access to FB or similar platforms.

However, your argument does have merit in support of net neutrality, where ISPs and wireless companies would be appropriately subject to Federal regulation pursuant to the common good and the public interest.

I don't get the comparisson between wireless and injternet here Clay

don't they both use the same infastructure?

which neither would exist w/out?

~S~

 

[sparky]

Facebook has become to the point, although they can do whatever they want since they are a company; and they solely rely on advertising more than anything else. More and more people are leaving the site. I am one of those people who are tired of the BS, so I left. I just canceled my account a few months ago. And have not been back there since.
I am on Twitter, but I am hardly tweeting on there like I used to.

I do wonder if Myspace didn't go the route they did, if they would be the same as Facebook or/and Twitter today? Or would they just be one of those platorms restricted Free Speech.

‘Free speech’ concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations, such as FB.

How FB edits its content has nothing to do with ‘free speech.’

Does anyone else remember all the times liberals bitched about what private businesses, were doing with their speech, such as Hollywood supporting racist or feminists stereotypes?

In the context of 'speech' not being free ,yes

one is either rich ,famous, or both to gain public attention ..........with the exceptions of those menaces to society now/then

~S~

 

[dblack]

Facebook has become to the point, although they can do whatever they want since they are a company; and they solely rely on advertising more than anything else. More and more people are leaving the site. I am one of those people who are tired of the BS, so I left. I just canceled my account a few months ago. And have not been back there since.
I am on Twitter, but I am hardly tweeting on there like I used to.

I do wonder if Myspace didn't go the route they did, if they would be the same as Facebook or/and Twitter today? Or would they just be one of those platorms restricted Free Speech.

‘Free speech’ concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or organizations, such as FB.

How FB edits its content has nothing to do with ‘free speech.’

Does anyone else remember all the times liberals bitched about what private businesses, were doing with their speech, such as Hollywood supporting racist or feminists stereotypes?

Well, see ... it's a matter of perspective.

 

[percysunshine]

So I have this business model where I sell my subscribers information, and drive down the number of subscribers.

What do you analysts think?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So is this soul sucking device a 'utility' , or some archsits pissin' match?

Internet Bill of Rights | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Internet forums and social networks which provide free access to the public are a digital place of assembly, and individuals using such methods for public communication should not be subjected to censorship due to political beliefs or differing ideas. Conservative voices on many large public website platforms are being censored, based solely on a differing opinion. Some of these platforms further employ tracking mechanisms for monitoring an individual's digital history, which can be used to censor the individual's public communication through various censorship practices, sometimes without knowledge or awareness. These actions directly violate personal liberty and stand at contrast with the bill of rights.

We the people demand action to bring our digital future into the light.

“Internet forums and social networks which provide free access to the public are a digital place of assembly…” ibid

Also wrong.

Also a false comparison fallacy.

And yet again: one cannot compare an internet hosting site to a physical meeting place such as a town square or city hall where government has the means to violate the right to freedom of assembly by prohibiting access to such venues through force of law.

Indeed, only government has the authority and means to violate citizens’ rights and protected liberties, not private entities or persons, which is why the Bill of Rights applies solely to government.

The notion of an ‘internet’ Bill of Rights is consequently ignorant idiocy, as private internet hosting sites have neither the authority nor the means to ‘violate’ citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

 

[eagle1462010]

Prime environment now for a new site to compete with Faceplant exists.........hope someone takes the challenge to give these sites some real competition..............so the country can flock away from these asshats.................

Would be poetic justice.

 

[dblack]

Prime environment now for a new site to compete with Faceplant exists.........hope someone takes the challenge to give these sites some real competition..............so the country can flock away from these asshats.................

Would be poetic justice.

It's clear that fb is waning. It makes me wonder if it wasn't forced on Zuckerberg in some way.

 

[eagle1462010]

Prime environment now for a new site to compete with Faceplant exists.........hope someone takes the challenge to give these sites some real competition..............so the country can flock away from these asshats.................

Would be poetic justice.

It's clear that fb is waning. It makes me wonder if it wasn't forced on Zuckerberg in some way.

I don't know that..............but the mood in this country is there to take them under...........if only another would step up.........Facebook could be digging it's on grave...Zuckerberg is rich beyond rich.......in the end he can do anything he wants..........but his company can take a massive hit...............

Competition is good..........and it is needed now..............

 

[sparky]

And yet again: one cannot compare an internet hosting site to a physical meeting place such as a town square or city hall where government has the means to violate the right to freedom of assembly by prohibiting access to such venues through force of law.

I must need another cuppa Joe , i'm not getting it Clay.

I did find this>

The FCC's Mission. The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Conservative voices on many large public website platforms are being censored, based solely on a differing opinion.” ibid

As they are at liberty to do; just as conservative hosting sites are likewise at liberty to exclude liberal voices based solely on a differing opinion.

And the size or popularity of a hosting site is irrelevant – to seek to subject a site to punitive measures by government simply because it is popular and successful is as ridiculous as it is unwarranted and un-Constitutional.

Indeed, this is yet another example of the authoritarianism common most on the right, and conservatives’ desire to compel conformity through force of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“We the people demand action to bring our digital future into the light.” ibid

Not ‘we the people’; rather, we the authoritarian right.

And what ‘action,’ exactly, should Congress take:

Make it ‘illegal’ to exclude conservative content

Subject private hosting sites to Federal lawsuits and fines

Have the owners of hosting sites ‘arrested’ for excluding conservative content

Clearly the internet Bill of Rights is the product of ignorance and thoughtless stupidity.

 

[Toronado3800]

I don't understand how ANYONE can still be on FB. The founder is a thief. Would you do your banking at one where they steal your money? Of course not. So why would you trust FB and its scumbag owner with your personal info? Because its how you keep in touch with family? Really? You forgot about the postal service and how to write long hand? You don't own a phone? WTF is wrong with you that you "need" to stay at a place that is so obviously crooked?

I just don't get it.

Wells Fargo still has customers so I guess Facebook will.

 

[Oddball]

I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.

The reason for Zucc being dragged before a congressional inquisition is clear: intimidation....All of the pages I've heard about have a very hard anti-State edge to them....The best evidence that this is a more general purge than an alleged anti-right action, are the banishment of pages that transcend partisanship (i.e Free Though Project, Anti Media, V for Voluntary)....I come down far less on the side of regulating them like a public utility, and more strongly prefer that congressweasels mind their own damned business and cease the bullying of captains of industry.

 

[Correll]

THIS is an exciting topic for me. Sometimes I'll argue each side just to see what new points I can get out of people. I'm somewhat undecided.

Should big government be able to tell private property Facebook they have to let me post? Does a bar have to let me stand in there and chant about the virtues of the Union Pacific Railroad or whatever?

Does this site have to let me post? Perhaps a site with over xxx,xxx clicks an hour does?

I'm a staunch supporter of private business and their right to operate as they please. However the argument can, and probably should be made in the proper legal venues, that Facebook, Google, etc have risen to the level of public utilities/common carriers. AT&T can't cut your phone service simply because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Moreover, I think we need to redefine what really constitutes a "private business". Facebook is a PUBLICLY traded company.

I think that is the best argument I've seen on this issue to date.

 

[Oddball]

First They Came for Alex Jones -- We Told You We Were Next -- We Were

 

[Oddball]

Anti-Media Officially Shut Down by Facebook and Twitter

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Orwellian information purge”

At least conservatives are consistent at being wrong.

‘Orwellian’ refers to government efforts to increase the state’s authority at the expense of individual liberty.

FB is not ‘government,’ consequently its policy to with regard to editing content is not ‘Orwellian.’

Such is the right’s propensity for demagoguery.