Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't think Farcebook does anything purely for politics, they just want to make money and avoid getting sued.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Dick's Sporting Goods lost hundreds of millions of dollars for going along with the anti-gun libtard agenda.

And once again, that's capitalism at work.

I'd like to see Dick Sporting Good's, CNN's and Facebook's tax returns so I can investigate who is underwriting all the financial losses they've suffered supporting the far-left. There's obviously some dark money in play that is making it profitable for them.

Well, good luck with that.

 

[xyz]

I don't think Farcebook does anything purely for politics, they just want to make money and avoid getting sued.

What the fuck does a guy smoking a bong have to do with Facebook making money?

 

[satrebil]

It’s always different and unfair when I am denied a service.

You still harping on about the bakery thing again?

You still sniveling about being oppressed instead of starting your own social media platform? You don't have a right to Facebook account. Deal with it.

Why couldnt the faggots start their own bakery? With dick-shaped cakes and everything!

Ironically, the reason they want government to bully the baker is the same reason you want government to bully Facebook. They agree with you that government should be empowered to "regulate" private businesses, to force them to do as leaders demand. They are wrong. As are you.

Disagree. They claim to be a platform yet act like a publisher. You can't have it both ways. Facebook, with 220+ million users in the USA, has arguably risen to the level of a public utility. It is time for the government to regulate them as such. A power company cannot suspend your utilities because the customer is a "racist". Verizon cannot cancel your phone service because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Big tech MUST be subject to the same rules or they will run roughshod over democracy.

 

[xyz]

It’s always different and unfair when I am denied a service.

You still harping on about the bakery thing again?

You still sniveling about being oppressed instead of starting your own social media platform? You don't have a right to Facebook account. Deal with it.

Why couldnt the faggots start their own bakery? With dick-shaped cakes and everything!

Ironically, the reason they want government to bully the baker is the same reason you want government to bully Facebook. They agree with you that government should be empowered to "regulate" private businesses, to force them to do as leaders demand. They are wrong. As are you.

Disagree. They claim to be a platform yet act like a publisher. You can't have it both ways. Facebook, with 220+ million users in the USA, has arguably risen to the level of a public utility. It is time for the government to regulate them as such. A power company cannot suspend your utilities because the customer is a "racist". Verizon cannot cancel your phone service because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Big tech MUST be subject to the same rules or they will run roughshod over democracy.

Well, if you put it that way, they could.

It's like t.v. or entertainment. There is an F.C.C.

 

[satrebil]

You still harping on about the bakery thing again?

You still sniveling about being oppressed instead of starting your own social media platform? You don't have a right to Facebook account. Deal with it.

Why couldnt the faggots start their own bakery? With dick-shaped cakes and everything!

Ironically, the reason they want government to bully the baker is the same reason you want government to bully Facebook. They agree with you that government should be empowered to "regulate" private businesses, to force them to do as leaders demand. They are wrong. As are you.

Disagree. They claim to be a platform yet act like a publisher. You can't have it both ways. Facebook, with 220+ million users in the USA, has arguably risen to the level of a public utility. It is time for the government to regulate them as such. A power company cannot suspend your utilities because the customer is a "racist". Verizon cannot cancel your phone service because they don't like what you say on their privately owned lines. Big tech MUST be subject to the same rules or they will run roughshod over democracy.

Well, if you put it that way, they could.

It's like t.v. or entertainment. There is an F.C.C.

Exactly. Too many people focus on the "private business" part yet ignore the implications of what a massive business would be/is capable of. We have things like the FCC and trust busting laws for a reason.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

True, Facebook and Google are not government entities, but they are two of the biggest speech platforms in the country, if not the world. When corporate giants who control platforms used by most of the country start banning speech because they don't like it, that is not a healthy thing for public discourse, pluralism, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

Liberals tend to try to censor speech they don't like, whereas conservatives usually do not.

Liberal politicians and bureaucrats have proven to be far more willing to try to muzzle people and groups that oppose them than have conservative politicians and bureaucrats. When's the last time you saw a conservative city council try to kick a liberal-owned food franchise out of the city airport (ala what liberal city councils have been doing to Chick-Fil-A)?

Liberals constantly yap about "tolerance and inclusion" but are the most intolerant and exclusive people on the planet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know who else started dictating what was acceptable to read and write?

These guys:

View attachment 259095


"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Facebookburning

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Dick's Sporting Goods lost hundreds of millions of dollars for going along with the anti-gun libtard agenda.

And once again, that's capitalism at work.

I'd like to see Dick Sporting Good's, CNN's and Facebook's tax returns so I can investigate who is underwriting all the financial losses they've suffered supporting the far-left. There's obviously some dark money in play that is making it profitable for them.

Well, good luck with that.

No.

Companies and corporations don't savage their revenue, stocks and ratings/reputation, ever.

Unless of course...they're making profit under the table from it, lots of it. Wolf Blitzer still lives like royalty, even though his ratings are less than 1/10th what they used to be...how is that possible?

 

[PixieStix]

It’s always different and unfair when I am denied a service.

You still harping on about the bakery thing again?

You still sniveling about being oppressed instead of starting your own social media platform? You don't have a right to Facebook account. Deal with it.

Why couldnt the faggots start their own bakery? With dick-shaped cakes and everything!

Ironically, the reason they want government to bully the baker is the same reason you want government to bully Facebook. They agree with you that government should be empowered to "regulate" private businesses, to force them to do as leaders demand. They are wrong. As are you.

Bully fascistbook? lol.

You pro capitalists are too stubborn, you cannot see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately that will come back to bit ALL America in the ass. What happened to the belief in the first amendment? Does your idea of what capitalism is take precedent over Bill of Rights? Asking for a friend....

 

[PixieStix]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

If they can't ban speech, why do they?
If they can't be totalitarian, why are they?
If they aren't fascist Germany? Why are they acting like it?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Wolf Blitzer still lives like royalty, even though his ratings are less than 1/10th what they used to be...how is that possible?

Who cares? Worry about your own lifestyle. You've apparently mistaken me for someone that gives a squirt about Wolf Blitzer.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

If they can't ban speech, why do they?
If they can't be totalitarian, why are they?
If they aren't fascist Germany? Why are they acting like it?

Why are all your arguments hyperbolic?

 

[xyz]

If they aren't fascist Germany? Why are they acting like it?

I don't like Facebbok, but I don't see how they are like Nazis. Are they trashing Jewish ghettos? Are they gassing people? Are they spreading racial theories?

 

[PixieStix]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

If they can't ban speech, why do they?
If they can't be totalitarian, why are they?
If they aren't fascist Germany? Why are they acting like it?

Why are all your arguments hyperbolic?

Because what fascistbook is doing is hyperbolic. They call those people they ban, "dangerous". Some on the right claim they have a right to defame someone because they are a private business. Who is hyperbolic?

 

[mdk]

Facebook as a utility!?

 

[mdk]

Not having a Facebook account is like not having running water in my household. Or something.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Facebook can't ban speech. They can't be totalitarian. They aren't a government.

If, on the other hand, government stepped in to tell Facebook what to publish - that would be a step toward totalitarianism. Maybe that's what you meant.

If they can't ban speech, why do they?
If they can't be totalitarian, why are they?
If they aren't fascist Germany? Why are they acting like it?

Why are all your arguments hyperbolic?

Because what fascistbook is doing is hyperbolic. They call those people they ban, "dangerous". Some on the right claim they have a right to defame someone because they are a private business. Who is hyperbolic?

You are. Private business is free to free to refuse its service to any individual it feels violates their terms. Your butthurt about it won't change this fact.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Not having a Facebook account is like not having running water in my household. Or something.

...Or electricity to power that sander of yours.

 

[beagle9]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

Let me get this straight. We absolutely DON'T want the govt to regulate and censor free speech but we absolutely DO want to give that power to massive multinational corporations who have NO loyalty to any nation.

No impuretrash
the corporations can be policed at the state level where they receive
licensing to operate. Any COLLECTIVE entity should and can be
held to a process of "redressing grievances" so no "collective
authority" is abused. The entities still retain equal free speech
as any individual. But we do need to end the monopoly on redressing
grievances and resolving conflicts, by implementing mediation
and conflict resolution assistance at local and state levels.

This isn't about punishing and restricting free speech and media.
But setting up access to use that to resolve conflicts to correct any abuses.

What a free mediation process depends on is equal respect for
freedom by all parties using that system.

If complainants want to abuse the system to FORCE a certain
outcome or change on the other side, that makes mediation fail.

so that's why our legal system and current mediation provisions
tend to fail, is that people abuse this for adversarial coercion
instead of REAL mediation which is about respecting and protecting
the freedom of choice of all parties to conflicts so people are truly equal.​

You are about 50 years to late. The damage has already been done, and now anything to correct it all, ends up pressing the boot down even harder onto the necks that it has been choking out for decades and decades now.