Facebook Goes Full Fascist Mode

[Jitss617]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

 

[Jitss617]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

A privately owned business that gets government leeway for specifically being a public platform. If they want to be a publisher instead fine. But lose the government perk.

Just like political forums, FaceBook has the right to control the content on their platform.

That makes them
Publishers

Ok. If you say so.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Facebook is evil but even they have to worry about their liability in allowing content on their platform that will end up costing lives.

Costing lives?

Are you referring to the tens of millions of hardworking Americans whose lives you wish to ruin by denying them an opportunity to earn a living?

Yes, there are far too many idiots like you passing along all the talking points you receive from your masters.

 

[BlueGin]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

A privately owned business that gets government leeway for specifically being a public platform. If they want to be a publisher instead fine. But lose the government perk.

Just like political forums, FaceBook has the right to control the content on their platform.

Not based on a political bias they don’t. They specifically list themselves as a public platform to utilize government protections. They do not have the right to then censor political speech.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook.

You have not seen anybody supporting Gretchen Whitmer?

That's odd. You said you read the copy and pastes from both hives.

 

[WinterBorn]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

A privately owned business that gets government leeway for specifically being a public platform. If they want to be a publisher instead fine. But lose the government perk.

Just like political forums, FaceBook has the right to control the content on their platform.

That makes them
Publishers

Ok. If you say so.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook.

You have not seen anybody supporting Gretchen Whitmer?

That's odd. You said you read the copy and pastes from both hives.

I have not seen anything about Gretchen Whitmer. There is very little political commentary on my page. I prefer it that way.

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook. I see political posts from both sides.

I also see friends and family from all over the world able to communicate easily. I see solid information posted and nonsense challenged and debunked.

I don't see problem with using the social media according to their rules. They own the platform.

They are deleting post about rallies coming up, to PROTEST, to ASSEMBLE.

And? It is a privately owned business. They can do as they please. Perhaps they are worried about liability.

A privately owned business that gets government leeway for specifically being a public platform. If they want to be a publisher instead fine. But lose the government perk.

Just like political forums, FaceBook has the right to control the content on their platform.

Not based on a political bias they don’t. They specifically list themselves as a public platform to utilize government protections. They do not have the right to then censor political speech.

I have not seen any cases of censorship based on political speech. I have seen a few claims, like Jitler's.

And it would depend on the speech itself. I do see the occasional posts that are pro-Trump and ones that are pro-Bernie. But not a lot.

But I have seen Jitler's posts here. Some of which could be considered inciting to riot.

 

[Jitss617]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

But then in court they are then they say they are media.. that’s where the Supreme Court’s comes in and tell them you are going to be a public forum and you will not discriminate against free-speech

 

[WinterBorn]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

But then in court they are then they say they are media.. that’s where the Supreme Court’s comes in and tell them you are going to be a public forum and you will not discriminate against free-speech

The US Supreme Court is not going to rule that your free speech must be supported by a privately owned business.

 

[Mr Natural]

Face book whether they like it or not is our public online form, we should stay and fight for free speech.

Or, you could start your own social media app.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook.

You have not seen anybody supporting Gretchen Whitmer?

That's odd. You said you read the copy and pastes from both hives.

I have not seen anything about Gretchen Whitmer. There is very little political commentary on my page. I prefer it that way.

You are a lucky one, indeed!

I see almost no original content posted by anybody, with a constant barrage of copy and paste propaganda. The lefties, especially, show absolutely no concern for anybody who is actually living while pretending they are concerned for the dying. They support absolutely draconian measures to prevent anybody and everybody from doing anything at all. They speak with one voice. They march in unison. They seek nothing but control. They don't care who's lives they ruin and they tolerate no rational though. In short -- they are fascists.

 

[WinterBorn]

Face book whether they like it or not is our public online form, we should stay and fight for free speech.

Or, you could start your own social media app.

That would be an excellent idea. Old school conservatism praised initiative and creating for yourself. Pity that is forgotten.

 

[BlueGin]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

But then in court they are then they say they are media.. that’s where the Supreme Court’s comes in and tell them you are going to be a public forum and you will not discriminate against free-speech

The US Supreme Court is not going to rule that your free speech must be supported by a privately owned business.

From the article you copied from above....

the part you left out...

“The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms.”

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't noticed any fascism on FaceBook.

You have not seen anybody supporting Gretchen Whitmer?

That's odd. You said you read the copy and pastes from both hives.

I have not seen anything about Gretchen Whitmer. There is very little political commentary on my page. I prefer it that way.

You are a lucky one, indeed!

I see almost no original content posted by anybody, with a constant barrage of copy and paste propaganda. The lefties, especially, show absolutely no concern for anybody who is actually living while pretending they are concerned for the dying. They support absolutely draconian measures to prevent anybody and everybody from doing anything at all. They speak with one voice. They march in unison. They seek nothing but control. They don't care who's lives they ruin and they tolerate no rational though. In short -- they are fascists.

It is not by accident. I have a rule concerning who is on my friends list. You must bring something positive to my page. I have friends who rarely post, but at least it is not negative. I will cut someone loose in a heartbeat. And that goes for both sides of the aisle.

 

[BlueGin]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

But then in court they are then they say they are media.. that’s where the Supreme Court’s comes in and tell them you are going to be a public forum and you will not discriminate against free-speech

The US Supreme Court is not going to rule that your free speech must be supported by a privately owned business.

The courts and congress will if they hide behind government protections.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Thou Shall Not Fall Out of Line.
This CV event has exposed the fascists among us.
I use it to keep in touch with friends around the world, anyone know of another similar platform yet?

Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ are the real fake news after censoring Post story

Way back on Feb. 23, The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn’t trust China’s story about the origins of COVID-19. He argued that the virus might — might — have jumped t…

nypost.com

This story is no longer available - Washington Times

The Washington Times delivers breaking news and commentary on the issues that affect the future of our nation.

m.washingtontimes.com

Does email escape you? Texting? Phone calls?

I can create a group email list and send photos and events yes. Not as easy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thou Shall Not Fall Out of Line.
This CV event has exposed the fascists among us.
I use it to keep in touch with friends around the world, anyone know of another similar platform yet?

Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ are the real fake news after censoring Post story

Way back on Feb. 23, The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn’t trust China’s story about the origins of COVID-19. He argued that the virus might — might — have jumped t…

nypost.com

This story is no longer available - Washington Times

The Washington Times delivers breaking news and commentary on the issues that affect the future of our nation.

m.washingtontimes.com

Does email escape you? Texting? Phone calls?

I can create a group email list and send photos and events yes. Not as easy.

Oh, so the problem is that it isn't easy? Not because of violations of the US Constitution?

 

[Jitss617]

Facebookburning, Twitter, et. al. Are ALL violating their commitment under the Telecommunications Act that they are platforms, not content providers.

They have violated the terms of their licensing.. Time to yank it!

How have they violated the terms of their licensing?

Well they are controlling the content then they are considered publishers and follow the laws.. your wrong all around

I see you learned to read and copy. This forum is not a publisher, but they control the content. There is far less control here than on most. Should they be considered publishers too?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

So much for them being considered publishers.

from: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. "

But then in court they are then they say they are media.. that’s where the Supreme Court’s comes in and tell them you are going to be a public forum and you will not discriminate against free-speech

The US Supreme Court is not going to rule that your free speech must be supported by a privately owned business.

Of course they will