How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[tycho1572]

And Mr. Zuckerberg has every legal right to keep his "megaphone" to himself, but he does NOT get to keep it to himself and continue to pretend that he isn't doing so.

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

Are you hoping to win a village idiot award?

Are you going to be my new puppy?

It has been a couple of weeks since I had one of you zealots following me around trying to hump my leg in an effort to get my attention.

This is how I picture you right now...

Cute puppy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure he does, he has every legal right to keep pretending as well

You misunderstand (that pesky "lack of moral compass" issue again). I am saying that he doesn't get to pretend his company is unbiased and have it be believed.

Do you really think he gives a shit what you believe? I think his 62 billion will console him tonight when he finds out you do not believe him!

Are you hoping to win a village idiot award?

Are you going to be my new puppy?

It has been a couple of weeks since I had one of you zealots following me around trying to hump my leg in an effort to get my attention.

This is how I picture you right now...

Cute puppy.

Yes you are. It is very flattering to have another one following me around vying for my attention.

 

[tycho1572]

Here's a pic of mine smiling for the camera, Golfing Gator....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Not Rush, not Fox, not even the first amendment.

This thread is about the complete and utter disregard the left has for half of our nation and it is asking what we do about it.
I understand that most of the left can't take the op to task on the merits of the first post so we've diverted to Rush & the like. If you want to discuss those other things you keep bringing up feel free to create your own thread on that topic.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

 

[BULLDOG]

Youtube isn't a government program. They are free to allow or disallow what ever they want. Today's version of Amos and Andy are free to post anything they want, and spout whatever they want to spout. Youtube just doesn't care to help them promote it.

Neither was that bakery!

PA laws cover religion, race, handicap, gender, and in some states, sexual orientation. Which of those catagories apply in this case?

The First Amendment.

Do you even know what the first amendment says, or who it limits?

/——/ Aside from religion, the 1st allows citizens to openly critique the government with out fear of prosecution. The King of England would have your head if you criticized him.

What prosecution has been enacted over anyone saying anything in this case?

 

[WillowTree]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

Link?

 

[WillowTree]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

It is just like a mental libtard telling a man what his thread is about! Control freaks!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

First of all I personally dont feel oppressed by anyone much less an inbred retard like yourself. I am merely speaking up about those that are.

Secondly a website=/=a social media app. One promotes an agenda while the other claims to offer free expression of thoughts and ideas by its users.

And lastly NO ONE has stopped that kid from running his illinformed mouth. They have merely responded to his ridiculous positions. While some, including myself, have said derogatory things about him or his position, NO ONE HAS STRIPPED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO HIS DUMBASS OPINION or his expression of it.

It is quite clear that you dont have the first fucking clue what the difference between oppression & reaction to expression is.

Kindly fuck off with your hysterics now.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

Link?

Provided earlier.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

It is just like a mental libtard telling a man what his thread is about! Control freaks!

It is just like a mental contard snowflakes telling everyone that they are oppressed........

 

[Syriusly]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

First of all I personally dont feel oppressed by anyone much less an inbred retard like yourself. I am merely speaking up about those that are..

And who are these fragile little snowflakes that you are so bravely standing up for?

 

[WillowTree]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices..

This thread is about snowflake conservatives who feel oppressed- by the left.

While conservative websites merrily censor anything they don't approve of with the deafening silence from the snowflake conservatives.

While conservatives viciously 'oppress' the voices of the Florida students.

It is just like a mental libtard telling a man what his thread is about! Control freaks!

It is just like a mental contard snowflakes telling everyone that they are oppressed........

Name one and provide their post! Should be easy right?

 

[martybegan]

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It's an inability that most of our population suffers from.

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

Ah.....have the government take them over, eh? Federalize them.

No takeover needed. They can still be a for profit company. They just have 1st amendment requirements extended to them (requirements, not rights) as part of a new digital commons.

 

[martybegan]

Forcing Facebook to follow the 1st amendment isn't anyone giving up liberty.

There's nothing to follow. The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities.

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

 

[martybegan]

Why can't you grasp that the OP is talking about the general inability of progressives to even tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It's an inability that most of our population suffers from.

I'm fine with calling them out for being closed-minded, and quite illiberal. But I think it's dangerous to conflate PC censorship, done by private citizens and business, as a violation of free speech. And not just as a technical legal matter. A media outlet making decisions about what it will, and won't, publish IS free speech. It's just free speech you disagree with.

That said, the anger of the culture wars is fueling fascist yearnings on both sides. It's a real danger.

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

No takeover needed. There is ample framework for simple regulation.

 

[dblack]

There's nothing to follow. The First Amendment doesn't apply to non-governmental entities.

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

 

[martybegan]

My argument is facebook is the digital age's equivalent to the commons, and thus open for government regulation.

At least to the level of imposing the 1st amendment on them.

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

 

[dblack]

Then government should seize Facebook outright and declare it public property. Until then, it is NOT the "commons".

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they shouldn't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

facebook isn't the media or the opinion of one person, it's whole purpose is for people to join and interact with each other. They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.