It feels oppressive when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube start banning content based on political bias

[Mac1958]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

Freedom of expression is about something far more important than money.

Did I really have to say that?
.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If conservatives are so butt hurt that Jones no longer is allowed on certain platforms, here's a solution.............................

If liberals can start up sites like Facebook and YouTube, why can't conservatives?

 

[bendog]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

Freedom of expression is about something far more important than money.

Did I really have to say that?
.

But facebook and social media is not about freedom of expression. It's about "social" connections. Likes and friends.

Jones has no limit on seeking likes and friends ... he just needs a website.

 

[Dschrute3]

This censorship is bad for everyone. I know Democrats are cheering all this banning, but it's very Un-American. And the Democrats are also preparing legislation which will result in a complete Government-takeover of the Internet. I don't understand why so many continue to vote Democrat. If they do win Congress back, we're all doomed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

They are monopolies, dumbass.

Show me a competitor for each platform.

Only 1 has a viable competitor.

 

[Confounding]

If liberals can start up sites like Facebook and YouTube, why can't conservatives?

The situation is what it is. Those platforms will not be replaced for a while.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This censorship is bad for everyone. I know Democrats are cheering all this banning, but it's very Un-American. And the Democrats are also preparing legislation which will result in a complete Government-takeover of the Internet. I don't understand why so many continue to vote Democrat. If they do win Congress back, we're all doomed.

Actually, it's the Republicans that want to get rid of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is really, officially dead. Now what?

Though some minor elements of the proposal by the Republican-led FCC to roll back those net neutrality rules went into effect last month, most aspects still required approval from the Office of Management and Budget. That's now been taken care of, with the Federal Communications Commission declaring June 11 as the date the proposal takes effect.

 

[iceberg]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

are you really happy about this? jones is an idiot, yes. but he's not above the rights we all in fact share. i'm not. are you? who are we to say "you get rights, you don't"? how can that be beneficial for anyone in the end because the left can't help themselves give them a "victory" they kick it up and go for more. human nature i suppose as well. they in turn start eating themselves and we're not far from that happening.

if you don't like jones, don't listen to him. block him from facebook and wa-la problem solved. but to ban people because you don't like what they say - i can promise you one day you'll be banned for what you say.

is that really where we as a country wants to go?

 

[iceberg]

This censorship is bad for everyone. I know Democrats are cheering all this banning, but it's very Un-American. And the Democrats are also preparing legislation which will result in a complete Government-takeover of the Internet. I don't understand why so many continue to vote Democrat. If they do win Congress back, we're all doomed.

Actually, it's the Republicans that want to get rid of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is really, officially dead. Now what?

Though some minor elements of the proposal by the Republican-led FCC to roll back those net neutrality rules went into effect last month, most aspects still required approval from the Office of Management and Budget. That's now been taken care of, with the Federal Communications Commission declaring June 11 as the date the proposal takes effect.

yep. i want it gone. it's not what you think it is despite the name. its control of the internet and those who provide services on it.

if you really want to ensure internet providers don't jack with people, end the stupid cable/provider laws that force limited services in neighborhoods and let me choose which provider i want from THEM ALL - not just who services my neighborhood.

 

[Dschrute3]

I'm sure Democrat threats of massive taxation, played a big role in convincing them to go along with the censoring. I'm sure they told them that when they get the power back, they'll make their lives miserable if they don't go along. The solution here?... Don't vote Democrat anymore.

 

[iceberg]

If liberals can start up sites like Facebook and YouTube, why can't conservatives?

The situation is what it is. Those platforms will not be replaced for a while.

minds.com
gab.com

all you gotta do is move. when the pain of staying with someplace outweighs the pain of leaving, you leave.

people are leaving fb now in droves.

 

[bendog]

If conservatives are so butt hurt that Jones no longer is allowed on certain platforms, here's a solution.............................

If liberals can start up sites like Facebook and YouTube, why can't conservatives?

YOU MEAN .... CAPITALISM? DEMOCRACY? Poor Mr. Jones.

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

They are monopolies, dumbass.

Show me a competitor for each platform.

Only 1 has a viable competitor.

Try looking up the definition of monopoly, dumbass. And not the game.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

are you really happy about this? jones is an idiot, yes. but he's not above the rights we all in fact share. i'm not. are you? who are we to say "you get rights, you don't"? how can that be beneficial for anyone in the end because the left can't help themselves give them a "victory" they kick it up and go for more. human nature i suppose as well. they in turn start eating themselves and we're not far from that happening.

if you don't like jones, don't listen to him. block him from facebook and wa-la problem solved. but to ban people because you don't like what they say - i can promise you one day you'll be banned for what you say.

is that really where we as a country wants to go?

Private companies have the right to pick and choose whom they wish to serve. If we force Facebook to carry Jones' material, isn't that also wrong? Facebook is a private company. You guys bitched about a baker who was being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, and cheered when SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker. How is Facebook different from the baker? Both have the right to choose where their products are used and by whom.

 

[iceberg]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

are you really happy about this? jones is an idiot, yes. but he's not above the rights we all in fact share. i'm not. are you? who are we to say "you get rights, you don't"? how can that be beneficial for anyone in the end because the left can't help themselves give them a "victory" they kick it up and go for more. human nature i suppose as well. they in turn start eating themselves and we're not far from that happening.

if you don't like jones, don't listen to him. block him from facebook and wa-la problem solved. but to ban people because you don't like what they say - i can promise you one day you'll be banned for what you say.

is that really where we as a country wants to go?

Private companies have the right to pick and choose whom they wish to serve. If we force Facebook to carry Jones' material, isn't that also wrong? Facebook is a private company. You guys bitched about a baker who was being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, and cheered when SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker. How is Facebook different from the baker? Both have the right to choose where their products are used and by whom.

yet facebook has never said "we're a liberal company, fuck you conservatives" - they tout their services for all. if that is the route they now wish to go and just say "fuck it, we're liberal and you're not allowed to play here" then fine. let them do that. but to continue to say they're here for free speech EXCEPT YOU GUYS is wrong.

if facebook were to do this their entire model would have to change and they know this. if they could limit people's speech on their network then why were they in front of the senate and the house again? i do believe their censorship came into question and of course they deny it. they are like textbook passive aggressive. a very "liberal" trait.

i'm not going to chase strange analogies down the hallway however.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Wrong.

There is no leftwing "censorship" just because you subjectively "feel" there is.

Only government has the power and capacity to censor; neither Facebook nor any other similar platform is the government - they are private entities at liberty to edit content as they see fit, where such content control is not "censorship."

Indeed, the very nature of the internet affords ample opportunity for all manner of political expression.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

are you really happy about this? jones is an idiot, yes. but he's not above the rights we all in fact share. i'm not. are you? who are we to say "you get rights, you don't"? how can that be beneficial for anyone in the end because the left can't help themselves give them a "victory" they kick it up and go for more. human nature i suppose as well. they in turn start eating themselves and we're not far from that happening.

if you don't like jones, don't listen to him. block him from facebook and wa-la problem solved. but to ban people because you don't like what they say - i can promise you one day you'll be banned for what you say.

is that really where we as a country wants to go?

Also wrong.

It has nothing to do with "rights."

 

[ABikerSailor]

Jones is just pissed that he no longer has a site he doesn't have to pay for to broadcast his b.s.

are you really happy about this? jones is an idiot, yes. but he's not above the rights we all in fact share. i'm not. are you? who are we to say "you get rights, you don't"? how can that be beneficial for anyone in the end because the left can't help themselves give them a "victory" they kick it up and go for more. human nature i suppose as well. they in turn start eating themselves and we're not far from that happening.

if you don't like jones, don't listen to him. block him from facebook and wa-la problem solved. but to ban people because you don't like what they say - i can promise you one day you'll be banned for what you say.

is that really where we as a country wants to go?

Private companies have the right to pick and choose whom they wish to serve. If we force Facebook to carry Jones' material, isn't that also wrong? Facebook is a private company. You guys bitched about a baker who was being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, and cheered when SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker. How is Facebook different from the baker? Both have the right to choose where their products are used and by whom.

yet facebook has never said "we're a liberal company, fuck you conservatives" - they tout their services for all. if that is the route they now wish to go and just say "fuck it, we're liberal and you're not allowed to play here" then fine. let them do that. but to continue to say they're here for free speech EXCEPT YOU GUYS is wrong.

if facebook were to do this their entire model would have to change and they know this. if they could limit people's speech on their network then why were they in front of the senate and the house again? i do believe their censorship came into question and of course they deny it. they are like textbook passive aggressive. a very "liberal" trait.

i'm not going to chase strange analogies down the hallway however.

There wasn't a sign in the baker's shop that said they don't bake cakes for gay couples.

 

[Mac1958]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Yes, they have a right to do it.

And no, let's not pretend they're truly in favor of freedom of expression, the most liberal of ideals.

None of the Regressive Left is, because the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Wellllllll, it's not like they're a monopoly or anything. It's not like the right lacks funds.

Freedom of expression is about something far more important than money.

Did I really have to say that?
.

But facebook and social media is not about freedom of expression. It's about "social" connections. Likes and friends.

Jones has no limit on seeking likes and friends ... he just needs a website.

Doesn't matter. Freedom of expression should apply to every possible situation. If we're serious about it, that is.

There's always an excuse to shut someone up if you don't believe in it, and if you're not liberal.

What they do is up to them. But they're not about freedom of expression, neither are those who defend this.
.

 

[Crepitus]

Those three platforms alone account for a huge amount of traffic and information flow on the internet. The internet in general played a very important role in the last election, and will probably play an even more important role in future ones. They technically have the right to do whatever they want with their platforms, but how is the right supposed to not feel oppressed by left wing censorship when giant internet platforms like those, who currently play a very important role in politics, start censoring right wing content? Fine, the platforms are legally entitled to do so. Let's have a philosophical discussion though. What about morality and intellectualism? They have the right, but are they right to do it?

Not political bias, truth vs lies.

 

[Confounding]

Not political bias, truth vs lies.

If lies are lies they're not a threat to me. I think attacking him makes the situation worse.