META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[dblack]

ROFLMAO.

Yea, right. Did you drop some acid earlier?

My optimism springs eternal.

 

[busybee01]

I would take it a step further as they have become the defacto "Town Square". It is now a public space.

It is not. That is illegal seizure of private property. That is what right wing Nazis do.

 

[iceberg]

There is and you have not addressed WHY it is different.

But you can ignore the gun comparison and just deal with the simple point: 230 simply stops an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits over content that the site DID NOT CREATE and DOES NOT ENDORSE.

Which is exactly how it should work. That does not and never will remove the right of the company to curate its content. If Facebook wants to be leftistan then they not only have the power to do so but they also do not arbitrarily become open to lawsuits from people that want to post non-lefitsan content.

It's different because one is a platform for all to use evenly agnostic of why or who.

Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's different because one is a platform for all to use evenly agnostic of why or who.

Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position.

It ain't rocket science.

A publisher gives pre-approval before anything is published.

That is why things like FB and such are not publishers.

This is a substantial difference.

 

[iceberg]

A publisher gives pre-approval before anything is published.

That is why things like FB and such are not publishers.

This is a substantial difference.

Show me that definition of publisher.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's different because one is a platform for all to use evenly agnostic of why or who.

Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position.

It ain't rocket science.

Yet you still are incorrect:
"Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position."
This is false. A publisher is liable for what they produce, not what others produce. Again, a hard fact.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why would a conservative be on Facebook?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show me that definition of publisher.

Definition of PUBLISHER

one that publishes something; especially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of PUBLISHING

the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of publishing​

: the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art



FB and twitter are no more publishers than this site is. They do not produce nor issue anything. They provide a space for it, nothing more.

The NYT is a publisher, nothing goes on their site/paper without prior approval.

Is that what you wish for sites such as this and FB and Twitter?

Have you ever been on a site that every post required pre-approval before it was seen by others?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why would a conservative be on Facebook?

It is a great tool for keeping in touch with family and friends.

My sister lives in Slovenia, she is a conservative as they come, she is there as a SBC missionary.

She uses FB to stay in touch with her family back in the states and for her to stay up on what is happening with her kids and grands.

 

[iceberg]

Yet you still are incorrect:
"Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position."
This is false. A publisher is liable for what they produce, not what others produce. Again, a hard fact.

Yet if they claim something is a fact, they publish it.

 

[iceberg]

Definition of PUBLISHER

one that publishes something; especially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of PUBLISHING

the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of publishing​

: the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art



FB and twitter are no more publishers than this site is. They do not produce nor issue anything. They provide a space for it, nothing more.

The NYT is a publisher, nothing goes on their site/paper without prior approval.

Is that what you wish for sites such as this and FB and Twitter?

Have you ever been on a site that every post required pre-approval before it was seen by others?

And are corrections to posts "information"?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And are corrections to posts "information"?

You did not answer my questions.

Do so and I will be happy to answer yours.

 

[iceberg]

You did not answer my questions.

Do so and I will be happy to answer yours.

I've said many times it's a blend. They are neither really anymore but act as both, taking the advantages of both and no responsibility.

Now, if their facts are lies, are they publishing them and are they liable?

 

[iceberg]

You did not answer my questions.

Do so and I will be happy to answer yours.

And the original intent of s230 was so you don't have to moderate, not to give it free reign to delete what you don't like. They morphed it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And the original intent of s230 was so you don't have to moderate, not to give it free reign to delete what you don't like. They morphed it.

Everything morphs. If we start to hold FB and Twitter responsible the same way we do the NYT then sites like this one will also have to be, and they will all cease to exist.

So, I would rather err on the side of freedom, and not the other way around

I was on a Christian site, one of the more active ones, and they were getting too many "trolls" so they changed it so that post did not show up till they were approved by a Mod. The site died in a week.

 

[iceberg]

Everything morphs. If we start to hold FB and Twitter responsible the same way we do the NYT then sites like this one will also have to be, and they will all cease to exist.

So, I would rather err on the side of freedom, and not the other way around

I was on a Christian site, one of the more active ones, and they were getting too many "trolls" so they changed it so that post did not show up till they were approved by a Mod. The site died in a week.

One thing I've learned is when you get too big, different rules apply. Seen the DOJ do it to Microsoft.

Facebook, Google and others are in that role now.

 

[Coyote]

ITs called the freedom to associate with those with like opinions. You all don't like our opinions. We have the right to be there as well, so your answer is not to debate them but to silence them... Why is that? Are your positions so weak that you cannot defend them?

Yes…and that is why you are to associate elsewhere if you don’t the rules of a particular private establishment.

 

[Coyote]

One thing I've learned is when you get too big, different rules apply. Seen the DOJ do it to Microsoft.

Facebook, Google and others are in that role now.

This is why we need revisit (or actually uphold) anti trust laws. I have no problem with establishing terms of service rules, but they stifle competition.

 

[dblack]

It's different because one is a platform for all to use evenly agnostic of why or who.

Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position.

It ain't rocket science.

It's flim flam is what it is. This has exactly nothing to do with the rights and responsibilities of "publishers”. You're just rationalizing revenge.

 

[iceberg]

This is why we need revisit (or actually uphold) anti trust laws. I have no problem with establishing terms of service rules, but they stifle competition.

As Facebook and social media has done. Sect 230 isn't perfect but it's as close as we have.

Again, the intent of the law was to not make platforms have to moderate content. We are far far from that.