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

[Marener]

Nope.

Yep. Everyone on Facebook signed up for Facebook. That’s how you get into their club.

 

[iceberg]

you seriously call not controlling people's property 'extreme?'

And where have I said there should be no regulation. There clearly is and should be some regulation. For instance, they cannot host child pornography and must take reasonable steps to ensure that they are not spreading it.

'We' are not doing this extreme shit all day. I am pointing out the blatantly obvious and you are trying to justify your extreme position of using governmental power to progress your preferred political goals.

That is authoritarian and it is not just bad, it is also a road to some pretty crappy outcomes.

I am simply pointing out when you grow so big, the rules change.

Microsoft was forced to create OSs no one wanted.

But I do find it hilarious for a mindset to call for a business to do what they want also wants to force bakers to bake cakes.

If you say no abuse, then...

SkewTube: New video-sharing sites thrives on misinformation and hate

Video sites BitChute and Odysee serve up extremism to millions of viewers in a warped reality where COVID and mass shootings are fake, and Trump won in 2020.

www.reuters.com

Googke and Apple banning apps from their store. Parlor accused of serving up violence while the big boys do far worse.

You choosing to pretend it's just fighting "disinformation" is cute.

 

[iceberg]

Sure, and that is a fair complaint after what happened to Hillary. Is that an example of ideological bias or a bad decision given that at the time the story was full of unfounded speculation and unconfirmed? Either way it was a bad decision on their part.




“They say”….

The problem is there doesn’t seem to be any actual data to support the claim. What does Islamic apologist have to do with it?

I gave you Facebooks own report. You stopped talking to me.

 

[iceberg]

They violated anti-trust laws. That is worthy of a thread all on its own. The problem here is that you may have a solid case that FB, Twitter, Youtube and Google have also violated antitrust laws but the problem here is the solution is not even remotely what you are calling for. Violating anti-trust laws does not give you the right to dictate their content. It bars them from working with other companies to remove competition.

None of that points to controlling what content they can and cannot curate. It would, instead, mean they need to stop coordinating actions removing competition like they tried to do with Parlor.

IF that was what you were calling for you would get my agreement. Since that is not what you have called for in this thread but rather called for what amounts to nationalizing the sector I will rightfully call that out for what it is.

And Facebook, Google and others are not?

This is just stupid now.

 

[Curried Goats]

I gave you Facebooks own report. You stopped talking to me.

That report was a laughable bit of placating. They changed some ad rules as to not block some anti-abortion ads. Big deal.

 

[martybegan]

You avoid answering. Again, why use it? You don't have any constitutional right to social media. When you can reconcile with that fact, maybe it ain't all that necessary.

So your side gets total control of the message in the digital commons......

 

[martybegan]

Then start a new commons, like Trump did. No matter what you call them, they are still owned and operated as private companies and they owe you nothing .

The whole "FCC owns the airwaves" thing begs to differ.

 

[martybegan]

Here is the thing and that is no one is stopping the Conservative Right from creating their own Social Media Platform.

So why not do that?

Then the left bitches and tries to get them shut down via their hosting or equipment vendors.

And it's not the same, and you know it.

 

[Curried Goats]

So your side gets total control of the message in the digital commons......

There's no such thing as the digital commons you snowflake.

 

[martybegan]

There's no such thing as the digital commons you snowflake.

there sure as hell is, you just like the fact large corporations are on your side.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

there sure as hell is, you just like the fact large corporations are on your side.

Nope, there is not. It is just a made up term so you can have the nanny state go after sites that are mean to you.

 

[Curried Goats]

there sure as hell is, you just like the fact large corporations are on your side.

In what way are they on my side? I'm happy when progressives fight big tech companies and their monopolistic behavior in terms of throttling competition and I'm happy when progressives fight their efforts to cut sweet heart tax deals with local governments in exchange for operating their business there. What I don't give a shit about is how social media sites dictate their terms of service to free users. I've been suspended from this site on many of occasions and could quite possibly be banned one day but I never complain to the mods over it because they are free to decide when my speech has crossed their lines. Stop being a little bitch.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If the Left were being shut down by Facebook or some other platform, the Left would be calling for the Government to break it up. Similarly, about a decade ago, the Left saw the rise or resurgence of AM Talk Radio as a medium for Conservatives. The Left sought to tap into that with their “Air America” programming to go against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. it was an epic failure.

So, because the Left could not win in an arena for battle of ideas, they turned to the antiquated Fairness Doctrine from the 1940s when there were only a few media outlets as a tool to get the Government to marginalize Conservative media.

 

[Curried Goats]

If the Left were being shut down by Facebook or some other platform, the Left would be calling for the Government to break it up. Similarly, about a decade ago, the Left saw the rise or resurgence of AM Talk Radio as a medium for Conservatives. The Left sought to tap into that with their “Air America” programming to go against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. it was an epic failure.

So, because the Left could not win in an arena for battle of ideas, they turned to the antiquated Fairness Doctrine from the 1940s when there were only a few media outlets as a tool to get the Government to marginalize Conservative media.

The progressive left is calling for the break up of big media and tech companies but not because free users are crying little bitches when they get banned from sites. That's snowflake shit.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, there is not. It is just a made up term so you can have the nanny state go after sites that are mean to you.

The only reason you are OK with this is they silence people you don't like. Spare me any 1st amendment protection bleating.

 

[martybegan]

In what way are they on my side? I'm happy when progressives fight big tech companies and their monopolistic behavior in terms of throttling competition and I'm happy when progressives fight their efforts to cut sweet heart tax deals with local governments in exchange for operating their business there. What I don't give a shit about is how social media sites dictate their terms of service to free users. I've been suspended from this site on many of occasions and could quite possibly be banned one day but I never complain to the mods over it because they are free to decide when my speech has crossed their lines. Stop being a little bitch.

Keep sucking that corporate dick.

 

[Circe]

The only problem is that the authoritarian right wants to use the power of the state to compel social media to accommodate rightwing hate speech and lies – and subject social media to punitive measures for failing to do so.

If the authoritarian Left gets to use social media to promulgate their hate speech and lies, we should get to also, though I would not characterize what we say that way: ours is the right side, being suppressed by political pressure. The Left is engaged upon the Big Lie technique day in and out, and they want to prevent any reply. They sure have been studying Mein Kampf.

 

[hadit]

It’s impossible to perfectly police social media. It’s too much content.

That's like saying "it's impossible to perfectly monitor McDonald's, there's too much food sold". That's not going to protect a store owner if someone gets sick and it can be traced back to the store.

IOW, if they want to right to police the content on their platform, they should then be responsible for what they allow. If, OTOH, they want protection from such lawsuits, they need to be platforms that don't censor content.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The only reason you are OK with this is they silence people you don't like. Spare me any 1st amendment protection bleating.

I am ok with it because they are a private company and can do whatever the fuck they desire.

I have been put in FB jail once, that was for comparing a picture of Trump on the balcony of the White House to that of Mussolini on the balcony.

So, take you whiny ass and go fuck yourself. If you do not like how FB does things, DO NOT FUCKING USE IT

 

[Marener]

That's like saying "it's impossible to perfectly monitor McDonald's, there's too much food sold". That's not going to protect a store owner if someone gets sick and it can be traced back to the store.

IOW, if they want to right to police the content on their platform, they should then be responsible for what they allow. If, OTOH, they want protection from such lawsuits, they need to be platforms that don't censor content.

It’s not at all. Every food item sold at McDonalds is made under direct control of McDonalds employees.

Not so with social media. Content is placed in the website by users with no control of social media employees.

Your analogy fails.

If we do it your way, the only social media sites that exist will be those with essentially no moderation. No website would take on responsibility for user content.