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

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

And let them control the political and social narrative.....

Baaaaaaaaa.
 
Yes. That is the solution. Most of us that find Facebook to be a rather disgusting example of business destroying a culture of free speech and open communication already have.

The problem is when the people here decide that they just cannot live without the something that someone else crated, maintains, runs and owns so they go to government and demand it take it from them and gives it to you.

I am all for simply ceasing to use FB and go onto the next big thing that will replace it as it replaced its predecessor.
That would be up to you and all the other people I'm addressing if you want to go ahead and use the next big thing. Hopefully you wouldn't. I haven't gone for any of them.
 
Keep sucking that corporate dick.
It's your party that mocked AOC for opposing an Amazon tax break. Of course they don't give a shit if Amazon stiffs you for their fair share of the tax burden but there's no end to how much they'll cry on your behalf for identity politics bullshit that does nothing to improve your lives.
 
It's your party that mocked AOC for opposing an Amazon tax break. Of course they don't give a shit if Amazon stiffs you for their fair share of the tax burden but there's no end to how much they'll cry on your behalf for identity politics bullshit that does nothing to improve your lives.

Her "victory" resulted in the loss of a few thousand direct jobs, and plenty more indirect ones.
 
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.
And that's how we're accustomed to our communications platforms operating. We don't expect censors to be listening to our phone conversations, cutting them off if it comes up that Quid Pro Joe is a potato, and we don't expect censors to open our snail mail, burning anything that says Quid Pro Joe is a potato. When a platform censors content, they should take responsibility for the content they allow.
 
And that's how we're accustomed to our communications platforms operating. We don't expect censors to be listening to our phone conversations, cutting them off if it comes up that Quid Pro Joe is a potato, and we don't expect censors to open our snail mail, burning anything that says Quid Pro Joe is a potato. When a platform censors content, they should take responsibility for the content they allow.

100%, if they want to claim the protections of s publisher, they need to take on the responsibilities of a publisher.
 
Since you and I are having this discussion, clearly they are not controlling a damn fucking thing

On a small message board, not massive social media sites that CLAIM to be free expression platforms while gunning mostly for one side of the arguments.
 
Her "victory" resulted in the loss of a few thousand direct jobs, and plenty more indirect ones.
So you would bend over to corporations who tried to strong arm your politicians into giving them sweet heart tax deals and you want to accuse me off sucking corporate cock? 😄 Make your mind up you confused fuck boy. Which is it? Are you a warrior or a fluffer?
 
So you would bend over to corporations who tried to strong arm your politicians into giving them sweet heart tax deals and you want to accuse me off sucking corporate cock? 😄 Make your mind up you confused fuck boy. Which is it? Are you a warrior or a fluffer?

It's called negotiation, and those jobs ended up somewhere else. congrats AOCnt.

On the other hand what facebook, twitter et al are doing directly impacts our political discourse, and the results of our elections. It would be like banning phone calls between Republicans only, or shutting down Conservative news periodicals.
 
And that's how we're accustomed to our communications platforms operating. We don't expect censors to be listening to our phone conversations, cutting them off if it comes up that Quid Pro Joe is a potato, and we don't expect censors to open our snail mail, burning anything that says Quid Pro Joe is a potato. When a platform censors content, they should take responsibility for the content they allow.
Phone conversations are private communications, not public. They’re not comparable to social media.

Social media websites are specifically exempt from liability. They’re regulated different because they are different.
 
It's called negotiation, and those jobs ended up somewhere else. congrats AOCnt.
Why do we need to negotiate with corporations on how much they're going to be taxed? Law makers and citizens decide that but of course you have the mentality of a servile little bitch and try as you might you can't hide it. 😄
On the other hand what facebook, twitter et al are doing directly impacts our political discourse, and the results of our elections. It would be like banning phone calls between Republicans only, or shutting down Conservative news periodicals.
In that scenario you're giving Facebook the power to control whether or not you even get online and that simply isnt the case. It's isn't an apt comparison. What you want to do would be like forcing rando numbers you call to sit down and talk with you. Guess what? People with phones are allowed to block your number you thirsty bitch.
 
Why do we need to negotiate with corporations on how much they're going to be taxed? Law makers and citizens decide that but of course you have the mentality of a servile little bitch and try as you might you can't hide it. 😄

In that scenario you're giving Facebook the power to control whether or not you even get online and that simply isnt the case. It's isn't an apt comparison. What you want to do would be like forcing rando numbers you call to sit down and talk with you. Guess what? People with phones are allowed to block your number you thirsty bitch.

All this to stop people you don't like from having the ability to spread their opinion, all the mental gymnastics, the hypocrisy, the whataboutisms, nothing but fluff.
 

Forum List

Back
Top