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

[martybegan]

From what you've been saying here, you want more. You want them forced to host conservative content. You've been very clear about that. The terms of service thing (or the "publishers" thing, or the "public square" thing) is just like all the other "reasons" cited. It's an excuse. One you'd be arguing against if the tables were turned. You're every bit as hypocritical as the leftists on this matter.

Seriously, take a step back and think about how you'd react if the Democrats were going after Fox News - if they tried to reinstate the fairness doctrine and used it to force Fox to be nice to liberals. Would you be saying, "Well, they DO have point about the public square thing, and Fox IS violating the free speech of liberals ...", or would you be howling at the obvious power grab? Or, in case you're inclined to quibble about the various definitions involved (publisher, broadcaster, website, whatever ) let's say a conservative website was doing exactly the same kinds of things as FB and Twitter. Would you be complaining? Would you support efforts to crack down on them with government regulation?

They already have control of the media sites, we are losing.

You are probably OK with losing as long as you die with your principles intact.

 

[martybegan]

Nobody is stopping you from spreading your opinion, stop being such a snowflake.

You are on this very forum doing just that. There are 10,000 other places on the web you can do just that.

You can actually leave your house and go to the real public square and spread your opinion.

A small message board isn't twitter or facebook.

If Trump does win the nomination, is one nominee not having the same level of access to the electorate fair or not?

 

[martybegan]

except for the fact nobody else hears the phone call and billions of people see postings on Social Media .

And the media companies are on record saying the content isn't theirs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And the media companies are on record saying the content isn't theirs.

and it is not. If it were theirs every post would require pre-approval before being published just like a real publisher does.

 

[Papageorgio]

They’re not.

As already correctly noted: conservatives continue to violate the TOS and other rules by posting racist, bigoted hate speech, dangerous misinformation, and reckless, irresponsible lies.

Conservative content is not being removed because rightists are advocating for deregulation of the oil industry, tax cuts for corporations, or getting rid of Social Security.

They use metadata, so yes they target, just as when I use Facebook in marketing, I target specific people in specific areas.

 

[dblack]

They already have control of the media sites, we are losing.

Who? Who has control of the media sites?? What is your accusation?

Are you saying that the government is controlling these sites? Ok, let's put a stop to it. Let's attack that straight on rather than pushing for ill-conceived regulation.

Or, are you saying that rich liberals run these websites and use them to promote their political views? Because that's allowed. And should be. Have you never heard of Rupert Murdoch?

You are probably OK with losing as long as you die with your principles intact.

Yes. I'd prefer "losing" to selling out what I'm fighting for. What does victory even mean if you become what you're fighting against?

 

[martybegan]

and it is not. If it were theirs every post would require pre-approval before being published just like a real publisher does.

Well then, at that point they could claim ownership or impact by someone else's statements.

If not, then they are just carriers.

 

[martybegan]

Who? Who has control of the media sites?? What is your accusation?

Are you saying that the government is controlling these sites? Ok, let's put a stop to it. Let's attack that straight on rather than pushing for ill-conceived regulation.

Or, are you saying that rich liberals run these websites and use them to promote their political views? Because that's allowed. And should be. Have you never heard of Rupert Murdoch?


Yes. I'd prefer "losing" to selling out what I'm fighting for. What does victory even mean if you become what you're fighting against?

The left overwhelmingly controls the media in this country.

All I want to do is hold them to the same standard we hold the government to.

I want to win, not die happy in the knowledge I was ideologically pure right until I got the blindfold and the Marlboro Red.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I want them to hold up to their terms of service, where they claim they are "open platforms"

Either they are publishers or they are not.

And if they don’t, what then – government intervention; subject Facebook to fines and other punitive government measures until the platform agrees to accommodate rightwing hate speech, misinformation, and lies?

 

[dblack]

The left overwhelmingly controls the media in this country.

Again, who are we talking about? Private citizens or government?

All I want to do is hold them to the same standard we hold the government to.

That's ridiculous. Private citizens have no legal authority to wield violence. Government does. That's why we put government on a short leash. It would seem you want everyone on a short leash.

I want to win, not die happy in the knowledge I was ideologically pure right until I got the blindfold and the Marlboro Red.

And what will you win if you mimic the tactics and values of those you're supposedly fighting against?

 

[Papageorgio]

The left overwhelmingly controls the media in this country.

All I want to do is hold them to the same standard we hold the government to.

I want to win, not die happy in the knowledge I was ideologically pure right until I got the blindfold and the Marlboro Red.

Private companies should never be held to the same standard as government. The private companies should be allowed more freedom to decide, their product, service and clientele.

Do you believe that bakers should bake cakes for weddings they don’t agree with?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A small message board isn't twitter or facebook.

If Trump does win the nomination, is one nominee not having the same level of access to the electorate fair or not?

So Facebook and Twitter should be penalized and regulated by government because they’re successful.

 

[dblack]

Do you believe that bakers should bake cakes for weddings they don’t agree with?

I've never had much luck pointing out the hypocrisy. It just doesn't phase some people. They just want to "win", whatever that means.

 

[dblack]

So Facebook and Twitter should be penalized and regulated by government because they’re successful.

That is a pretty standard liberal excuse.

 

[martybegan]

And if they don’t, what then – government intervention; subject Facebook to fines and other punitive government measures until the platform agrees to accommodate rightwing hate speech, misinformation, and lies?

Nope, give them the 1st amendment to hide behind and their reasons for moderating out conservative content goes away.

 

[martybegan]

Again, who are we talking about? Private citizens or government?


That's ridiculous. Private citizens have no legal authority to wield violence. Government does. That's why we put government on a short leash. It would seem you want everyone on a short leash.



And what will you win if you mimic the tactics and values of those you're supposedly fighting against?

One specific case, due to the damage it is doing to our political discourse.

We are talking about power, and right now those companies simply have too much power, and they are doing the dirty work for the party currently in power electively, and the mindset in power by their control of the gears of government.

 

[Curried Goats]

One in the same. If you don't claim the content as your own, it basically like carrying a phone call.

Nope. Again, that analogy would hold if Facebook was your gateway to the internet itself. It isn't. It's more like Facebook is hosting a party that you're not invited to. What the liability law does is shield them from responsibility if a guest at that party defames or slanders another guest, or assaults them. That has nothing to do with whether or not they should have to let you into the party.

 

[dblack]

One specific case, due to the damage it is doing to our political discourse.

We are talking about power, and right now those companies simply have too much power, and they are doing the dirty work for the party currently in power electively, and the mindset in power by their control of the gears of government.

Too much power. Yeah. This is the excuse for nearly every statist power grab. And it utterly misses the point of our Constitution, of our nation.

In a free market private wealth will have more power to shape society than the government. That's by design. That's intentional. We don't want to change that.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Again, that analogy would hold if Facebook was your gateway to the internet itself. It isn't. It's more like Facebook is hosting a party that you're not invited to. What the liability law does is shield them from responsibility if a guest at that party defames or slanders another guest, or assaults them. That has nothing to do with whether or not they should have to let you into the party.

They claim to be an open platform, they are not.

Many of the bans are really really not in line with their TOS, and when asked what a person did to get banned, more often than not they don't reply.

That is a contract violation, is it not?

 

[martybegan]

Too much power. Yeah. This is the excuse for nearly every statist power grab. And it utterly misses the point of our Constitution, of our nation.

In a free market private wealth will have more power to shape society than the government. That's by design. That's intentional. We don't want to change that.

We are way past that point.

Enjoy your blindfold, I suggest a Lucky Strike as your cigarette choice.