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

[OKTexas]

Inconsistent enforcement of terms and the ability to just change these terms out of the blue is the issue, not free speech. That's the point, and I fully agree with conservatives that there needs to be more consistency instead of just banning/suspending accounts on a whim. In fact this is an issue that impacts a lot of users not only on Facebook, but also Google and their services like YouTube. People get demonetized or de-platformed on a whim, so I agree there needs to be consistency and transparency.

But conservatives don't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't prevent other entities from regulating what you or I say. If I violate the rules of this forum and get suspended or banned, I can't just run to the FCC and cry "They took muh freedumz away." Why? Because I signed a legally binding contract saying I'd abide by the rules here. It's the same with you and Facebook. Sorry, but thems the facts.

Your employer can abridge your free speech, too. If you get caught on camera embarrassing yourself and in kind, bringing unwanted attention to your place of work, they can distance themselves from you - i.e., shit-can you. You have free speech, and you're also free to deal with the consequences. And as one Trump protester apparently learned, it cuts both ways:

Woman who gave Donald Trump the middle finger fired from her job

Juli Briskman, a 50-year-old mother of two, said marketing company bosses called her in and fired her for ‘obscene’ gesture

www.theguardian.com

How long are you going to keep tap dancing around the fact that the social media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business?

.

 

[martybegan]

And we absolutely should put a stop to that. But that has nothing to do with regulating social media. We'd need to regulate government to stop that. In fact, regulation would just make it easier for the state to coerce these companies.

How? They are the ones who make the regulations, and their proxy social media lemmings are creating an information bias situation that makes getting people into government to fix it next to impossible.

Do you want barricades? Because this is how you get barricades.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How long are you going to keep tap dancing around the fact that the social media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business?

So what. That is their right to do.

TV media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business and you do not seem to care.

Radio media companies are showing an obvious political bias in they way they conduct their business and you do not seem to care.

 

[iceberg]

As they are private entities they are allowed to do so.

You never seems to whine about the purely partisan manner in which OANN or the GWP behave.

Twitter's "Tricky" Timing Problem: Lawsuit Reveals Back-Channel With CDC To Coordinate Censorship | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

yet here we have proof twitter coordinated with the CDC to control messaging.

Twitter just reportedly suspended another doctor who sought to raise concerns over Pfizer Covid records. Former New York Times science reporter Alex Berenson is also suing Twitter over his suspension after raising dissenting views to the CDC. In the meantime, Twitter is rolling out new procedures to combat “misinformation” in the upcoming elections — a move that has some of us skeptical. The recently disclosed exchange between defendant Carol Crawford, the CDC’s Chief of digital media, revealed a back channel with Twitter and other companies to censor “unapproved opinions” on social media. The “tricky” part may be due to the fact that, during that week of March 25, 2021, then CEO Jack Dorsey was testifying on such censorship before Congress and insisting that “we don’t have a censoring department.”

 

[dblack]

How?

Beats me. But creating a new regulatory regime, new laws that government can use to twist arms, would only make matters worse. It would give government even more power to bully social media sites into doing their bidding.

Do you want barricades? Because this is how you get barricades.

???

 

[Curried Goats]

We are not supposed to have the government elites using private companies to do their dirty work for them, you SJW gelding.

Is there some law against private companies and government officials working together towards a common goal?

 

[dblack]

Is there some law against private companies and government officials working together towards a common goal?

Not at all. But when leaders call on companies to "police themselves" in various ways, there is usually an implied threat involved. "Do what we say or we'll punish you with overbearing laws and state mandates", that sort of thing.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not at all. But when leaders call on companies to "police themselves" in various ways, there is usually and implied threat behind such calls. "Do what we say or will punish you with overbearing laws", that sort of thing.

Isn't that what the white wingers in this thread want? For government to punish companies who don't do what they want? Shouldn't these companies generally be allowed to decide what they do or don't find offensive on their own websites?

 

[martybegan]

Beats me. But creating a new regulatory regime, new laws that government can use to twist arms, would only make matters worse. It would give government even more power to bully social media sites into doing their bidding.

???

And yet you offer no other viable practical solution to the problem.

And it's French Revolution reference, for the last resort solution to any given problem.

 

[martybegan]

Is there some law against private companies and government officials working together towards a common goal?

Those pesky little things called amendments. Once a private actor willingly implements government policy, they are bound by those amendments.

 

[Curried Goats]

Those pesky little things called amendments. Once a private actor willingly implements government policy, they are bound by those amendments.

It's not government policy you dipshit. It's Facebook policy.

 

[martybegan]

It's not government policy you dipshit. It's Facebook policy.

Being implemented by their ruling class masters, in the government.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Those pesky little things called amendments. Once a private actor willingly implements government policy, they are bound by those amendments.

So, back when TV stations used to run Public Service Ads, did that make them bound by those amendments?

 

[dblack]

Isn't that what the white wingers in this thread want? For government to punish companies who don't do what they want?

Childish insults aside, it does seem like some of them are calling for exactly this kind of intervention. They're almost as bad as liberals.

Shouldn't these companies generally be allowed to decide what they do or don't find offensive on their own websites?

I think so, yes.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't have a problem with opposing political viewpoints, even to the point of making asses of themselves if that's what they want to do. But things like advocating violence, calling for civil war, etc. is not worthy of protection, and I'm guessing that in most cases, social media companies feel the same way. Regardless of how I feel, it's not my platform; it's Facebook's platform and you/we agreed to their terms of use.

Don't like it? There's always Truth Social, Parler, Gab, whatever.

And where do medical doctors talking about the success they had with HCQ and ivermectin in treating covid fall in that spectrum?

.

 

[Curried Goats]

Being implemented by their ruling class masters, in the government.

That sounds like the preamble to some cosplayer, D&D fantasy bullshit. In the real world government policy is implemented through laws, you moron. If Facebook wants to make sure it's policies are in line with what they feel to be responsible messaging and take their cues from trusted government sources, that is still just Facebook policy, you dumb twat.

 

[OKTexas]

In this country we're allowed to have our political biases you fascist fuckwit.

And congress has every right to take their legal protections away.

.

 

[dblack]

And yet you offer no other viable practical solution to the problem.

I have no obligation to offer a viable solution to the problem in order to reject a dumb idea. I'm saying that the solution you're offering is shit - it will make things worse.

And it's French Revolution reference, for the last resort solution to any given problem.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Though I'm not sure what you're suggesting with the comment.

 

[martybegan]

So, back when TV stations used to run Public Service Ads, did that make them bound by those amendments?

We are talking public DEBATE here, not broadcasting. Also we are talking about sites that claim to be "open forums for free discussion" That's why I'm not complaining about sites like Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

 

[martybegan]

That sounds like the preamble to some cosplayer, D&D fantasy bullshit. In the real world government policy is implemented through laws, you moron. If Facebook wants to make sure it's policies are in line with what they feel to be responsible messaging and take their cues from trusted government sources, that is still just Facebook policy, you dumb twat.

Every excuse for your corporate and ruling class "betters".

Bend over and take it, bitch.