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

[Harpy Eagle]

Perhaps because FB advertises they are there to bring people together, the don't say only the people who's opinions they agree with.

.

And FB does that. My family is way right wing, my niece even worked on the Trump campaign in NC. They are all of FB and never have any problems.

 

[hadit]

But they didn’t reinstate the fairness doctrine, which was applicable to broadcast since the spectrum is a limited public resource.

But the roles are reversed now and it’s conservatives who can’t compete on the level playing field and want laws changed to tilt it in their favor.

What I see is people arguing for social media sites to be branded either platforms or publishers.

 

[martybegan]

Again. What are you talking about? Facebook has every right to moderate content posted to their site, including content about political candidates.

Not if they are declared a commons.

 

[Marener]

What I see is people arguing for social media sites to be branded either platforms or publishers.

It’s an outdated framework that shouldn’t apply to new forms of media.

 

[martybegan]

so when they correct a post and put up their warnings, are they publishing that?

there is simply no good SINGLE definition for social media but to pretend they are a private company and can do what they want is simply bullshit.

the same people crying this crap also said the baker must make gay cakes. the hypocrisy is off the charts these days.

Baking a cake isn't a essential service, political discourse is.

 

[Curried Goats]

so when they correct a post and put up their warnings, are they publishing that?

there is simply no good SINGLE definition for social media but to pretend they are a private company and can do what they want is simply bullshit.

the same people crying this crap also said the baker must make gay cakes. the hypocrisy is off the charts these days.

The big difference between that and this is that in the case of the baker he was discriminating against a customer. You are not Facebooks customer. You are a free user. If you were their customer they would be bound by the same constitutional protections all Americans enjoy, to be free from a denial of service due to race or sex. You're right, as a guest, to say whatever you want on someone else's property simply doesn't exist.

 

[martybegan]

The big difference between that and this is that in the case of the baker he was discriminating against a customer. You are not Facebooks customer. You are a free user. If you were their customer they would be bound by the same constitutional protections all Americans enjoy, to be free from a denial of service due to race or sex. You're right, as a guest, to say whatever you want on someone else's property simply doesn't exist.

Man, talk about some made up bullshit.

 

[iceberg]

Baking a cake isn't a essential service, political discourse is.

my point being . . .

nevermind. you either get it or not. i'll chalk this up to "not" and move on.

in the end, if platforms and publishers have rules of engagement, even if facebook is neither of these, it does show someone in their position must have rules of engagement also and all this 'private company can do what they want" is arrogant bullshit. most platforms and publishers are private also, yet...

 

[Curried Goats]

Not if they are declared a commons.

That has no basis in reality. Maybe in your cuck cosplayer fantasies that makes sense but what would that look like in terms of policy? Does Trump wave a wand and declare them the "commons" like he "declassified" our most highly rated secrets through a standing order?

 

[Curried Goats]

my point being . . .

nevermind. you either get it or not. i'll chalk this up to "not" and move on.

in the end, if platforms and publishers have rules of engagement, even if facebook is neither of these, it does show someone in their position must have rules of engagement also and all this 'private company can do what they want" is arrogant bullshit. most platforms and publishers are private also, yet...

They can do what they want up until they violate your rights or the law. In what way do you imagine Facebook is doing so?

 

[martybegan]

That has no basis in reality. Maybe in your cuck cosplayer fantasies that makes sense but what would that look like in terms of policy? Does Trump wave a wand and declare them the "commons" like he "declassified" our most highly rated secrets through a standing order?

We already regulate airwaves, this is just an extension of that.

 

[Curried Goats]

We already regulate airwaves, this is just an extension of that.

And yet we don't force popular TV shows that you desperately want to be a part of to cater to you. Again, what does this mean, specifically?

 

[Zincwarrior]

We already regulate airwaves, this is just an extension of that.

There are no airwaves involved. Further control of the airwaves was done because its a finite resource.

 

[martybegan]

And yet we don't force popular TV shows that you desperately want to be a part of to cater to you. Again, what does this mean, specifically?

Doesn't mean they can't do it to social media sites.

 

[martybegan]

There are no airwaves involved. Further control of the airwaves was done because its a finite resource.

Broadcast, cable, radio, whatever, when the FCC stuck it's foot in the door it opened up all sorts of fun shit.

The really fun shit is all your side's bitching is because you just can't stand other people's views having the same access to the public as yours. Either due to SJW snowflakery, or the deep down realization is your views are shit, and can only flourish in a vacuum.

 

[Curried Goats]

Doesn't mean they can't do it to social media sites.

It also doesn't mean they will. So I guess we're back to your cuck boy fantasies.

 

[Curried Goats]

Broadcast, cable, radio, whatever, when the FCC stuck it's foot in the door it opened up all sorts of fun shit.

The really fun shit is all your side's bitching is because you just can't stand other people's views having the same access to the public as yours. Either due to SJW snowflakery, or the deep down realization is your views are shit, and can only flourish in a vacuum.

You're the one who doesn't seem to be able to flourish without daddy government coming in to rescue you.

 

[iceberg]

There are no airwaves involved. Further control of the airwaves was done because its a finite resource.

since we are streaming content over the internet, you can argue there are airwaves involved.

Im at a heart tribute show, i live stream part of it, who pays the royalties? the venue has to pay the royalties just to allow tributes to play at all.

 

[dblack]

All you do is pass through the 1st amendment speech restrictions down to them.

That's all.

The First Amendment is a limitation on government power. Period. "Congress shall pass no law ..."

The cruel irony is that applying it to individuals actually violates the First. For government to ensure that everyone honors everyone else's freedom of speech would require that the government broadly monitor speech. The exact opposite of the intent.

We see the same inversion going on in civil rights. Liberals are trying to change the notion that government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, to the idea that no one should be allowed to discriminate. But for the government to ensure that none of us discriminate against each other, they have discriminate themselves. So we get a legal code littered with "protected classes" and special provisions for various minorities. The exact opposite of equal rights.

 

[dblack]

Better to give users filters they can use if they are afraid to see things that upset their tender sensibilities than allow an unaccountable NPC decide for them.

Maybe. That's up to the company. And their users.