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

[dblack]

my point being . . .

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

It was a solid point. The desire of Trump supporters to use the government to force Twitter to host Trump's tweets is no different than the desire to use the government to force bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings.

 

[tshrimp]

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.

One example is not proof that it is this way for everyone. I don't use FB, but some of my family does, and they get censored all the time, and are constantly suspended.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One example is not proof that it is this way for everyone. I don't use FB, but some of my family does, and they get censored all the time, and are constantly suspended.

Cool story Bro.

 

[martybegan]

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

It means they should.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Not individuals, a virtual space created by them that acts as a virtual commons.

 

[Curried Goats]

It means they should.

Why? Because it hurts your feelings Facebook doesn't want to put up with your bullshit?

 

[martybegan]

Why? Because it hurts your feelings Facebook doesn't want to put up with your bullshit?

Because its obvious your side has decided only your views should be disseminated?

 

[dblack]

Not individuals, a virtual space created by them that acts as a virtual commons.

- so we're back to this excuse. Why don't you just admit you're so afraid of losing that you're willing to do anything, violate any principle, sacrifice any value, to "win"?

Oh wait, you already did.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because its obvious your side has decided only your views should be disseminated?

If that's the case where's the evidence of me demanding the government shut down Truth Social or any other white wing site?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Because its obvious your side has decided only your views should be disseminated?

Free Enterprise means you go and build your own if you don't like it. There are no legal barriers to entry, and competitors exist, so no Sherman Act grounds.

So much FB whining when its a dead end technologically. People under 40 don't use FB.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Free Enterprise means you go and build your own if you don't like it. There are no legal barriers to entry, and competitors exist, so no Sherman Act grounds.

So much FB whining when its a dead end technologically. People under 40 don't use FB.

Yes, people under 40 do use FB. It is wildly popular among young mothers so they can post the amazing things their kids are doing and all the other young mother can tell them how amazing they are for having such amazing children.

 

[martybegan]

- so we're back to this excuse. Why don't you just admit you're so afraid of losing that you're willing to do anything, violate any principle, sacrifice any value, to "win"?

Oh wait, you already did.

Making someone live by the principles of the 1st amendment is "doing anything"?

I'm an Engineer, I look for solutions to problems.

 

[martybegan]

If that's the case where's the evidence of me demanding the government shut down Truth Social or any other white wing site?

Plenty of lefties tried that, including going after hosting sites as with Parlor.

And the thing with Social media is they created perfect situations for monopoly control of given virtual "spaces", Something government also has the tools to deal with.

 

[martybegan]

Free Enterprise means you go and build your own if you don't like it. There are no legal barriers to entry, and competitors exist, so no Sherman Act grounds.

So much FB whining when its a dead end technologically. People under 40 don't use FB.

When 2-3 same thinking virtually tied together platforms control the majority of the "acreage" of used space the trust issues come into play.

Fine add Twitter and others (run by pretty much the same cabal of people).

What you have is control of the narrative, or even worse, the discussion.

Again, you don't care because preventing the argument is easier for your side than actually participating in it, because we all know you think right leaning speech is violence.

 

[Curried Goats]

Plenty of lefties tried that, including going after hosting sites as with Parlor.

Through laws that restricted them from hosting them? Or by exercising their first amendment rights to shame private companies into voluntarily dropping them?

And the thing with Social media is they created perfect situations for monopoly control of given virtual "spaces", Something government also has the tools to deal with.

What does it matter if Facebook has a monopoly of space on Facebooks website? In context of the internet, space is theoretically infinite. It wouldn't prevent Truth Social from growing into an equally or even larger space.

 

[martybegan]

Through laws that restricted them from hosting them? Or by exercising their first amendment rights to shame private companies into voluntarily dropping them?

What does it matter if Facebook has a monopoly of space on Facebooks website? In context of the internet, space is theoretically infinite. It wouldn't prevent Truth Social from growing into an equally or even larger space.

it's called the heckler's veto, and of course you would be a fan of it. It gives lie to your "just do it yourself" bullshit.

Until your side tries to get their hosts to drop them.

Scratch an SJW's skin and you get nothing more than a bully underneath.

A gutless bully, who's only confident in numbers.

 

[multivita-man]

Exactly. So why do you want to regulate them?

Because they have substantial social, economic, and political impact and as such, some regulation is in the public interest. Obviously, two reasonable people can disagree over what the "public interest" is or isn't.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not individuals, a virtual space created by them that acts as a virtual commons.

That is correct. They created this place and now are exerting control over the space they should not have.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because they have substantial social, economic, and political impact and as such, some regulation is in the public interest. Obviously, two reasonable people can disagree over what the "public interest" is or isn't.

Just as we do over air TV and Radio. This is the new medium that must also be included.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When 2-3 same thinking virtually tied together platforms control the majority of the "acreage" of used space the trust issues come into play.

The acreage is basically infinite