CDZ Social media has become too big to remain private.... YES or NO?

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

Your claims are nothing but hyperbole and when you get called on it you think it's a validation of your exaggerated claims.

Where are all these "armed mobs" preventing people from saying anything?

Where is all the collusion with the cops to prevent someone from saying anything?

And who has been prevented and I mean actually stopped and forbidden from saying anything?

You can't find anyone who has actually been prevented from saying anything all you can do is say that this school wouldn't give him a venue but you have't proventhat every other way any speaker could say what they wanted was blocked by these armed mobs in collusion with the cops

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

no it's that I know it's not and you cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove that it is

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

no it's that I know it's not and you cannot prove that it is

Sure. That is why when I asked what you would accept as proof, you set a standard so if it I could not find an example of it happening in Nome, Alaska, BUT IN EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY,

you would claim I had "failed" to support my claim.


That is not the action of someone who really believes their position.

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

no it's that I know it's not and you cannot prove that it is

Sure. That is why when I asked what you would accept as proof, you set a standard so if it I could not find an example of it happening in Nome, Alaska, BUT IN EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY,

you would claim I had "failed" to support my claim.


That is not the action of someone who really believes their position.

Tell you what you give me the names of 10 of these speakers that have been prevented from saying what they want by armed mobs in collusion with the cops.

And by prevented I mean just that. Not that one venue was denied not that one engagement was cancelled but that they were utterly and completely barred from any and all avenues available to say what they were going to say.

Just to be clear that means they were barred by armed mobs from obtaining a website, barred by armed mobs from every hotel, auditorium or other venue that rents out accommodations for such things that they were banned from publishing their words in any way shape or form then prove that the police were complicit in this denial of free speech and censorship.

 

[Correll]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

no it's that I know it's not and you cannot prove that it is

Sure. That is why when I asked what you would accept as proof, you set a standard so if it I could not find an example of it happening in Nome, Alaska, BUT IN EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY,

you would claim I had "failed" to support my claim.


That is not the action of someone who really believes their position.

Tell you what you give me the names of 10 of these speakers that have been prevented from saying what they want by armed mobs in collusion with the cops.

And by prevented I mean just that. Not that one venue was denied not that one engagement was cancelled but that they were utterly and completely barred from any and all avenues available to say what they were going to say.

Just to be clear that means they were barred by armed mobs from obtaining a website, barred by armed mobs from every hotel, auditorium or other venue that rents out accommodations for such things that they were banned from publishing their words in any way shape or form then prove that the police were complicit in this denial of free speech and censorship.

Ah, so if a violent mob threatened violence and the campus administration, instead of calling the police to protect the speaker and the students, instead worked with the mob, in calling the police to threaten to arrest the speaker, if he tried to speak at the venue and then the speakers was able to give talk to a few people on the street before going home,


you could call that, "no harm, no foul".

Got it.

And I think that is a completely unreasonable standard.

 

[dblack]

Apparently, the purpose of government is to bully people who won't do what you want.

 

[Correll]

Apparently, the purpose of government is to bully people who won't do what you want.

You referring to how the campus administrators used the government to shut down the conservatives speakers they did not like?

 

[Blues Man]

Given that internet access is no longer an option but a necessity....does it not follow that like electricity and access to fuel oils and gasses....social media has no become an need instead of a choice or a luxury? I for one am not in favor of government controlling anything.....but in the case of real necessities like heat and lights somebody has to oversee the process lest we get scalpers who deny access except for usurious payment.....likewise with the internet and social media.....Dominion has demonstrated that any politician who wants to win an election need only pay them for it. Is it time for a governing regulator specifically for the internet and social media as well?

What do you say?

Internet access should be regulated like a utility.
Social Media is not though. There is no need to regulate social media.
The two things are not the same.

As fast as a behemoth is formed on the Internet, it disappears. Anyone still use AOL? What about the "Go Network"? "Myspace?"

When you people misinform the public, you are stealing elections by fraud.

It's your responsibility to decide what's true or not.

Was that a denial that misinforming the public is stealing elections by fraud? Because you were not very clear.

Why do you think people who post on Facebook are reliable news sources?

If you get your news from Facebook and Twitter it's your own fault if you believe the shit posted there

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

Who is misleading the public?

People who post on Facebook?

If you believe anything you read on Facebook that's your problem.

And nothing on Face book benefits me. I don't use it at all.

And even if I did I wouldn't be stupid enough to think it's a credible source of news

So, you are not addressing whether it is wrong to mislead the public, your point is that it is ok to mislead them, because the responsibility for believing you, is on them, not on you?


Wow, That is some excellent pretzel logic.


My counter point to that, is very simple. YOU are responsible for your actions. The people lying or controlling the flow of information to mislead the public, are responsible for their actions.


THe people who are fed a false picture of events, they are victims of lies.


You are just making excuses for bad behavior that benefits you.

So you copy and [paste an old post?

No wonder you need sites like Facebook to tell you what to think

Your post was just repeating points already addressed in the post you replied to.

So, reposting it, was the obviously best course of action.


If you just keep repeating yourself, I am happy to do the same. But, I am lazy so I will cut and paste until you decide to actually say something.

You mean like you repeating over and over the childish mantra, "It's not fair"?

????

My point stands. If all you do is repeat yourself, I can play that game too.


My point stands. the intent and effect of Big Tech, is censorship. That is unfair to the people involved, and harmful to society, thus justifying regulation.

It's only harmful if you're an idiot and believe Facebook is a credible news source. Which it isn't and doesn't claim to be.

You want the government to protect you from your own stupidity

So, you don't deny my accusations, but for any number of reasons, you don't care.


The real reason, is the censorship benefits your side, so you support the censorship.

I have been denying them all along.

Facebook can allow whatever content they want on their site just like you can allow people in your home who only say things you agree with.

FAce book is not some all powerful thing and you do not have to use it if you don't like the way they run their message boards.

Believe it or not billions of people don't use facebook for anything

Nothing in that denies my accusations. Those are arguments as to why social media is or should be allowed to do whatever they want.


THe real reason of course, is that the censorship benefits your side.

I don't have a side.

Your problem is you can't think unless it inside a 2 dimensional box.

I am against government regulation for regulation sake. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I haven't voted for a candidate from either of those parties in 20 years or more

Now I'm guessing you're a republican and I thought republicans are for small government and less regulation not more regulation.

Or are you like every other republican I have ever met and you only like regulation and big government when a republican does it?

Sure you don't.


I have always supported reasonable regulation that helps maintain a good Marketplace.


I've explained the harms caused by this, to individuals and society and you don't deny them.

FAcebook has nothing to do with the marketplace.

It's a gossip circle. it's a party line. It's a 1 900 number that sells ads instead of charging by the minute

And it does no harm.

It can't do any harm

It's nothing but a message board not much different than this one. it just has more users.

But I see that you think reasonable regulation is nothing but regulating anyone that doesn't do things the way you want.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "Facebook" like that is the only social media there is.


Anyway, your denial of the harm is not credible.

ANY social media

FAcebook just seems to be the whiners whipping boy at the moment.

Your claim of harm is not credible.

There are people that making their living on youtube and twitter. You shut them down unfairly, you are causing them harm.


And a lot of information and speech flows though these channels. You abuse the rules to present false information or lies to the American people, that is a harm.

Your denial is not credible.

There were people who made their living driving horse and buggies once too. I suppose what Henry Ford did was unfair too right?

Speech is speech no matter if it is accurate or not. It is up to the person reading or listening to that speech to decide its accuracy. But no social media company has to allow you to say whatever you want on their venue just like you can not allow any person to say whatever he wants in your home or business that you own. The only difference is one of scale.

But you want the government to be the arbiter of truthful information. Now if that ain't dangerous and harmful I don't know what is.

1. Your analogy is bad. Like silly bad. Dismissed.

2. Correct. Speech is speech whether it is accurate or not.

3. If the rules are applied in an unfair and bad faith manner, and harm results, that is a valid reason for regulation.

4. No, I want the Free Flow of information and speech and for the Truth to come out though the Contest of Ideas. I want the government to facilitate that.

And a private company, person or whatever can enforce the rules any way he, she or it wants to within the confines of their property.

I'll go back to FAcebook as an example. FB owns the servers it runs on, FB employs the staff to keep the hardware and software running, you sign an agreement to follow the terms of service in exchange for using those servers for free. If you don't like the rules or how they are enforced then don't use the free service.


And it's not up to the government to provide you a venue for your contest of ideas.

Yep. Those that use FB signed a contract in good faith, and that contract is being violated massively by facebook and to the detriment of many individuals and society at large.

It's not a contract.

And "society" is not being harmed whatsoever.

Contract, agreement, what have you. THey have betrayed their users and are operating in bad faith.


And society is obviously harmed by partisan censorship.

And they have the absolute right to do so

If you don't agree don't use it.

That is how the market works.

And you might have an argument IF social media were the sole arbiters of information but they aren't.

You and anyone else is free to post your unedited opinion on line via a blog or a privately owned website.

They are a big and growing portion of information.

And the partisan censorship is not limited to social media.

No they are not. People post links and articles and news from other places you don't need to use social media to get that info.

So who else do you think is censoring you?

1. Plenty of independent content creators on Youtube, and other social media.

2. People could use other sites. But the big ones are controlled by Big Tech and they thus have significant control of information.

3. FOr years now, speakers who hold the wrong ideas have been silenced with violence and abuse of administrative and legal power by liberals.

Once again Youtube is privately owned and does not have to let anyone use their site to make money. They have absolute control over what gets put on their privately owned servers.

And you just contradicted yourself. If people can use other sites then they are not being denied anything. No one is guaranteed an audience for what they post on line

And those speakers were not silenced. Maybe an event at a particular venue was cancelled or disrupted but those speakers still are able to say what they want and people who want to hear them still can

Sure. A speaker is invited to speak to hundreds of people at a college. A violent mob threatens and the school administrators instead of requesting police protection to protect their students, request that the police threaten the speaker with arrest if they speak.


SO the speaker can stand on a corner, a block away and speak to people that came with him, all 5 of them,


and you are pretending that there was "No harm, no foul" because he got to speak?


LOL!!!!

Still not censorship.

Another venue can be found or that speaker can record their speech and post it on his website or he can write it all down and publish it.

No one is preventing this speaker from speaking.

All that happened was that a venue was denied and there is nothing in the law that states that a venue must be provided for anyone.

So, armed mobs working with administrators and the government to suppress speech, and to you, there is no problem?


Mmm, yeah, that's bullshit.

Not on private property no. No institution is obligated to provide a venue for anyone.



And you now say the government is suppressing speech but you want that very same government to facilitate free speech sound a little funny doesn't it?

And where were these armed mobs that are censoring the public ?

Various college campuses, the streets of various cities. Why do you ask?

prove it

How many examples do you need, before you will admit it is a real problem? Cause, I don't want to do research for you, and then have you move the goal post on me, over and over again.

at least one from every city in every state. And I want evidence that "armed mobs" were present and that the police colluded with anyone to stop someone from speaking and you have to prove that any speaker was denied the use of every available venue in that city and state

You have made all these claims so now prove them

2 or 3 colleges that cancelled a speaker are statistically insignificant.

One from every city? LOL!!!


SO, if there is ONE city where the mayor actually does his job and doesn't work hand in hand with Antifa, that means it is not real problem?


LOL!!! What a load of crap!!

That you set the bar so high, is you admitting that you know it is a big problem, that needs to be dealt with, but you don't want to, because you support it.

hey you're the one who said it is a country wide problem so now you need to prove it

I would be happy to.

Well, I would be willing to, if you presented a reasonable standard of proof.


Asking for an example from EVERY city in the country, is you admitting that you know it is a country wide problem.

no it's that I know it's not and you cannot prove that it is

Sure. That is why when I asked what you would accept as proof, you set a standard so if it I could not find an example of it happening in Nome, Alaska, BUT IN EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY,

you would claim I had "failed" to support my claim.


That is not the action of someone who really believes their position.

Tell you what you give me the names of 10 of these speakers that have been prevented from saying what they want by armed mobs in collusion with the cops.

And by prevented I mean just that. Not that one venue was denied not that one engagement was cancelled but that they were utterly and completely barred from any and all avenues available to say what they were going to say.

Just to be clear that means they were barred by armed mobs from obtaining a website, barred by armed mobs from every hotel, auditorium or other venue that rents out accommodations for such things that they were banned from publishing their words in any way shape or form then prove that the police were complicit in this denial of free speech and censorship.

Ah, so if a violent mob threatened violence and the campus administration, instead of calling the police to protect the speaker and the students, instead worked with the mob, in calling the police to threaten to arrest the speaker, if he tried to speak at the venue and then the speakers was able to give talk to a few people on the street before going home,


you could call that, "no harm, no foul".

Got it.

And I think that is a completely unreasonable standard.

yes no harm no foul because that speaker whoever he was could have given that same speech somewhere else

No it's not an unreasonable standard it is the standard needed for you to prove that some speaker was barred from saying what he wanted by armed mobs in collusion with the cops.

these are your allegations so you need to prove them.

One guy who had one event cancelled at one college ain't proof

 

[dblack]

Apparently, the purpose of government is to bully people who won't do what you want.

You referring to how the campus administrators used the government to shut down the conservatives speakers they did not like?

No, I referring to fake conservatives who want to use government to bully businesses into doing their bidding.

 

[Correll]

Apparently, the purpose of government is to bully people who won't do what you want.

You referring to how the campus administrators used the government to shut down the conservatives speakers they did not like?

No, I referring to fake conservatives who want to use government to bully businesses into doing their bidding.

Asking businesses to apply their rules fairly and not fuck up people's lives or interfere in the free flow of information and discussion,

is hardly "bullying".

 

[MarathonMike]

I don't know how you do that without causing other problems. For example, I've read about the proposals for breaking up Facebook, but I'm not sure how that guarantees good behavior on the "pieces" of Facebook going forward.

 

[Correll]

I don't know how you do that without causing other problems. For example, I've read about the proposals for breaking up Facebook, but I'm not sure how that guarantees good behavior on the "pieces" of Facebook going forward.

Yeah, I'm not sure how to do it either.

 

[dblack]

Apparently, the purpose of government is to bully people who won't do what you want.

You referring to how the campus administrators used the government to shut down the conservatives speakers they did not like?

No, I referring to fake conservatives who want to use government to bully businesses into doing their bidding.

Asking businesses to apply their rules fairly and not fuck up people's lives or interfere in the free flow of information and discussion,

is hardly "bullying".

Sell that bs somewhere else. Trumpsters are pissed because Twitter and Facebook called Trump a liar (which he is), and they want to punish them for it. Period.

 

[Donald H]

It might have been that way in the past. But the modern liberal has convinced themselves, that being "progressive" and supporting "social justice" or various bullshit causes, is more important than their professional responsibilities.

Hell, look at the way that Fox exploded, when they hit the industry? They way I heard it explained, was, they found a niche market. Half of America.

When you refer to 'progressive' and 'social justice' as bullshit causes, you're indicating that you have no interest in the conversation. If you're willing to moderate your attitude, I'm willing to try to discuss your grievances, from a Canadian POV.

 

[Correll]

It might have been that way in the past. But the modern liberal has convinced themselves, that being "progressive" and supporting "social justice" or various bullshit causes, is more important than their professional responsibilities.

Hell, look at the way that Fox exploded, when they hit the industry? They way I heard it explained, was, they found a niche market. Half of America.

When you refer to 'progressive' and 'social justice' as bullshit causes, you're indicating that you have no interest in the conversation. If you're willing to moderate your attitude, I'm willing to try to discuss your grievances, from a Canadian POV.

Cut the bullshit buddy. The progressives down here, are ordering the cops to stand down so that violent mobs can rampage though the streets and then arresting people for defending themselves or even just running away, if they do it "wrong".

 

[Donald H]

It might have been that way in the past. But the modern liberal has convinced themselves, that being "progressive" and supporting "social justice" or various bullshit causes, is more important than their professional responsibilities.

Hell, look at the way that Fox exploded, when they hit the industry? They way I heard it explained, was, they found a niche market. Half of America.

When you refer to 'progressive' and 'social justice' as bullshit causes, you're indicating that you have no interest in the conversation. If you're willing to moderate your attitude, I'm willing to try to discuss your grievances, from a Canadian POV.

Cut the bullshit buddy. The progressives down here, are ordering the cops to stand down so that violent mobs can rampage though the streets and then arresting people for defending themselves or even just running away, if they do it "wrong".

O.k. I'll cut through the bullshit. The problems between the cops and the progressives has nothing to do with social media. It's all to do with racism. Racism began to be revived to higher levels with the election of Obama because of resentment by the south. The pointy hats and bedsheets with eye holes cut into them were still in the closets, moldering away and waiting for their time to come again.

Then a cop murdered George Floyd on the street in broad daylight and demonstrated pride and joy in doing it.

This is something you should have brought up on another thread that is dealing with racism. you'll have to take it there for me to reply further, if that's your aim?

 

[Correll]

It might have been that way in the past. But the modern liberal has convinced themselves, that being "progressive" and supporting "social justice" or various bullshit causes, is more important than their professional responsibilities.

Hell, look at the way that Fox exploded, when they hit the industry? They way I heard it explained, was, they found a niche market. Half of America.

When you refer to 'progressive' and 'social justice' as bullshit causes, you're indicating that you have no interest in the conversation. If you're willing to moderate your attitude, I'm willing to try to discuss your grievances, from a Canadian POV.

Cut the bullshit buddy. The progressives down here, are ordering the cops to stand down so that violent mobs can rampage though the streets and then arresting people for defending themselves or even just running away, if they do it "wrong".

O.k. I'll cut through the bullshit. The problems between the cops and the progressives has nothing to do with social media. It's all to do with racism. Racism began to be revived to higher levels with the election of Obama because of resentment by the south. The pointy hats and bedsheets with eye holes cut into them were still in the closets, moldering away and waiting for their time to come again.

Then a cop murdered George Floyd on the street in broad daylight and demonstrated pride and joy in doing it.

This is something you should have brought up on another thread that is dealing with racism. you'll have to take it there for me to reply further, if that's your aim?

The nation as a whole had no problem with Obama being President. THe idea that those that opposed him, for ideological and/or partisan reasons, was just the liberals, or the "progressives" attempting, and mostly succeeding in marginalizing any and all opposing to Obama as wacism.


That was effective in letting Obama rule as he wished, but at the cost of being incredibly divisive.


People don't like being called names, especially on completely false grounds, by assholes.


Especially when the assholes have control of the means of communication and media, and can make the lies stick.