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

[Blues Man]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

Especially when it's free. Can you believe the Victimhood in these disease addled minds?

Raised on hate radio and fox news. Disgusting.

 

[Correll]

These are memes pertaining to the argument within the OP. The underlying issue here, as has always been, is the Victim mentality and the fear-based, irrational/conspiratorial thinking:

View attachment 424574

View attachment 424575

View attachment 424576

YOur argument has been that BIg Tech has the RIGHT to kick anyone off their sites for whatever reason they want.


If they do that, then the people they kick off for no reason, people who often suffer serious financial loss because of it, are indeed, victims.


It is one thing to argue, even dishonestly, a hard core Private Property argument in favor of their actions.


It is another to argue in favor of their right to victimize anyone they want, AND THEN TO RIDICULE their victims for even complaining about it.


Indeed, some of your memes even seen to hint that you might be denying the discrimination is happening, after arguing in defense of the discrimination for dozens of posts.


I take it this is the part of the discussion, where the lib realizes he has lost and just starts throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks or at least, if he generations enough noise that it might distract from how badly he failed to support his position.

I'm not reading more whoa is me whiney arguments, especially this long and conceited. I made my argument clear: This entire issue is a dreamed up Conservative whine because they were caught posting Dangerous conspiracy theory bullshit, they got caught, and the FREE platforms they were so graciously allowed by the owners to use said, @umm, no. Sorry bud fuck that. This isn't info wars. Go scream in a corner.@

This thread is a part of the corner.

1. My post was not overly long nor was it conceited. This is you running from a debate you have lost badly.;

2. You have made your position clear. YOu have even supported it with a strong pretense of respect for private property. Strong but not convincing.

3. You have switched your position to now claiming that conservative have been banned for posting "dangerous conspiracy theories". Are you open to seeing examples of conservatives banned of NOT that, or for no stated reason(s)?

4. The use of their platforms was not an act of generosity. It was a mutual beneficial business relationship. That the actions of Big Tech is showing, they did not enter into in Good Faith.

 

[K9Buck]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

I don't either, but why do they receive special legal protections that this site isn't afforded? Do you support them receiving such special legal protection?

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

Yes, you made that point already. And I addressed it repeatedly.


THe fact is that Big Tech is causing harm to society as a whole and to many individuals who have engaged in business with them in good faith.


You are putting your partisan advantage over the good of society and the rights of the individuals screwed over by Big Tech.

There's no conglomerate 'Big Tech.' It's what the Messaging from the top-down Conservative whiners has been. A buzz word, a new enemy you were told to have and your Victim mentality sucked it up and now repeats it, as was designed. Zuckerberg started in a Dorky little College dorm and now you're after his coat-tails and want to be a Victim instead of doing your own hard work, or participating in a platform elsewhere which there's plenty...you're just sad that they're not as successful or popular. Victim, victim, victim.

Funny, you just spent quite a bit of time arguing Big Tech has the right to do what they want with their sites, and suddenly you are realizing that they, ie Big Tech doesn't exist?

This coming from the guy that accused ME of having pretzel logic.


LOL!!!


Decide, lefty. Either they have the right to rule their sites in an unfair and arbitrary manner or they don't exist and the discrimination doesn't actually happen.


You don't get to hold both positions.


Is it ok if I call you Wally?


View attachment 424578

There, there Victim. Get it all off you on a messageboard every day instead of living real life. It's cathartic, I know. The civil war threads have been amazing...too...but like usual....JUST threads.

Dude. I asked you to clarify your position and you dodged?

LOL!!!

 

[K9Buck]

Dude. I asked you to clarify your position and you dodged?
LOL!!!

He doesn't understand the argument and he's just spewing venom to express his hatred of anyone who believes in equal rights for all.

 

[K9Buck]

It's funny how leftists complain about big corporations and "corporate welfare" while simultaneously supporting big tech's special, legal privilege that is denied to smaller companies.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

I don't either, but why do they receive special legal protections that this site isn't afforded? Do you support them receiving such special legal protection?

And what protections are those?

The moderators on this site delete posts all the time

 

[G.T.]

I feel kind of bad for Boomers...in a sense, they were Programmed with hatred for the last 30 years. DAY IN, DAY OUT being told that 'they're out to get us,' 'we're being wronged,' in some way. That's terrible. If it isn't Democrats want to grab your guns and kill your babies, it's Democrats are evil nafarious deep Staters who are here to rule the world and anyone even in our own party that calls us crazy or laughs us out of court is in on it...to democrats are going to explode the debt until we're bankrupt but we go silent when Republicans do it...Dems are anti big-business, except when big business supports a Dem candidate then now our team can be anti big business because MAGIC...to Democrats hate the troops if they don't support the perpetual mid-east wars...to now WE'RE the anti perpetual mid-east war team, because Magic...to they stole the election...to they won't let us say what we want to say on the free platforms they kindly provided for us. Democrats want to OVER REGULATE!! But now since we're a victim about that, too...we'd like our regulations just fine, thanks.

It's just a DECADES long campaign against their mental health and I do kind of feel bad for them. Always told to hate something, always told how they're the victim in some way. eww

 

[Blues Man]

I feel kind of bad for Boomers...in a sense, they were Programmed with hatred for the last 30 years. DAY IN, DAY OUT being told that 'they're out to get us,' 'we're being wronged,' in some way. That's terrible. If it isn't Democrats want to grab your guns and kill your babies, it's Democrats are evil nafarious deep Staters who are here to rule the world and anyone even in our own party that calls us crazy or laughs us out of court is in on it...to democrats are going to explode the debt until we're bankrupt but we go silent when Republicans do it...Dems are anti big-business, except when big business supports a Dem candidate then now our team can be anti big business because MAGIC...to Democrats hate the troops if they don't support the perpetual mid-east wars...to now WE'RE the anti perpetual mid-east war team, because Magic...to they stole the election...to they won't let us say what we want to say on the free platforms they kindly provided for us. Democrats want to OVER REGULATE!! But now since we're a victim about that, too...we'd like our regulations just fine, thanks.

It's just a DECADES long campaign against their mental health and I do kind of feel bad for them. Always told to hate something, always told how they're the victim in some way. eww

I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X but IMO it's the younger generations that seem to think they are the victims. Have you even employed a millenial?

 

[G.T.]

I feel kind of bad for Boomers...in a sense, they were Programmed with hatred for the last 30 years. DAY IN, DAY OUT being told that 'they're out to get us,' 'we're being wronged,' in some way. That's terrible. If it isn't Democrats want to grab your guns and kill your babies, it's Democrats are evil nafarious deep Staters who are here to rule the world and anyone even in our own party that calls us crazy or laughs us out of court is in on it...to democrats are going to explode the debt until we're bankrupt but we go silent when Republicans do it...Dems are anti big-business, except when big business supports a Dem candidate then now our team can be anti big business because MAGIC...to Democrats hate the troops if they don't support the perpetual mid-east wars...to now WE'RE the anti perpetual mid-east war team, because Magic...to they stole the election...to they won't let us say what we want to say on the free platforms they kindly provided for us. Democrats want to OVER REGULATE!! But now since we're a victim about that, too...we'd like our regulations just fine, thanks.

It's just a DECADES long campaign against their mental health and I do kind of feel bad for them. Always told to hate something, always told how they're the victim in some way. eww

I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X but IMO it's the younger generations that seem to think they are the victims. Have you even employed a millennial?

Millennials word harder and are more practical than Boomers. That said, a lot of folks confuse millennial with the Generation AFTER them. Millennials turn 40 next year.

 

[Blues Man]

I feel kind of bad for Boomers...in a sense, they were Programmed with hatred for the last 30 years. DAY IN, DAY OUT being told that 'they're out to get us,' 'we're being wronged,' in some way. That's terrible. If it isn't Democrats want to grab your guns and kill your babies, it's Democrats are evil nafarious deep Staters who are here to rule the world and anyone even in our own party that calls us crazy or laughs us out of court is in on it...to democrats are going to explode the debt until we're bankrupt but we go silent when Republicans do it...Dems are anti big-business, except when big business supports a Dem candidate then now our team can be anti big business because MAGIC...to Democrats hate the troops if they don't support the perpetual mid-east wars...to now WE'RE the anti perpetual mid-east war team, because Magic...to they stole the election...to they won't let us say what we want to say on the free platforms they kindly provided for us. Democrats want to OVER REGULATE!! But now since we're a victim about that, too...we'd like our regulations just fine, thanks.

It's just a DECADES long campaign against their mental health and I do kind of feel bad for them. Always told to hate something, always told how they're the victim in some way. eww

I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X but IMO it's the younger generations that seem to think they are the victims. Have you even employed a millennial?

Millennials word harder and are more practical than Boomers. That said, a lot of folks confuse millennial with the Generation AFTER them. Millennials turn 40 next year.

In my experience it's just the opposite.

I used to run a contracting business and flipping houses was my main gig. The older guys i worked with got shit done, done right and done on time. The younger ones pissed moaned and whined if it was cold or too hot or if they did missed lunch etc etc.

 

[G.T.]

I feel kind of bad for Boomers...in a sense, they were Programmed with hatred for the last 30 years. DAY IN, DAY OUT being told that 'they're out to get us,' 'we're being wronged,' in some way. That's terrible. If it isn't Democrats want to grab your guns and kill your babies, it's Democrats are evil nafarious deep Staters who are here to rule the world and anyone even in our own party that calls us crazy or laughs us out of court is in on it...to democrats are going to explode the debt until we're bankrupt but we go silent when Republicans do it...Dems are anti big-business, except when big business supports a Dem candidate then now our team can be anti big business because MAGIC...to Democrats hate the troops if they don't support the perpetual mid-east wars...to now WE'RE the anti perpetual mid-east war team, because Magic...to they stole the election...to they won't let us say what we want to say on the free platforms they kindly provided for us. Democrats want to OVER REGULATE!! But now since we're a victim about that, too...we'd like our regulations just fine, thanks.

It's just a DECADES long campaign against their mental health and I do kind of feel bad for them. Always told to hate something, always told how they're the victim in some way. eww

I'm not a boomer, I'm a Gen X but IMO it's the younger generations that seem to think they are the victims. Have you even employed a millennial?

Millennials word harder and are more practical than Boomers. That said, a lot of folks confuse millennial with the Generation AFTER them. Millennials turn 40 next year.

In my experience it's just the opposite.

I used to run a contracting business and flipping houses was my main gig. The older guys i worked with got shit done, done right and done on time. The younger ones pissed moaned and whined if it was cold or too hot or if they did missed lunch etc etc.

That's just a function of being young and old. Generations are also only vaguely defined, yannow. For example, the top end of Gen X and the bottom-end of Millennials are...in effect, the same people.

 

[K9Buck]

I don't think Social media needs regulation.

I don't either, but why do they receive special legal protections that this site isn't afforded? Do you support them receiving such special legal protection?

And what protections are those?

The moderators on this site delete posts all the time

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are immune to libel lawsuits.

 

[dblack]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

 

[K9Buck]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

 

[dblack]

These are memes pertaining to the argument within the OP. The underlying issue here, as has always been, is the Victim mentality and the fear-based, irrational/conspiratorial thinking:

View attachment 424574

View attachment 424575

View attachment 424576

YOur argument has been that BIg Tech has the RIGHT to kick anyone off their sites for whatever reason they want.


If they do that, then the people they kick off for no reason, people who often suffer serious financial loss because of it, are indeed, victims.


It is one thing to argue, even dishonestly, a hard core Private Property argument in favor of their actions.


It is another to argue in favor of their right to victimize anyone they want, AND THEN TO RIDICULE their victims for even complaining about it.


Indeed, some of your memes even seen to hint that you might be denying the discrimination is happening, after arguing in defense of the discrimination for dozens of posts.


I take it this is the part of the discussion, where the lib realizes he has lost and just starts throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks or at least, if he generations enough noise that it might distract from how badly he failed to support his position.

So, to sum up - "bake the cake"?

To wit:

"Your argument has been that the baker has the RIGHT to refuse service for whatever reason they want.

If they do that, then the people they refuse to serve because of their sexual orientation, people who often suffer serious financial loss because of it, are indeed, victims.

It is one thing to argue, even dishonestly, a hard core Private Property argument in favor of their actions.

It is another to argue in favor of their right to victimize anyone they want, AND THEN TO RIDICULE their victims for even complaining about it.

Indeed, some of your memes even seen to hint that you might be denying the discrimination is happening, after arguing in defense of the discrimination for dozens of posts.

I take it this is the part of the discussion, where the con realizes he has lost and just starts throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks or at least, if he generations enough noise that it might distract from how badly he failed to support his position."

Same shit, different hypocritical party. I know, I know - it's different when you do it.

 

[dblack]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

There are many reasons that law was passed. But the ONLY reason Trump wants it repealed is because they've called him on his bullshit.

 

[K9Buck]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

There are many reasons that law was passed. But the ONLY reason Trump wants it repealed is because they've called him on his bullshit.

You're not a serious, honest, objective person.

 

[dblack]

These companies are supposed to just providing a platform. If they are taking sides, and they are, then they are responsible for their content and should be liable for it.

That they mislead people and fuck up people's lives, and indeed suppress political speech for partisan purposes, COUNTER to their stated purpose or their responsibilities to their share holders,

Makes regulating them a valid issue.

If this argument were raised outside the context of political retribution, I might have more patience with it. But it's not. It's purely Trump "going after" social media companies that won't do his bidding. We should never tolerate that kind of government.

Your rationalization for supporting censorship is noted.

Note whatever you like. I totally support censorship, as long it's not mandated by the state. Twitter and FB's main mistake was in making exceptions for him in the first place. They should have banned him like any other troll and wiped their hands of the whole thing. Instead they placated him, and his followers, because they like all the traffic. For that reason, I don't feel particularly sorry for them being in the crosshairs. But I don't want to see the state dictating to media. Period.

FUnny how so many of the super rich are actually hard core lefties, and use their power to advance the lefty agenda.


It is almost like the class warfare rhetoric of the Left is, like so much of what that have to say, complete bs.


i bet if it were RIGHT LEANING tech companies censoring huge portions of the information that people get, your opinion would be very different.

You mean like Fox News?

Don't you realize that if we give government power over social media, the Democrats will run hog wild with it???

The dems have never waited for us to run wild. They did not need anything from us to use Big Tech, or to politicize the media, or to use violent mobs in the streets.

The issue is real. That dealing with it will be hard, or even not possible, does not mean that the issue is not real.

Businesses, big and small, have a right to their political biases - just like people. They have a right to pick and choose who they cater to and who they snub. They have a right to disagree with the government, and to say so. Despite the claims of socialists and Trump Republicans, they are not "owned" by the state. They are not "public utilities".

The issue here is that FB and Twitter have defied the President and you want to punish them for it. Government shouldn't work that way. A free society doesn't work that way.

So then why does Twitter, Facebook and YouTube receive government immunity from lawsuits?

There are many reasons that law was passed. But the ONLY reason Trump wants it repealed is because they've called him on his bullshit.

You're not a serious, honest, objective person.

Ad homs aside - do you deny my claim? Would trump be "going after" social media companies if they supported him? You know goddamned well he wouldn't. But go ahead, shuffle your feet and whimper through some excuses.