Facebook goes full tilt Orwellian... Bans "dangerous" commentators, including Farrakhan.

No I haven't. Please tell me all about them. Huh??? Is this thing on??

Pedantics don't look good on anyone.

 

a better example is fox news deciding who gets to use their network to beam their propaganda into American homes

 

Oh excuse me for not having a desire to listen to hate filled morons.

 

Actually no, that's a terrible example. Come on man, we've already covered this! Fox news is programmed by its management, along with CBS, NBC, ABC, Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, The Cat Channel, and The Home Shopping Network. They and they alone are solely responsible for its content. Facebook's content (arguably the largest collection of it in human history) is driven solely by its billions of users. The only similarity to Facebook, if you don't like what's pictured be showed on yer teevee, you can always turn the channel. Or better yet, turn off the damn teevee and go for a walk.

 

Dup post deleted by BTTR.

 

Well that's just fine. But you don't have to silence them to not listen. You can simply ignore them. But you want to silence them. I don't much care for the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they are loathesome, vile, inbred knuckle dragging pig ****ers. But I will defend their right to spread their filthy screeds until the cows come home. It's not my call to control content you consume, and it's not yours to control mine. As long as we value a free and open society, anyway.

 

same deal, fox owns the medium, they decide, if we don't like it, we go somewhere else for content

what you want is a government run facebook rather then a privately owned facebook

 

Networks provide the content, in FB, the members provide the content. I don't post pictures on Fox News for all of my friends to see, but I can on FB.

Not sure how you are even comparing the two. How is your example even relevant?

 

free speech is exactly what face book is, if we allow you to force them via law to say what you want them to say, you take away their free speech rights

 

The networks, all of them, program content that they think (in their "expert opinion") their consumers would like to consume. I'm sorry there is simply no rational nexus to Facebook in that regard. Facebook content is created by Facebook users. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Well, of course there is that you need to put up a straw man fallacy to make your "argument." So yeah, there is that. I know you know the difference between a television network and a web platform where users create content. The jig is up, as they say. So you can take your fingers out of your ears now.

Hwa???



Please do explain this one. Oh

 

nope, you want a government run facebook, I want competition, create a new web site called HateBook if you want, may be something people want - some Trump supporters anyways

 

Until it isn't.

Please cite the post in which I made this claim, as you allege. Good luck looking...

I would never suggest doing any such thing. Better re-read my OP. Or read it for the first time because obviously you haven't.

Of course. And I never said anything even remotely resembling that.

 

Please cite the post in which I state I want a "government run Facebook" as you allege.

 

facebook has a TOS, just like here - I would guess even fox has one for it's guests

 

how many people has Trump had sign a NDA that they can never tell us about their relationship with the President of the United States?

will Trump allow them to speak freely on facebook?

talk about a free speech violation, everyone should be able to tell their experiences with the President

have his many wives, affairs and children also signed NDA's?

 

It's not, but in public school, well... hey every kid gets a sticker, right?

 

you first, you said I want a government run site, I never said that

you said it was a free speech violation, it can only be that if it's a government run site

you said "OK, so there's one vote against free speech. Good to know where you stand."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...uding-farrakhan.555189/page-3#post-1070528549

 

Huh? Link... like now.

No I did not Mr. Straw. I did not use the word violation. That is your word. A word you added to move the goalposts because your pallid argument fell apart before you even started typing and you know it, hence the gamesmanship.

Yes, free speech as a concept. You are confusing that with the First Amendment it would appear. They are two very different things. There is the concept of free speech which is a societal more, and then there is the constitutionally-guaranteed right that disallows the state from infringing on the citizens' rights to the exercise thereof. Hence your confusion. I was speaking of the former, not the latter. Had I been speaking of the latter, I would have actually used the word violation and you wouldn't have had to pretend I did.

 

If it was in the public square, maybe, but Facebook is a private institution. You can't run into a theater and start yelling obscenities, and not expect to be thrown out. No one is preventing Farrakhan and Jones from spewing their stuff on the public square of the internet.

 

Keep this in mind:

 

No, he wants the opposite. If I am reading his statements correctly, he wants one rule enforced for all of Facebook users/members instead of Facebook banning speech that people don't like or banning people because they are affiliated with X,Y, or Z..... Unless it actually breaks Facebook rules.

You took an interesting discussion and took hard turn sideways. As if you intentionally look for a fight where a good discussion would be much better.

 

So what? Who cares?? I signed an NDA and I was nowhere near the White House. They should be signing NDA agreements, for sure. They hold greater clearances then I ever held and I was Top Secret. The amount of paperwork and background checks I went through were crazy. They should be signing NDA's.

Do you understand what an NDA is?

What does this have to do with Facebook?? How does it even equate to such things?

 

Let me state this for the 57th time: Facebook has every right to ban anybody from its platform for any reason. The question posed in the OP is should they. I say no, they should not. This is my opinion. Your repeated attempt to conflate a website with a public space or a house party was funny when you first said it, now it's just stupid. Making outrageous claims on a website is not even remotely similar to yelling obscenities in a theater as you laughably claim.

 

ImNotOliver: "I gave up Facebook rather quickly because of the dishonesty, ignorance, and crudeness."
Also ImNotOliver: Sits on this forum slinging insults and accusations at political groups she doesn't like (Conservatives). Most of it false and dishonest.

Talk about complete hypocrisy.

 

Can't see the image. Would like to.