Breaking: Facebook is violating your free speech rights!

This one doesn't understand what the First Amendment covers, and what it does not. Is it just plain ignorance, or willful ignorance?

 

that is not a violation of your freespeech rights

this sight can delete posts too if they feel they violate the TOS

facebook is a private members only club, just like this site

Trump silences people with NDA's, what do you think of that, a president that silence people from talking about him?

 

everyone is anonymous for the most part

 

I only use Facebook to post my Photoshop pictures and that's pretty much it. Last week there were a bunch of people complaining about a picture of a flower being censored because it said something like 'go it alone' or something like that. The message was basically not to conform but to follow your beliefs.

Anyway, while that flower was being censored, libs on this board were telling us Zuck and FB supported Trump.

Wait, here's the picture I just mentioned and the warning.

 

I see. Why don't you go ahead and enlighten me, then.

 

I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. Would you like to try again?

 

Oh there's no doubt the babymen who run FB are complete idiots. But that's the great thing about freedom: You actually do have a right to be an idiot!

 

It is pretty amazing how quickly some people can abandon their principles.

 

sounds like we agree, but I was responding to the title of the thread

 

a government run site would have to abide by free speech laws, is that what people really want?

course that could end anonymity

 

So you replied to a post you didn't even read. Clever.

 

the title was the subject, yep, I replied to the ops post, prob should have just posted a new post vs a reply, but we can make a big deal of it I suppose and side track your thread if that is what you want, which is weird as we agree

 

No. Do your own research. You apparently missed the lessons in 7th and 8th-grade civics classes.

 

What are you afraid of? Concession accepted.

 

I am not saying I disagree with you, but for the sake of discussion, lets take someone with information that is extremely inconvenient for a politician/party. Would it be acceptable to restrict phone, text, internet access, electricity etc?

 

They don't which is why I said they have no obligation to act as we the users especially when they have a virtual monopoly in what they do because of what they do. And let's not forget what happened the last time someone, Parler, tried to compete against them.

 

Capitalism can be brutal. Can you offer a better alternative? I can't think of one.

 

You have a mix of essential and nonessential services there. What would be acceptable -- if we err on the side of liberty as you agree -- would be to acknowledge the terms of conditions of a voluntary nonessential service are mutually agreed upon by the parties voluntarily entering an agreement for their own purposes.

 

Personally, I think these large media platforms should just post a disclaimer stating that they further the liberal agenda and any posts that conflict with that agenda will be deleted and that if you are not part of the collective you will also be deleted as a user. Either join the collective or your opinions will not be tolerated.

 

That's my point no I can't other than to pass some regulatory law that says they are a monopoly/ultility and cannot censor content unless it is advocating an illegal act or something along those lines. Do I trust politicians to do that......no. I would still like to see some kind of anti-trust investigation to the Parler thing.

 

Or... caveat emptor: We should be smart enough to know what's going on.

 

In order to classify FB as a utility, you'll have to prove it is an essential service. I don't believe it meets any of the criteria.

In order to classify is as a monopoly (not sure why anyone thinks that would solve their 'problem'), you'd have to prove there are no other options for people to communicate with one another.

Facebook is and has always been a wholly voluntary activity. It is a luxury, not an essential service.

No to put too fine a point on it, but I'd rather be more concerned about politicians executing their oaths of office and protecting life, liberty, and property.

There could be something to that. However, I just used Google -- Read:GOOGLE -- to search Parler and I reached their homepage in 0.50 sec.

I think the best thing the next congress needs to do -- once the current majority is defeated -- is revisit Ss. 230 special carveouts for these platforms behaving like publishers.

 

What we consider essential today did not exist years ago. Running water, electricity, telephone were luxuries only the wealthy enjoyed at one time.

They have become essential utilities. Use of social media has risen to this level and I would bet its usage has surpassed phone and SMS.

Thats one issue. The second:

If they are using their reach to advance politics, shouldn't 100% of their income be reported to the FEC?

 

Well, I think it's a reach to call social media essential. We got along just fine without it, and frankly I think it's one of the more harmful and divisive inventions in our lifetimes. I think there is an objective test for essential-ness. Pretty simple: Will you die or will your life become significantly more difficult without it? Electricity: Yes. Even with a growing number of people generating their own, I think the grid passes the essential test. Natural gas to heat your home in Minnesota: Yes. Cable TV: I can get along without the Home Shopping Channel and Rachel Madcow's and Sean Hannity's horrific haircuts. Facebook/Twitter/et al: Objectively my life is better without it. Not having it has actually improved my quality of life.

Yeah. No.

Absolutely. Their manipulation of public opinion clearly supports one side over the other and constitutes in-kind support.

Also, our next congress should really take a good look at Ss.230 now that algorithmic editing of posts negate social media's early claims of the heavy burden of vetting user-posted content.

 

It becomes more and more like the phone lines, it is a major communications source. I have not called it a utility but it is certainly taking on some of the qualities. Even if it were the question remains then what, how would it be regulated and what would be regulated.

It doesn't have to be essential to be a monopoly, it just has to have such control over the market it is impossible for any competition. As I noted look what happened to Parler which was going to compete. The strongest thing FaceBook has going for it is that there is no competition and since the very nature of it is that EVERYONE uses it because you don't want to have to have several Facebooks so you can communicate with everyone in ONE place just like you don't want to have several phone services so you can communicate with everyone.

Well this is fully under the interstate commerce clause and it has a HUGE effect on our politics and the body politic. If one side controls the means of communication..................we're in big trouble.

Oh I agree. The first question to be explored is should they be forced to allow ALL content except that which involves illegal activity. That means any and all opinions no matter their veracity, their accuracy not matter if they attack someone's character or makes false allegations etc etc. Or do we allow the private company to control it's content and censure post as it sees fit meaning what I said above when one side controls the means of communication.