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

Of course I want the government involved in this. What other institution can stand up to the monopoly capitalists?

The US had a fairness doctrine for a long time and it worked pretty well.

 

I'll grant you there were no major problems pre-1988 when there were three networks, FOX, PBS, and NPR. You want to do that NOW? With the internets? smh

 

I want the monopoly social media platforms forced to accommodate any legal content, just like the telco's are required to provide service to any subscriber regardless of their opinions.

What do you think about net neutrality?

 

facebook is a members only club, read my posts, I have always said if bakeries want to discriminate they have to become "private members only" club

remember Facebook is free, you pay nothing to use it, your a member of their club

this is just one of many of my posts that came back on a search of "private members only"

the reason bakeries do not want to do this is they no most normal people woudl not shop at a anti-gay bakery

 

Telco's can drop you for whatever reason, so long as you're not a protected class covered by the ADA or Civil Rights Act. If Sprint wants to refuse to do business with Richard Spencer because he's a racist ******bag, they're free to do so.

Honestly, I don't know much about it. Anytime someone talked about it, my eyes glazed over. I waited to see if the world would end or I would have to pay more for Huffington.

 

I hope President Trump succeeds. Otherwise USA is headed toward Totalitarianism of the worst kind.

 

So if a Jewish bakery owner wants to avoid being forced by you to make this cake, he has to turn his bakery into a private club?


And of course you’d force an ANTIFA-owned bakery that employs exclusively illegal aliens to make this one... Vegan, gluten free of course.

 

Well I mean that I would have no problem with it as far as not being open to government intervention. However, I would still be highly critical of them as joke of a platform. Where do you stand on the possibility of government intervention on Facebook?

 

How is it NOT suppressing speech?

 

In the same way that not just anyone can work for an engineering company? As in they need to be qualified?

To a black person, a gay person or a Christian? It depends on the state doesn't it?

ONLY bakeries?

 

HEALTH benefits?

 

According to JOKE 2016 Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a Jewish bakery shouldn't be free to decline a Nazi cake!

 

no it does not depend on the state, you can choose to sell pork, cakes, ect... if you want... but if you do, you much not discriminate based on race or gender

 

nope, anyone, if you want to discriminate, open a private members only club... simple

if you want to open a store open to the public... do not discriminate based on race or gender

 

no, they should be able to deny that as that is not something they normally sell

they normally sell wedding cakes.... now they can stop selling wedding cakes to everyone.... but if they sell them... do not discriminate... simple

 

how much do you pay to use facebook

facebook is a private members only club, you agree to the TOS when you join

what's next, force churches to let Muslims preach on Sunday too

 

I don't use facebook, never have, never will.

We will just declare it a Public Service Corporation. Bye, bye private club.

 

people will never be able to force facebook to promote hate.... just not gonna happen

 

You pay nothing except your privacy which these companies monetize for insane profits. These companies know more about you than your closest family members. When these companies decide that you have engaged in wrong think, you are scrubbed not only from their site but often times across the entire social media monopoly, payment processors, credit card companies and banks around the entire world. If you weren't aware of the scale that the unaccountable billionaires have gone to close independent voices, you haven't been paying attention.

Imagine if a Donald Trump was the CEO of these companies. Would you be happy with him curating your speech and your access to money? Are you not forward thinking enough to not see how this one day could be used in horrible ways against you?

 

if people did not like it they could create their own alternatives... big government can not force facebook to promote hate speech

it's members have to follow their TOS, same as members here have to follow this sites TOS

don't forget..... republicans told facebook they needed to do this when they came before congress.... congress told facebook to police their own site better

99% of Facebook users have no issues following the rules

 

There are many totalitarians among us. The Left is quite happy with the Chinese idea of Social Credit System.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

Why they are happy with the extremely wealthy controlling this system is beyond me.

 

This thread is not about government intervention. Please read my OP.

 

What do you mean "not something they normally sell?" Every cake shop does custom cakes. That is the point of a cake shop. Even your local grocery store probably does custom cakes.

If you can force a private business to make a same sex wedding cake, you can force one to make a swastika, a Trump, or a "Death to ISIS" cake.

 

they can have restrictions on what they write... just like this site can have restrictions on what you make them say

what they can not do is sell wedding cakes and discriminate on the same cake they sell to other based on race or gender

the government offers custom license plates, yet they can restrict hate speech on them too

 

And maybe they don't want to write "Congratulations Molly and Sandra!"

How can the state compel them to write it? In a nation of free people?

Why not? It seems like you are arguing for a very narrow band of state compulsion of a private enterprise to provide a service to a very narrow group of specially-designated attributes solely because it fits your argument.

Non sequitur. We are not talking about the state restricting speech... we are talking about the state compelling it.