- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 8,008
- Reaction score
- 3,445
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The argument's already dead, Mr. Quixote.
Seems you just didn't understand it.:doh
The argument's already dead, Mr. Quixote.
It's definitely a conservative one. The number of rich liberal pro-choice pastors is non-existent. It doesn't really pay to be liberal and have religion as a business.Is that a right wing characteristic? :lamo
It's definitely a conservative one. The number of rich liberal pro-choice pastors is non-existent. It doesn't really pay to be liberal and have religion as a business.
Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
I can't see the rantings of Alex Jones where he says faux-patriotic things like "Don't Tread on my freedoms bro or we're coming for you" as rising to the legal level of a "Imminent lawless action".
One of us even knows even.
:hm
No.
As a global public forum, they have an obligation to honor free speech.
Did you just claim that a private enterprise has a social obligation? That sounds like a liberal belief!
Sure, they're vastly outnumbered. For every Creflow, there are 10 Graham's.The ****. There are plenty of Democratic pastors that wear expensive suits.
Heya, Winston.
Ultimately the consumer has the power to go to another website. If FB steps too far out of line, they will lose their market. I think that's as complicated as it is, and should be.
Incorrect.
At the end of the day these are private, voluntary services that you are under no obligation to use and who are under no obligation to provide you their platform.
Now there is something to be said for the argument that they are so pervasive methods of communication that by restricting someone’s use of these platforms it could be construed as an infringement of free speech... There is something to be said for that but I’ll say that if the Supreme Court has said that businesses can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because they believe in a sky zombie son of a all powerful being well... good luck arguing that.
Get over your facebook addiction and drop it. Simple as that. I don't use that trash. So as far as you deep concern for why you think its so embedded in your life...
Yeah... thoughts and prayers. :lol:
“BAN ME MUTHAF*CKAS” -Snoop Dogg Slams Facebook Censors After Louis Farrakhan Is Banned
“So Facebook and Instagram just banned Louis Farrakhan, I want to know for what?” Snoop asked. “All he ever do was to tell the truth. But y’all gonna ban him though.”
“What if we ban y’all? What if we stop ****in’ with y’all Facebook and Instagram? How the **** you gonna ban Minister Louis Farrakhan for putting truth out there?” he went on in his angry clip. “I stand with him…ban me mutha****a. Ban me. I’ma keep posting his ****. I’ma keep putting Louis Farrakhan out there. That’s my dear brother. **** y’all that got a problem with him.”
“Sorry Minister, I had to bang for ya. I know you don’t permit that. But that ain’t right. It’s not right,” Snoop added.
“There’s a bunch of mutha****as you can ban, but y’all chose Minister Louis Farrakhan,” he concluded before addressing “As-Salam-u-Alaikum” to Minister Farrakhan
You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.
.
No.
FB has obligations to honor free speech.
This is a restriction of free speech by a private company which has established an enormous open forum.
It is both wrong and unconstitutional.
Legally they don't.FB has obligations to honor free speech
Exactly!I don't want to see any hate mongers banned.
I want to know what they are up to.
I want the general public to see how vile these people are
But they can't. Because of the way the internet functions, there will never be another Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter at this point. Maybe in the early days, when a small percentage of the population was online, it would be possible for a platform to outcompete another because the amount of people who were making social media accounts dwarfed those who already had an account. This is how Facebook overtook Myspace. But the market is very, very different today; pretty much everyone in America who is going to be online is online now, with exception of children (who can never upset the balance) and old people who will die soon. These big platforms completely dominate their niches, and if anyone starts a new 'free speech' site it will be so completely dominated by Nazis and cranks who have been banned elsewhere that it will kill it in the cradle; there is no big reserve if normal, well-adjusted people looking to sign up to a smaller competitor nowadays.
You also have their business model entirely backwards. They aren't selling you a product, you aren't the consumer, you are the product. Facebook's consumers are advertisers; at this point they don't care about connecting people or giving a good user experience per se, but only about giving you an addictive, if pleasant, experience in order to harvest information and sell it to their real customers. Because a large userbase is what makes a social network attractive, their size gives them an unassailable position as far as market is concerned, and allows them to do pretty much whatever they like; they're coasting on insurmountable inertia.
The problem with this scenario is that the PURPOSE of freedom of speech, the spirit of the law, is to protect speech in the commons, because of various enlightenment principles. Free speech is primarily about the right to decide what you hear, and to come to your own conclusions about it, even more so than it is about the right to physically speak. More and more, the commons are moving online, and even if the commons are privately owned free speech still applies. It's why company towns can't ban things like religious proselytization on sidewalks which they legally own, having lost supreme court cases to that effect. These social media sites also should worry very much about whether they are platforms or publishers; their actions put them in very murky waters.
Exactly!
Banning them is stupid, because now you force them (and their supporters) to go more undergound
It can be, because it then becomes a lot harder for authorities to keep a watch on themYou say that like it's a bad thing