Censorship and Monopolies

[inudesu]

Unless, of course, you tried to limit the platform to heterosexuals or whites or men. Then there'd be hell to pay. Tell me you don't see that correlation.

This is a civil rights issue. Just like minorities having the right to eat in the restaurant of their choice or gay boy scout leaders to take your son into the woods for a weekend of fun and instruction. Or do you support discrimination?

I don't know how far Facebook or Twitter have to go to prove violation of their user agreements. Those things are really vague and to date they've been really hesitant to enforce them. I suppose you could attempt to push back on an equal protection basis? But not the First Amendment. I still don't see how that applies. And I think the really vague user agreement probably covers them pretty well here.

Can social media have any say in what is posted there? What do you think the legal basis for that is? If they get some say, then we're talking about a matter of degree. And being inconsistent could be a really bad business decision but probably isn't against the law.

I mean, the mods here can ban ULM or ULL users if they want. They don't until someone forces them to, but they could. Should they not be able to do that?

I think if Facebook limited themselves too far, they'd lose enough money to regret it. Maybe they've done that now.

An additional problem with the way we talk about all of this is that we're lumping a lot of bad arguments in with whatever good arguments there might be (and even some of those are not really relevant to this specific thing people are mad about).

Far be it from me to defend Big Tech. But I'm not really sure how they meet the normal standard for being a monopoly or how they'd even be able to violate First Amendment rights.

[Guisslapp]

Unless, of course, you tried to limit the platform to heterosexuals or whites or men. Then there'd be hell to pay. Tell me you don't see that correlation.

This is a civil rights issue. Just like minorities having the right to eat in the restaurant of their choice or gay boy scout leaders to take your son into the woods for a weekend of fun and instruction. Or do you support discrimination?

Gay wedding cakes.

[Guisslapp]

I don't know how far Facebook or Twitter have to go to prove violation of their user agreements. Those things are really vague and to date they've been really hesitant to enforce them. I suppose you could attempt to push back on an equal protection basis? But not the First Amendment. I still don't see how that applies. And I think the really vague user agreement probably covers them pretty well here.

Can social media have any say in what is posted there? What do you think the legal basis for that is? If they get some say, then we're talking about a matter of degree. And being inconsistent could be a really bad business decision but probably isn't against the law.

I mean, the mods here can ban ULM or ULL users if they want. They don't until someone forces them to, but they could. Should they not be able to do that?

I think if Facebook limited themselves too far, they'd lose enough money to regret it. Maybe they've done that now.

An additional problem with the way we talk about all of this is that we're lumping a lot of bad arguments in with whatever good arguments there might be (and even some of those are not really relevant to this specific thing people are mad about).

Far be it from me to defend Big Tech. But I'm not really sure how they meet the normal standard for being a monopoly or how they'd even be able to violate First Amendment rights.

Hard cases make bad law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

[DawgyNWindow]

Gay wedding cakes.

Is Facebook a religion?

[Guisslapp]

Is Facebook a religion?

Your example was civil rights.

[SicemDawgz]

Violent suggestions, me? I have been the one, the ONLY one, on this forum who has posted we don't want a civil war, ya know, you think fighting over toilet paper was bad! and we should use the ballot box, not the ammo box. Of course, it was your side that tainted the whole ballot box approach. Look in the mirror when you seek someone who has been stoking the fires of unrest.

Now, as for our defense of the southern border, I stand by the use of physical deterrents. Up to and including motion-detector machineguns...yes, behind a fence with warning signs .

But, I have NEVER, EVER advocated civil war. And yeah, I hope brtransplant checks in.

You might not want it, but that’s exactly what those in power want to happen. They’ve been dividing people by race, class, politics etc. for the last several years, and the nation is at a boiling point. Ole Bob will say that it’s only Trump and Conservatives that are responsible for the division, but anybody that’s unbiased in their views can see that there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around.

[DawgyNWindow]

Your example was civil rights.

My response was to a quote implying that you can do whatever you wish with private property. A silly assertion, to be sure.

And yes, perceived civil rights are one of the things that are referenced to either let you or exclude you from doing what you wish with your property.

[Guisslapp]

My response was to a quote implying that you can do whatever you wish with private property. A silly assertion, to be sure.

And yes, perceived civil rights are one of the things that are referenced to either let you or exclude you from doing what you wish with your property.

I didn’t say that you could. You are creating a strawman.

[DawgyNWindow]

You might not want it, but that’s exactly what those in power want to happen. They’ve been dividing people by race, class, politics etc. for the last several years, and the nation is at a boiling point. Ole Bob will say that it’s only Trump and Conservatives that are responsible for the division, but anybody that’s unbiased in their views can see that there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around.

The fascism of the left (and their social media monopoly) is going to cause exactly what they don't want (or is it that which they are shooting for?).

This whole nation was set up to debate all this stuff. The courts, the press, and now social media should provide platforms for both sides to make their arguments, but court after court refused to hear evidence of voter fraud, the media is completely in the tank for a political party, and the banishing of conservatives from social media are rampant.

I am afraid of what the future holds for America.

[DawgyNWindow]

I didn’t say that you could. You are creating a strawman.

You took my answer out of context. Context is important. You should be arguing with inudesu.

As usual, you chose to become a strawman because you like to read what you post.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Gay wedding cakes.

Apples vs. oranges dude.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

😂🤣😅 You socialist Dems can’t piss off over 50% of the America plus our awesome independents and get away with it Libs! Period! Talk about 80 year old Pelosi (worth $135 million minimum) and 70 year old Schumer, along with GenXers and Millenial Social Media CEO/Founders over playing their hand!! What clowns!


Twitter, Facebook Lose $51 Billion in Value After Booting Trump

https://www.newsmax.com/t/finance/ar...=13&id=1005467

[Guisslapp]

😂🤣😅 You socialist Dems can’t piss off over 50% of the America plus our awesome independents and get away with it Libs! Period! Talk about 80 year old Pelosi (worth $135 million minimum) and 70 year old Schumer, along with GenXers and Millenial Social Media CEO/Founders over playing their hand!! What clowns!


Twitter, Facebook Lose $51 Billion in Value After Booting Trump

https://www.newsmax.com/t/finance/ar...=13&id=1005467

An over reaction. FB, as much as I hate it, generates tons of free cash, and trades at a reasonable valuation for its growth. TWTR hasn’t fully figured out how to optimally monetize its platform yet, but I predict it will one day. I wouldn’t be surprised to see both of these companies becoming more valuable over the next year or so. Just my opinion.

[dawg80]

History always repeats itself because too many people have their heads buried in the sand...or mud. I like to find parallels out of history since we now have the luxury of hindsight and can examine the before, what happened, and the subsequent ramifications of some event.

Napoleon was brilliant...on the fields of battle and in politics...but he was not perfect. He had a political rival executed on "trumped-up" charges and it shocked, not only France, but the world and both his political enemies and his friends/allies. One his closest advisors, Tallyrande, said of it, "It was worst than a crime...it was a blunder."

I think ALL those on this anti-Trump rampage are committing a blunder.

[johnnylightnin]

Trump was the blunder.