Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on May 08, 2019, 11:36:22 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sts3ugEZasw
sure "private property" but its now more than that.
there are not many outlets to share info, it really does seem like a conspiracy to silence dissent.
by sharing information, i do not want my family on APS , my ex girlfriends etc, but with facebook i can share info with a wide spectrum i do not mingle with.
-
there are not many outlets to share info, it really does seem like a conspiracy to silence dissent.
You're only just figuring that out?
-
https://diasp.org/
https://dissenter.com/
https://www.full30.com/
https://usa.life/
https://www.minds.com/
https://www.bitchute.com/
https://gab.ai/
https://mewe.com/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sts3ugEZasw
sure "private property" but its now more than that.
No, it isn't "more than that." Private property means private property and that includes intellectual and electronic property.
If Facebook wants to ban all right-wing information and ideas, they can and should be allowed to do it. Those who care will bitch about it, but that is all that can happen.
-
No, it isn't "more than that." Private property means private property and that includes intellectual and electronic property.
If Facebook wants to ban all right-wing information and ideas, they can and should be allowed to do it. Those who care will bitch about it, but that is all that can happen.
How open minded of you. =|
Look, I get it; FACEBOOK IS NOT .GOV AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY.
Other big social hi tech firms are doing the same.
They're turning into a huge conglomerate which is getting worse than anything envisioned by George Orwell and, 'cause it ain't BIG BROTHER, there's no 1A protections.
I don't have an answer. I have a very limited Facebook presence that I haven't visited in years, and a sort of cr@ppy photo of me, which ...yes, has an evil firearm in the background .... so maybe Facebook bans me. Maybe they already have. I don't care, really.
But I DO care about the bigger picture. I don't want big business censoring Americans just as I don't want BIG GOVT. to be doing it.
I just don't have a good answer .... yet. :mad:
-
https://diasp.org/
https://dissenter.com/
https://www.full30.com/
https://usa.life/
https://www.minds.com/
https://www.bitchute.com/
https://gab.ai/
https://mewe.com/
My workplace allows two of those, Full 30 and Diaspora.
bob
-
My workplace allows two of those, Full 30 and Diaspora.
bob
Give them time... Use either one twice and see. :old:
-
No, it isn't "more than that." Private property means private property and that includes intellectual and electronic property.
If Facebook wants to ban all right-wing information and ideas, they can and should be allowed to do it. Those who care will bitch about it, but that is all that can happen.
IF it wants to police people based on what they say, they can stop being treated as a common carrier and can now have the rules of a publisher applied.
This isn't just a "MUUH PRIVATE PROPERTIEE@!!" argument. Facebook and other digital platforms have special legal carve outs under the faulty assumption that they will act like the phone companies do.
-
IF it wants to police people based on what they say, they can stop being treated as a common carrier and can now have the rules of a publisher applied.
This isn't just a "MUUH PRIVATE PROPERTIEE@!!" argument. Facebook and other digital platforms have special legal carve outs under the faulty assumption that they will act like the phone companies do.
That is what I was going to mention. They are enjoying legal liability protection on the condition that they are a platform and don't create or edit the content on their sites. Notice when they are questioned officially, they are very careful to claim they are platform and deny they edit or screen content outside illegal stuff. They can't exercise control over their own property, but they should not enjoy any sort of protection.
-
Start a large scale internet social site and start deleting any postings with a left of center view. See how long before the MSM labels you a Nazi and calls for the government to intervene because of the 1st and all that.
Now I agree with the it's a private company thing and all that, it's how the MSM and politicians will attack one and not the other is what bugs me.
-
Can you say can of worms?
In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes calls for the government to regulate speech on the Internet as part of the breakup of social media giant Facebook. Hughes states that despite not working at Facebook for more than 15 years, he feels a sense of “anger and responsibility” following Facebook’s recent privacy scandals. The answer to this, according to Hughes, is the creation of an independent government body to regulate online speech and content.
Finally, the agency should create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media. This idea may seem un-American — we would never stand for a government agency censoring speech. But we already have limits on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, child pornography, speech intended to provoke violence and false statements to manipulate stock prices. We will have to create similar standards that tech companies can use. These standards should of course be subject to the review of the courts, just as any other limits on speech are. But there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream violence.
Facebook Co-Founder Wants the Government to Regulate ‘Acceptable Speech’ Online
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/09/facebook-co-founder-wants-the-government-to-regulate-acceptable-speech-online/