Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's great about these threads is, the Right is so straight forward in their opinions. The Left is SO condescending in theirs.
Watching people abandon their claimed core principles once they realize it's their ox being gored? This is the sort of behavior condescension was made for.
I think many are willfully ignoring the fact the social media is rapidly becoming the way many people (especially younger folks) get their news, information and communicate.
Being locked out of such mediums is a huge disadvantage and gives one side all the power to limit or censor ideology they do not deem worthy.
If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would be screaming bloody murder just the way they did back when Hollywood was blacklisting suspected communists.
`
If you truly believe everything is a "side" then you are correct.
If, however, you accept reality and say there are standards of decency, ethics, kindness, morality and truthfulness, then you recognize that there are as many "sides" as there are human beings (opinions).
I have to chalk it up to misunderstanding of the nature of the internet...and/or community norms. We are all social beings and we live within the boundaries that most of us agree upon. Most of us agree that making money (audiences) for far-out nuts is not part of civil society. We certainly put up with their drivel as long as they pay for it. Speaking of paying for it, that's why The Blaze went broke...and why Milo is now 2 million in debt. People aren't paying, yet you think these folks should get corporate welfare...not only that, you think corps should be forced to give them welfare.
It costs FB money for each and every user. They certainly aren't going to be able to sell many ads on the nut-jobs page.....so it's a loss for them.
Amazon kicks a lot of customers off their site....tells them they can't buy anything more. These are customers that don't fit their business model (too many returns, need too much support, etc.).
They are not a public utility either.
Have you seen all the conservative yapping about boycotts of apple, google and many more? Guess what? I don't think they noticed the loss of business.
"A U.S. appeals court upheld the Obama administration’s landmark rules barring internet service providers from obstructing or slowing down consumer access to web content on Tuesday, dealing a blow to big cable and mobile phone companies."
THIS was a proposal regarding net neutrality (equal access). But now, since Trump rolled that back, the "internet" can not only ban Nuts from Facebook, but they can completely ban them or slow them down (or charge them) for the internet in general.
Putting it more clearly, given the current admin, corporations could decide that infonuts.com could not even be accessed. Obama fought AGAINST that as you see above.
Just as the ACLU came to the aid of Rushbo when he should have been in jail or "executed" given his own and Trumps feelings on the matter (buying narcotics), liberals have championed net neutrality because they are consistent on those basics.
There is absolutely no issue here. Corporation bans Jones. Other corporation (GAB) may want to allow him, thereby increasing their viewers. Ain't capitalism grand?
No, I am not confusing the net neutrality rule fight with the proposal to regulate the internet as a public utility. They are related, but regulating the internet as a public utility would encompass more than net neutrality. The net neutrality rule only dealt with internet delivery/access speeds. Had the net neutrality rule been in place, Alex Jones could still have been booted by FB et al. Regulating ISPs and other platforms as a public utility would have made the banning of Alex Jones much more difficult, if not impossible. He would likely have had appeal rights, for one thing.
I just find it very interesting that many conservatives don't have the courage of their own damn convictions. You don't want internet providers and platforms to be regulated by a quasi-governmental entity? You don't want government to operate its own public internet service in competition with private services? Fine, you got what you wanted. Dry your eyes and put on your grown-up pants.
Funny how all the liberal hypocrites will crow "Private business he can do what he wants" but insist that bakers be forced to make pervert wedding cakes. LOL. Insane or just stupid, or both? Who knows?
yeah have to disagree on this one. zuck is a huge dbag with a very punchable face but its his company and he can do what he wants with it. i do worry that we will end with 'liberal' social media and 'conservative' social media at some point, resulting in two echo chambers. that's not a good thing but I'm not sure how you legislate it.
We will, and we already have in many ways, but how it IS and WILL BE 'legislated' is "as if by an invisible hand".
That is to say that people will always go to their echo chambers, but as long as there is demand for truth, (some) companies will provide it. I do believe the pendulum will swing back to a more moderate and balanced position in the near future. There will always be fringe-dwellers, but there is a strong and loud demand for unbiased info, and it will continue to find its way to market. I am optimistic about this.
*(NOTE: Biased info does, and always will find it's way too. The problem is that people see that, and forget that there ARE other sources out there. People will benefit by focusing on what is good out there, rather than what is bad. Find what is good, support it, and promote it. It makes a difference. Sorry to sound preachy.)
Also Infor Wars host, Alex Jones attacked grieving parents by calling them liars. He can rot.
Idk why you support that guy.
You do realize, banning him for these kinds of things, only makes him that much more credible...after all, you dont attempt to silence someone who is promoting fake theories, you ONLY silence when they are a CREDIBLE threat!
Public square? Facebook is a private company and under no obligation so allow conspiracy theorists and fake news artists to use them as a platform to spread their garbage. If you want to read their "stuff" you can go to their web page and read it.
So, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, over a private company, restricting freedom of speech is ignored?
The Court’s ruling in E. C. Knight seemed to end any government regulation of trusts. In spite of this, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s “trust busting” campaigns at the turn of the century, the Sherman Act was used with considerable success. In 1904 the Court upheld the government’s suit to dissolve the Northern Securities Company in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. By 1911, President Taft had used the act against the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company. In the late 1990s, in another effort to ensure a competitive free market system, the Federal Government used the Sherman Act, then over 100 years old, against the giant Microsoft computer software company.
Once social media admits to censorship and editing, they become subject to the same laws as other media. Now they are protected from lawsuits by claiming to be merely platforms for anyone. It would be fun to see Facebook get slapped with a massive class action lawsuit.
Correct. They are feeding from both sides of the fence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
