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.
Funny how all the conservative hypocrites wail and moan about Facebook issuing warnings to Infowars about its violations of Facebook's terms of service, and then following through with those warnings, while at the same time insisting that bakers can serve whom they please, even if it means breaking the laws the bakers agreed to when they received their business license. LOL. Insane, or just stupid, or both? Who knows?
This, though I doubt that those arguing against FB's actions will see the distinction.
I guess you didn't get the answer you were fishing for....
The US Government has always regulated interstate and global commerce.
What is BIG TECH selling?
I didn't make the comparison, Three Wolves did. I simply pointed out how the situations were different. Different topics - different threads.
What is big tech selling to me? Nothing. Out of morbid curiosity, what precisely would you have the Fed gov do to "regulate" FB's behavior in this scenario?
Get back to me when the utility company that carries electricity to InfoWars HQ shuts off their lights. Then, I'll agree with you.
Standard Oil(A private company) was broken up, for treating people differently, with the majority based upon Big Oil used as a political weapon against those siding with the opposing party values.
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act(1914), passed alongside the Federal Trade Commission Act, rounded out the edges of anti-trust law to specify behaviors that are not protected under the law. In particular, Clayton prohibits action that may "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce" (Shenefield 19). This reveals an extremely important characteristic of our anti-trust law: We enforce anti-trust provisions not only when they have effectively permitted or created a monopoly, but ever when they may "tend to create" a monopolistic atmosphere.
Commerce of Conservative valued people, has been effected greatly.
Government is not controlling interstate or global commerce. Big Tech is. As they all conspire together, to control political power, through commerce.
Only those causing trouble for the powerful, get silenced. If there was no problem, there would be no targeting of Conservative voices.
Speech they hate, will be removed. Not that it violated any publishing laws.
Did you start a thread excoriating FB for trying to blame George Soros for whatever it was they tried to blame him for?
"The revelation that Facebook had brought in a consulting firm to look into Soros came last month from a lengthy New York Times report that detailed Facebook’s attempts to come to terms with its influence during the 2016 US Presidential election. The report revealed that Facebook hired “a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros,” which drew intense criticism, given that Soros is frequently a target of alt-right and anti-Semitic attacks and conspiracy theories."
Ya! The kinda crap that happens in very oppressive authoritarian societies.
Very oppressive authoritarian regimes would let you post stories about parents faking the deaths of their children so that the government can steal your guns?
I didn't make the comparison, Three Wolves did. I simply pointed out how the situations were different. Different topics - different threads.
What is big tech selling to me? Nothing. Out of morbid curiosity, what precisely would you have the Fed gov do to "regulate" FB's behavior in this scenario?
What are they selling, period. What does Big Tech sell? What does Google sell? What does Facebook sell? What does Twitter sell? They make Billions, in commerce.
Did you start a thread excoriating FB for trying to blame George Soros for whatever it was they tried to blame him for?
"The revelation that Facebook had brought in a consulting firm to look into Soros came last month from a lengthy New York Times report that detailed Facebook’s attempts to come to terms with its influence during the 2016 US Presidential election. The report revealed that Facebook hired “a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros,” which drew intense criticism, given that Soros is frequently a target of alt-right and anti-Semitic attacks and conspiracy theories."
No problem with FB trying to silence so-called liberal voices then?
Of course not.
If you can find it, let me know. That is news to me.
Thanks for the link.
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.
