FB Treason
- Thread starter Animal357
- Start date
Not that i agree with them, but FB is a private business, so...
But that private business suppresses speech they don’t like and then also spread false info themselves.....
once they become involved in politics they should be a non-private business....period
Doc
Their actions are tantamount to election interference.
Yep, they do suppress speech. And as a private company they can dictate what to allow on their platform. Dont like, dont use.
Much like the above, they can spend money (within the applicable laws) to politically support whomever they want.
Would that not make them a publisher and subject to lawsuit?
I believe it does yes. In a sense they are also editors...and making judgement calls on what to allow to be posted, ie, published. Its a fine line that needs clarity imo.
However, what i think means jack. The dems who are the main beneficiaries are unlikely to make any moves...so,...
I have nothing in this fight, as I don’t have FB, Twitter, or anything else. But as we saw Twitter killed accounts of only republicans right before an election.
too bad we lost the smith-Mundt act back in 2009. The spread of misinformation since then has been crazy. No one batted an eye though.
Doc
Like them hate them whatever. BUT we need to start learning the meaning and definitions of words! Treason is a VERY hard charge and it takes a lot and a lot of very specific things to rise to the level of treason.
They are a private business that can legally be treated like a public utility. That means they cannot suppress free speech.
Hi,
Question.....With FB being so bad...why would Republicans continue to operate on it? Why in the world would the Trumps want to put their message onto a platform that does not agree with them?
That is like complaining that Walmart ruined small businesses while you are on your phone at Walmart.....
Sincerely,
Theis
Question.....With FB being so bad...why would Republicans continue to operate on it? Why in the world would the Trumps want to put their message onto a platform that does not agree with them?
That is like complaining that Walmart ruined small businesses while you are on your phone at Walmart.....
Sincerely,
Theis
Hi,
Except that little box that people have to click agree to in which FB lines out its' policies, does, don'ts, yada yada yada.
Cannot complain they do something that they told you and you agreed to let them do in order to have your account.
Sincerely,
Theis
This is the mentality of a slave. These corporate giants are destroying your country. You can’t win a fight without offense. This is a fight.
Stop giving these international publicly traded corporations the same respect and courtesy you would a real private business. These guys are government subsidized as well. These corporations have much more power than our “elected leaders”. In this marxist authoritarian corporate capitalist system of govt we have, these players are the enemies.
Last edited:
Yep. But to be fair, thier monitoring *cough*, user data mining went beyond what is specified in the TOS. So...
Hi,
Absolutely!!!!
But just as nobody in the Gov can make Frank run ads here for companies he does not want here or keep members here he does not want.....Cannot make FB do it either.
We are all about making Government smaller right? And not providing them more power right?
Sincerely,
Theis
Absolutely!!!!
But just as nobody in the Gov can make Frank run ads here for companies he does not want here or keep members here he does not want.....Cannot make FB do it either.
We are all about making Government smaller right? And not providing them more power right?
Sincerely,
Theis
^^^This. Whether he does it or someone else, you need to fight fire with fire. I'd love to see the likes of Candice Owens, Don Bongino, et al start their own network/platform.
When their viewpoints are evil, corrupt, and threaten everything a man believes in then yes it is time to fight. Being civil at this point is cowardly and foolish.
Right, and so the correct response is to place control over content at Facebook in to the hands of the administrative (deep) state. Good thinking my man. With big brains like yours we will surely win.
fry em like eggs and take the law breaking communist dimacrats with them a small rubber raft with holes in it , in a heavely chummed ocean many miles out to see you could sell tickets and televise the event I got plenty of popcorn and a comfy chair it would at least be a better tv show than all the crappy remakes of old tv shows that were good in the day but remade into a crap feast of political correctness . swim Nancy swim .
Last edited:
You know, the sad thing is that I actually like you. I enjoy the laconic temperament behind your incendiary posts. Reading them makes me smile. I don't think you are right, but I think you are an honorable guy, and you believe what you say. And that goes a long way with me. Not that it matters to you.
I have an idea. Stop using the shit if you dont like it. Try to get others en masse to follow your example. Do you need these media outlets, or do they need you?
I think many on the Left, starting with Obama/Biden and the Clintons, fulfilled all the requirements.
Ideological Alignment Pushing America Toward Totalitarianism, Experts Warn - Harbingers Daily
Concerns over the nexus of big tech, big media, and big government
harbingersdaily.com
According to @OldSalty2 all is well. Accept it and stay quiet.Ideological Alignment Pushing America Toward Totalitarianism, Experts Warn - Harbingers Daily
Concerns over the nexus of big tech, big media, and big government
I think this is right. Perhaps the best way to understand government approach to business is not that we should regulate what we don't like, but that we should cease subsidizing and preferencing what we do, because just as in regulation, we so often don't get the outcomes from "assisting" business formation that we might want. It is a far better approach, from a market point of view, to do away with both.
Teddy Roosevelt had the right approach, and existing law would allow any modern president to use the DoJ to utilize told that have been around for more than a century. Why Sessions or Barr failed to do this during the Trump admin is anyone's guess, but a huge opportunity was missed.
We agree on this being correct and ideal in a rainbow and lollipop world that doesn't exist. We have to deal with the realities faced TODAY. A fix won’t be voted. A fix won’t be legislated. The fix would have to be forced against the will of these evil men. For that to happen people on the right need to accept this and stop trying to rationalize inaction.
If people employed a degree of scepticism in their information gathering, then a lot of these baseless conspiracy theories would have failed to catch hold.
Declining to promote Donald Trump, isn't treason.
Declining to promote Donald Trump, isn't treason.
Doesn't rise to the definition of treason. But I am sure there are plenty of other things that could be proved against them. Fraud, election interference, monopoly, discrimination, theft, violation of user data laws, etc etc etc.
Facebook requests public immunity under the guise "We are a free speech platform not responsible for what our members post......."
Than shows they edit posts and ARE responsible and can EDIT what people post.
Than shows they edit posts and ARE responsible and can EDIT what people post.
What they did in the 2020 elections should have been considered an undeclared donation to the Democratic party to the tune of hundreds of millions.......
It's not their "editing of posts" or "censorship" or any of that which is a problem. The Hide does that all the time and it's not a problem.
Rather, Facebook is simply too big, and as Teddy Roosevelt correctly observed, it's not just its size but also the method but which it grew and the corresponding effects upon the public at large which are significant problems that justify action.
This. Even the Capital Riot people only got charged with sedition. Don't fall into their trap.
See also "The New Jim Crow" for GA Voting Laws. Hyperbole wins no intelligent friends.
What we need is Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, say the people who think Republicans aren't conservative enough. Lol. Teddy Roosevelt's Trust Busting ushered in the log rolling and regulatory capture of the last 100 years. That kind of policy isn't pro anybody but the businesses it is structured to favor, and it is exactly the kind of numb headed policy that has gotten us where we are with the nexus of government and tech. SMDH.
Yes as people on the right we get tired of RACIST (the word) Well IMHO we use TREASON (the word in the same way)
Republicans got themselves into this mess by believing that any big business is a good business, by being scared of regulating business in any way even if that business is destructive to the interests of both themselves and the public at large, and by basically looking at what Clinton tried to do with Microsoft 25 years ago and saying, "nope, don't want anything to do with anything that Clinton did". If you think that's a good course of action for the future, bless your heart. Even a principled libertarian knows there are limits to the freedom of any entity; not even the most free economy can allow one party to harm another, and it's all to clear that Facegramtwatter has caused harm.
Your buddy Mitch McConnell and his merry band of Uniparty misfits are essentially the evil that you bemoan. Go ahead and keep voting for that.
lol @ your example. The antitrust division under Clinton was literally doing the bidding of Sun Microsystems (mainly, and partially netscape) against Microsoft as their executives were more connected to the administration than was Microsoft, which had refrained from any political involvement prior to that episode. The example is literally the problem with most anti trust actions, including most that TR was involved with. They are never any more than one powerful player using government to do their bidding against a rival they would like to see harmed. And, quite frankly, the Microsoft case, as with ATT etc, are great examples of how market changes do away with the needs for those kinds of actions. It's comical, frankly, to use that case as an argument for antitrust action, and even more comical to assume that the reason everybody has stayed away from those moves since is because of the stink of the Clintons. They have stayed away because the precedent of that action was so horrendous.
What about Facebook is like a public utility?
The internet needed to use Facebook is a public utility. Wait until the phone/internet providers jump in the fray.
Everyone focuses on "the internet" as the critical link - that's why net neutrality was such a big deal among the millennial tech crowd and other virtue-signalers a few years ago. Turns out that this was the wrong focus (as I pointed out at the time) - it's the companies at the other end of the pipe, and not the pipe itself, that are the real risk to consumer choice.
The internet of today - and the various shitty companies, like Comcast, that comprise it - could go away tomorrow, and we'd still be able to access the internet. Might be through copper phone, might be through satellite, might be through plain ol' RF, but the signal would still get through just as it did prior to the broadband era. That's the nature of the internet, which was designed to literally survive WWIII. But none of that robustness matters if the gatekeepers still control the content.
Had more content creators done the hard work that @lowlight has done here and built their sites organically without relying on the gatekeepers to provide clicks and views and likes, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Had more people cared about this censorship back when it first reared its head (particularly those conservatives who quipped "freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies!"), public pressure might have altered the course. Had Trump's DOJ applied pressure to Big Tech instead of continuing the War On Drugs like it was still 1986, things might have changed. But none of this happened.
Cmon wade, you barkin up the wrong tree dawg...
Your real issue should be with "conservatives" or people "on the right", that keep using these services despite the services despising those very same people. but of course, the services are tolerant enough to make some $$$ off those people...so long as they stay in-line...
I agree with you on that. We disagree that these super corporations should be able to hide behind the guise of private business. These super corporations are not just companies but gov’t. They are pure evil and have more to do with politics than those that we think we elect.
I will go so far as to say that private business and private property doesn’t exist like you think and like We both would want. If it did then the govt wouldn't have been a le to shut down businesses because of the fake pandemic using the threat of fines, prison, and death if you resist. Police forces wouldn't have been able to arrest and fine people for having parties at their own homes like they did.
If you want this to stop then Govt and these large corporations should be on the receiving end of all our frustrations. They caused it. They deserve it.
^ this, times 1000.
mass exodus of facebook today, zuckerburg is in the breadline tomorrow.
