“Which they have every right to do. They’re a private company.”
Yes.
But they need to be honest and forthright about it. They don’t even realize what they are doing. It means they can commit the most heinous crimes due to personal ignorance of their actions.
“Which they have every right to do. They’re a private company.”
Sure about that? Bake me a cake.
“Which they have every right to do. They’re a private company.”
Unless you’re a Florist, Baker or Photographer who doesn’t want to cater to gays.
>>Which they have every right to do. They’re a private company.<<
FB promotes itself as a public forum platform, available for equal access and use by all. As such, they are protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Yes, FB can censor speech, as they now are doing, and in doing so they should lose their status as a public forum and become a regular 1st Amendment entity, such as newspapers and magazines. They should lose their CDA immunity and be liable for the content of every post by their 3 billion members. FB wants it both ways; it must not permitted to operate in such a manner.
That is correct. The problem here is that little pricks like this will actually cause the shyster politicians to get their filthy grubby hands into complete control of the internet.
That is their end game IMO.
They are also a functional monopoly - so not really.
That is a foolish opinion.
Social media is the modern public square. You would allow him to exclude conservatives and ensure left wing dominance of the country.
Your argument would carry more weight if their were any real alternatives to Face Book or twitter. They are essentially monopolies serving as public utilities.
“Which they have every right to do. They’re a private company. “
That dog won’t hunt!
My local G&E company is a “private” company REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Time to regulate Facebook etc.
That is what I am wondering...I get mad at them for what they are doing, but it is his site and people are free to leave. I don’t understand any illegality with what has happened. As far as the data sharing- people agreed to that when they signed up unless there is more to it. Data sharing goes back before the internet- years ago if you ordered from SEARS you ended up with all sorts of other catalogs and junk mail. It is nothing new.
I keep wondering how this can be a legal issue, unless he set it up in some way that means it is regulated in ways that say FR is not.
If we had actual reporters maybe they could explain why all of this is an issue for Congress or a legal issue of some kind.
“They have every right to do. They’re a private company”
Of course, that only applies to liberal companies. Never to conservative. Boy scouts, bakeries, etc.
True. But the fact that he denies it reveals the underlying reality that he knows it is wrong. But given the penchant for Leftists to engage in doublethink sets them up for deep reservoirs of unhealthy cognitive dissonance which makes a good number of them mentally ill, IMO.
He knows it is wrong. If you were to ask him (under the influence of a truth serum) if, as a Leftist, he would be upset and feel wronged if someone with leftist views (advocacy for socialism, rejection of the 2nd and 4th Amendments, etc) were shadow-banned and de-monified in the same manner as conservatives are, the answer would most certainly be “Yes.”
I agree that it is a private company and should be able to do as it pleases, but that is a one way street, and we all know that, don’t we? That “right” is not extended to conservatives, as these things generally are not.
Making the conceptual comparison on Facebook between the behavior of a Leftist company like Facebook (being UNMOLESTED, and even lauded for its ideological views and accompanying treatment of conservative customers) and a Conservative company like Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado (which was persecuted with the full powers of the government and forced out of business for it’s views on homosexuality) would likely get you shadow-banned on Facebook at best, and just as likely outright banned with no recourse.
That is speech “dangerous to the community”, don’tcha know.
Wrong. Private companies that provide public access to their services may not discriminate based on sex, race, or speech. They are in violation of civil rights laws.
Yes- they can censor, but the consequences are that they no longer get the protections afforded the uncensored platforms.
This difference is significant.