Did Facebook pay out over a hundred million bucks just to be rid of a Trump-supporter?

It certainly looks like the prejudice against Republicans, conservatives, and especially Trump supporters, is so virulent that Facebook was willing to pay a hundred mill to rid itself od one. The company denies this is the case, but the Wall Street Journal is not convinced. Facebook Inc. executive and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues. Six months later, he was out. Neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey has ever said why he left the social-media giant. When testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg denied the departure had anything to do with politics.

I don’t understand why there are still people on that website.

This company has clearly broken several laws here, and even if not who would want to be part of something that fires someone for sending their money to our President’s campaign ?

It wasn’t even that big of a donation!

This simple act, right here and right now, should have every single patriot leaving that site without drama.

Perhaps Mr Luckey, virtual-reality wunderkind, can start a Conservative Social Media site?? I know many who would be interested. - originalbuckeye

I would, I would be interested in just a non biased site. If that’s possible

Nobody can know that they are unbiased - or, FTM, that anyone else is. Anyone who claims to be unbiased only proves how subjective they actually are. You can try to be objective - and if you do, you can even say that you are trying.
But actually trying to be unbiased is an analysis which must start from the assumption that you in fact are biased. So claiming you are unbiased simply says that you aren’t even trying to overcome your bias.
What is the alternative? Do not claim objectivity, but instead be as open as you can about your preferences. If you are conservative, say you are conservative. But claim that you are open to facts and logic. And mean it.
“But isn’t that what talk radio hosts do?”
Exactly.

sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Functionally journalists who claim objectivity are Sophists. There isn’t too much of a niche for a radio talk show which has exactly the same perspective as the journalist. Journalists - “Drive-bys,“ Rush accurately styles them - exploit their format to make their points without staying around long enough to give their opposition time to rebut their fallacies. Rush calls talk radio, by contrast, “the long form.” The host picks a topic and stays with it - and takes questions and challenges from listeners who call in.
The host who cannot engage all comers and come out sounding reasonable will fail - and no “liberal” talk show host can quite pull that off because of the skeletons in socialism’s closet. Consequently, talk show hosts are conservative. Openly conservative. And, etymologically speaking, they are philosophers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.