[FreedomNotSafety]

I am missing your point. Facebook is not a public government owned space. Further, Facebook is not the government. So, a private company controlling access to private property is far away from the government controlling speech, the very definition of un- Constitutional censorship, on government property.

Facebook should remain free to blacklist as much as it wishes.

The cake baker case was exactly about this matter. Private people should not be forced to express someone else’s speech.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Facebook is not a public government owned space."

When you take money in any form of contract you're required to follow the rules of said contract.

The US government entered into a number of contracts with Facebook thereby requiring Facebook to conform to said contract(s)

The lobbying is set up to avoid legal issues with those contracts they already signed.

[Steve Van Doorn]

The way Social medias are getting around the law is by how they name their service.

Right now there are two primary type of services. A publisher and a platform. Social medias claim they're neither and does not need to conform to either types of services which is what they're lobbying for.

A publisher needs to check every word that is published which can't be done by social media. Yet in Europe that is what they're attempting to have social media's conform to.

In my opinion they're platforms. As such many politicians use their services to express their positions on issues and citizens can respond. Which means they can't be regulated other then the braking of state laws.

Again, social media's what to be neither. I personally get shadow banned while talking with congressional people in these forums. They shouldn't be allowed to take down opinions on a political platform. Unless there is a law broken.

[Richard Kimball]

Facebook should remain free to blacklist as much as it wishes.

Facebook can legally function either as a publisher or a public square. If it functions as a publisher, it can blacklist anyone it wishes, but also assumes liability for defamation lawsuits by people or organizations who make false or libelous statements. If it functions as a public square, it cannot take down posts, except for specific reasons, mostly having to do with the legality of the posting, such as child porn and direct threats. Facebook currently straddles the fence, acting as editors, but claiming they're a public square.

[Steve Van Doorn]

On top of that the US supreme court has already ruled that social medias are a platform. Which is how Trump wasn't allowed to ban someone from his twitter page.

Ok... I'm done ha

[FreedomPoster]

>>Facebook is not a public government owned space.

Nor was the town in that case.

[MinorityRepublican]

The problem is that Facebook is basically modern day town square. And that’s where everyone is at. It will eventually lead to totalitarianism when tech companies collude with leftists to ban alternative voices from gaining any traction.

[sergeantdave]

“Facebook should remain free to blacklist as much as it wishes.”

I bet you’re still upset that FDR didn’t allow Hitler’s Wehrmacht to drop 50 divisions into Kansas because...freedom of association. Libertarians are lunatics and would allow the United States to fall so that they could pound their puny breasts and scream that they’re constitutional purists.