OK Maz. Let's start with noting that you are incapable of arguing my points so you have to attack me directly. Ineptly but directly.
Ah, I see now. I'm guessing that you're just upset that conservatives are rejecting the do nothing moderate conservatives, RINO's if you will, and are using social media to change the narrative to something that you see is threatening.
You guess wrong. And if you read my post you would know this.
This threatens you and threatens how you believe politics in the US should work, so you support banning all people from social media who's views fall outside of your political views.
Nonsense. Not even a good try. I advocate banning people who are deliberately
posting as truth things are are demonstrably and obviously
You still haven't made any other argument other than "social media websites can ban who they want at anytime, plus something something, and I support banning people I disagree with."
How far did you get in school. Let me use very little words and an example.
Social media websites are private property. They can ban whomever they like for any or no reason at all. That should be simple enough even for you to understand. Here is an example.
My front yard is there for all to see. That does not mean that you can plant a political sign in my yard without my permission. But I can plant one. See how easy that is?
Now you said I support
banning people with whom I disagree. I am glad when my political opponents are banned. It is convenient for me. I see the danger in it. But hey. I am a conservative. We believe in private property rights. Zuckerburg can ban anyone he wishes to ban.
Democrats may disagree even though it is convenient for them to ignore it just now. You may wish to disagree. If you do please tell me which government agency you would prefer enforces a government effort to apply free speech rights on private property. Maybe justice through criminal law? You decide.
Insofar as the Obama birtherism stuff, before Facebook got big, I received a ton of unsolicited email/forwards from anti-Obama forwards by all kinds people I was associated with. It's technically not spam because these are people from my social life and email contact lists. Most of it was so ridiculous that I stopped even reading the emails and just started deleting them.
Good for you. Millions of people did not and believe it was the truth. Donald Trump, for example, said it was the truth that Obama was born overseas.
Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send controversial or even false political emails? Email is far more direct that a social media post.
Poor question. Do you see why? It is two completely different questions. Let me fix it for you so that you can understand why.
Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send controversial political emails?
Of course not. All politics is controversial.
Would you suggest that email services should ban people who send false political emails?
Sometimes. It depends on the damage.
But emails are something else by nature from social media. We are not talking about emails. In my perfect world, service providers would not be allowed to read emails and the would be encrypted by law.
How far do want to go with this? Should banks ban their customers from using their checking, savings and credit services? Because there's been a few cases of that happening too. Maybe getting a home loan because they don't have the correct political opinion.
Exactly what conservative party are you referring to?
I did not refer to a conservative party. I referred to republicans whose party has been taken so far from classic conservatism as to be unrecognizable. The party of Abraham Lincoln, MLK, Nixon and Buckley would never countenance the big spending, racist, misogynist anti voting rights crap that are the hallmarks of today's republican party. I refuse to allow the party that created the greatest deficit in the history of the country and which openly opposes the right for all people to vote to call itself conservative. It is not. I would not object to their calling themselves corporatist, fascist or nationalist. Which they are. But there are quite a few people like me who think that the party can be reigned in and returned to the path of something like American conservatism.
Because the conservative party that I remember had the mantra of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Empty words. The republican party, until recently, never would have stood for a KKK member speaking at its convention. And if I owned facebook I would not let him/her speak on my property either.
You see Maz. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I am sure you are fine with the Koch brothers spending a billion dollars of their property buying elections and politicians. Is that the free speech you would die to defend? Not I. But when Zuckerberg does it you whine like a bitch and wax philosophical about free speech. Take your pick sport. Which is it? Regulate the money out of elections or shut up.
When did the conservative party become "I disapprove of what you say, so I support corporations colluding with non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups shutting you down so you can't compete with me in the marketplace of ideas?"
Marketplace of ideas? Every penny of corporate money spent on politicians is designed to bury one idea and put forward another idea. In fact that is true when you give a candidate for Mayor $5.00. You you know full well that you are enabling the forwarding of your notion of truth at the expense of someone else's. So get over your false expressions of outrage. This is how the game is played. Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. I'll call your Koch brothers and raise you Google and Facebook.