[Potemkin]

All those powers and prerogative should be shifted from Facebook to regular constituted authorities. It is more than whether Facebook acted justly or not; it is who made Facebook the Judge, the Prosecutor, the Jury, the Sheriff, the Legislator, the Executioner of cyberspace?

Capitalism did. Facebook has by far the largest market share of social platforms on the internet. End of story.

[noemon]

Capitalism did. Facebook has by far the largest market share of social platforms on the internet. End of story.

Exactly, people should abandon it to level the playing field.

Instead of arguing that private entities which includes people should be compelled and forced to accept unwanted elements inside their own private property.

It is quite hilarious and ironic that right-wingers are now making this blatantly communist argument.

[Potemkin]

Exactly, people should abandon it to level the playing field.

Instead of arguing that private entities which includes people should be compelled and forced to accept unwanted elements inside their own private property.

It is quite hilarious and ironic that right-wingers are now making this blatantly communist argument.

Right-wingers seem to be strongly in favour of market forces while it suits them, but as soon as it doesn't suit them any more they suddenly turn into V.I. Lenin.

[Rugoz]

It seems as if you have the ... if you think that making a political claim - be it true or not - is a sure harbinger for a violent coup.

At no point did I say "a sure harbinger for a violent coup". I said it "incites violence".

Claiming the election was stolen is not some random "political claim", it goes at the very heart of the system. It legitimizes political violence.

It was also a blatant lie a la Goebbels.

Were people storming government buildings in the mid 90s when the Senate refused to convict Clinton after the House impeached him, when we know for absolute fact that he committed perjury? No. Why? Because a political claim is not a sure harbinger for a violent coup.

What a dumb comparison. Impeachment is a political decision. And he didn't commit perjury, but that's not even relevant.


P.S.: For what's it's worth, I don't think Trump should have been banned from Facebook, but it's quite hilarious to see Republicans whine about that decision, when they are generally opposed to regulating private companies, and even think there should be no limit to their campaign contributions (Citizens United).

[Ganeshas Rat]

Right-wingers seem to be strongly in favour of market forces while it suits them, but as soon as it doesn't suit them any more they suddenly turn into V.I. Lenin.

Because something is obviously mixed there. Capitalists for example (except the most radical and stupid ones; sorry, Ayn) don't plan to sell air, even though it's such a good commodity. Capitalist societies often have something like human rights which are followed even when there's not so much gain in it. It's hard to monopolize air given how everyone needs it and there's no way to restrict and control it, and there's no way to save on this need by breathing less, so common sense wins and we all agree that air is just free and provided in unlimited quantities.

But all these info technologies are new and sharp, and there's no millenia-old ethics to provide us with some common sense about how to deal with it. So people can tell absurd things (a private corporation can own people's thoughts and social connections) without getting a brick into face or something.

[Potemkin]

Because something is obviously mixed there. Capitalists for example (except the most radical and stupid ones; sorry, Ayn) don't plan to sell air, even though it's such a good commodity. Capitalist societies often have something like human rights which are followed even when there's not so much gain in it. It's hard to monopolize air given how everyone needs it and there's no way to restrict and control it, and there's no way to save on this need by breathing less, so common sense wins and we all agree that air is just free and provided in unlimited quantities.

But all these info technologies are new and sharp, and there's no millenia-old ethics to provide us with some common sense about how to deal with it. So people can tell absurd things (a private corporation can own people's thoughts and social connections) without getting a brick into face or something.

If you don't like Facebook's policies, then don't use that platform. Use another platform, or better yet, found your own and let all your buddies use it. What's wrong with being an innovative entrepreneur all of a sudden?

[Ganeshas Rat]

What's wrong with being an innovative entrepreneur all of a sudden?

Everything is wrong with USSR in all of its incarnations. Use another platform. Ok, which one? There's no market of social networks. And Facebook is used not because it provides better quality than its competitors, or lower price than its competitors, or something totally different from its competitors, but just because it has no competitors.

[Potemkin]

Everything is wrong with USSR in all of its incarnations. Use another platform. Ok, which one? There's no market of social networks. And Facebook is used not because it provides better quality than its competitors, or lower price than its competitors, or something totally different from its competitors, but just because it has no competitors.

It has competitors, but by its nature a social platform is what us socialist types like to call "a natural monopoly" - everyone wants to be on the same social network. Because, ultimately, there is only one society. And natural monopolies should not be left to market forces, because the result is... as you see it.

[Ganeshas Rat]

is what us socialist types like to call "a natural monopoly"

It's not what you socialists call it, it's what every adequate person calls it. Arguing that healthcare, public transport and education should work laissez-faire is for strawman capitalists.

However, what we see now is totally unrelated to economics. It's not a private company growing to such a level where it can use the state to push their competition, it's the corrupt government that orders private monopolists to hunt down its political opponents. The result is of course the same: united power and finances, more commonly known as oligarchy. But at least now it should mask its actions behind demagogy about private companies privately decising to privately restrict private individuals based on private... It's still better than in China where the government controls the network openly, so it shouldn't even explain.

[Rugoz]

..it's the corrupt government that orders private monopolists to hunt down its political opponents.

Except of course these companies and in particular their employees wanted to ban Trump a long time ago but were reluctant to do so before he was removed from power.

The idea that the Democrats had to force this on the companies is just another Republican delusion.

[ThirdTerm]

Facebook is properly moderated now because it hired Nick Clegg as its head of global policy and communications. Nick Clegg is the former Lib Dem leader who was responsible for running the British government as a vice prime minister (2010–2015). The English Defence League became the most significant far-right street movement on Facebook around that time. Facebook used to be like 4chan or 8chan, the home of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory. But I don't think Trump actually incited violence on social media. He distanced himself from rioters or thugs and posted a video to order them to go home.

Facebook’s head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, spelled out the company’s policy for banning public figures on Sunday following his company’s decision to bar former President Donald Trump for at least two years.

Speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Mr Clegg was asked whether Mr Trump’s Facebook and Instagram bans would be extended if he continued to make false claims about the 2020 election, as he did in North Carolina over the weekend during an address to supporters.

The former British deputy prime minister explained that merely spreading false information was not enough to warrant a ban from the platform, and added that the speech must instead rise to the level of incitement to violence for moderators to justify removal.

“I don’t think anybody wants a private company like Facebook to be vetting everything that people say on social media for its precise accuracy,” Mr Clegg maintained.

"So the bright red line there is encouraging violence, not spreading lies?" Mr Stephanopoulos asked.

https://news.yahoo.com/nick-clegg-says- ... 03601.html

[Ganeshas Rat]

Except of course these companies and in particular their employees wanted to ban Trump a long time ago but were reluctant to do so before he was removed from power.

Well, it's not to the companies and especially to their employees to decide whom to ban for their political sights. By the same reason companies and their employees have no right to refuse to service black clients. Even if they are totally private companies privately supporting their private ideology of national-socialism.

Really. It's like kids who should be taught the most simple things. No, Johnny, you can't eat before you wash your hands. No, you should brush your teeth. No, you can't ban Trump. No, you should do it in the toilet. No, Johnny, that you are 35 year old changes nothing. Shitting on the streets is still forbidden.

[Rugoz]

Well, it's not to the companies and especially to their employees to decide whom to ban for their political sights. By the same reason companies and their employees have no right to refuse to service black clients. Even if they are totally private companies privately supporting their private ideology of national-socialism.

Social media companies can censor whoever however they want. E.g.

The First Amendment does not prohibit private individuals, companies and employers from restricting speech. The social media platforms responsible for suspending President Trump’s accounts are privately owned and operated, and they are free to limit the content on their sites without implicating the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated in the decisions made by private social media platforms to suspend President Trump’s accounts.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-f ... g%20speech.

[Potemkin]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is Facebook Congress? I don't think so. So nope, Facebook is in the clear. Lol.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Social media companies can censor whoever however they want. E.g.

No, they don't. I understand that Americans treat the Bill of Rights exactly the same as Jews treat Torah: so bend it in every way to work around its stupid rules. Reducing the second Amendment, which basically fixes the right of the nation to the armed revolt against tyranny, to the right of gun nuts play with toys requires applause. However:

• Torah was written roughly three thousand years ago, and multiple new books appeared since those times. And there's about washing hands and brushing teeth and how to shit correctly, really interesting read.
• It's not even about Torah.

Several technological companies made a conspiracy in which they used their unique monopolist position to deeply intervene political processes for personal gains. Terrorism, treason, attempting a coup. You guys still do capital punishment, right?

[MistyTiger]

Free speech applies to people who use their voice for the good, not to harm others or incite violence. Trump has never been a good person. A lot of people on social media stir the pot and do not deserve attention, yet their drama-seeking ways get them the attention anyway. It seems like good causes are often forgotten because the drama llamas are taking the spotlight. This is NOT okay in my book.

The founding fathers are dead and gone with. The dead do not legislate for the living. Today's populations are increasingly expressing themselves on social media. Regular constituted authorities, and not Big Tech Corporate ruffians, have the duty and obligation to adjudicate matters there.

Then why is election day on the first day in November? By that reasoning, then we should choose a different day each year to hold presidential elections. And we do not have to recognize free speech, the right to bear arms or any of the other rights that the Constitution grants Americans because the founding fathers are dead and their Constitution isn't that important.

Business owners have a right to make decisions on who gets to be using their services and goods. They have a say in who is on their property, they are property owners. That would be like saying that a local Walmart can just let any serial killer in the door and start decapitating women and security has no right to lift a finger to subdue the serial killer because they must wait for the local government to come in and stop the murdering of innocent women, even if it takes the government 1 hour to get there? Have I got that right?

Yes, I am being totally sarcastic for those who are wondering why I am typing this outrageous stuff.

[Politics_Observer]

@MistyTiger

It's not OK in my book either Misty. Well said!

[Rugoz]

No, they don't. I understand that Americans treat the Bill of Rights exactly the same as Jews treat Torah: so bend it in every way to work around its stupid rules. Reducing the second Amendment, which basically fixes the right of the nation to the armed revolt against tyranny, to the right of gun nuts play with toys requires applause. However:

• Torah was written roughly three thousand years ago, and multiple new books appeared since those times. And there's about washing hands and brushing teeth and how to shit correctly, really interesting read.
• It's not even about Torah.

Several technological companies made a conspiracy in which they used their unique monopolist position to deeply intervene political processes for personal gains. Terrorism, treason, attempting a coup. You guys still do capital punishment, right?

You are seriously confused.

[MistyTiger]

I found a legal article discussing Capitalism and the United States Constitution.
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ ... ext=facpub

On page 7, it says that the founders did not want the government interfering with personal liberties.

the drafters of the document thought that one of the best protections of liberty and property was to so hamstring the government that it could not interfere with liberty and property.

Some of you do not remember that the founders were concerned about the government taking freedom away from the people. There was so much fighting and argument over this. The Federalist papers discuss this hot button topic. If you recall, the original Americans fled an oppressive English government/monarchy. They felt like they were being abused and persecuted. It is ironic how now people want the government to interfere and mess with people's free speech. Facebook and Twitter are privately owned. The government actually has no business imposing decisions on member banning. The government should only be concerned about monopolies and anti-trust legislation. Economic activity and impact and crime is what the government considers. Banning a member is not a crime.

[Red_Army]

Right wingers repeatedly proclaiming the death of twitter and facebook while starting up their nazi-friendly knock offs is the same sort of idiocy you saw from libs when Trump was president and they thought he would be arrested every other week.