Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods
colliric wrote:All of the people banned yesterday happened to be his most vocal right-wing supporters, including Minister Farrakhan too.
Hong Wu wrote:The only real way to fix Twitter and this other stuff would be to ban political talk entirely because a character limit to posts naturally draws in vacuous political virtue signallers, rage monkies and trolls. Most of those people aren't in the blogosphere for a reason. In China the Twitter equivalent is all dancing girls, panda bears and video games which is probably an improvement. I just don't trust people to talk politics with a character limit.
Verv wrote:What does this mean for free speech on social networks?
colliric wrote:Ben Shapiro didn't get banhammered did he? Despite saying pretty much 95% of the exact same shit because he's a neocon stooge.
Drlee wrote:Your mistake lies in the assumption that these changes are harmful to the bottom line.
Drlee wrote:Facebook is trying to get out in front of a problem that could severely damage the company.
Drlee wrote:The see it as doing exactly what you say...maximizing shareholder value.
Drlee wrote:Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones are easy targets. Their pronouncements are so outrageous that defending in court the decision to turn them off would not challenge a first year law student.
Drlee wrote:And this is the problem with the Republican strategy that is coming home to roost. They have relied on these outrageous outliers to carry water for them by uniting the idiot fringe and turning them into a voting block.
Drlee wrote:Alex Jones relies on social media for all of his fame. Without these platforms he is going to take a serious financial hit. Where will he go for an audience?
Drlee wrote:Do a google search and see how frequently the facebook page of a company outranks the company page itself. It is really quite remarkable.
Drlee wrote:Short of declaring these entities public utilities through an almost unthinkable act of judicial activism the courts must conclude that they do not have a dog in the fight.
maz wrote: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.
maz wrote:Should banks ban their customers from using their checking, savings and credit services?
Drlee wrote:I advocate banning people who are deliberately posting as truth things are are demonstrably and obviously untrue
Drlee wrote:Social media websites are private property.
Drlee wrote:They can ban whomever they like for any or no reason at all.
Drlee wrote: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?
Drlee wrote: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.
Drlee wrote: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.
Drlee wrote:But when Zuckerberg does it you whine like a bitch and wax philosophical about free speech.
So, you mean if CBS likes Democrats, they can accept advertising from Democratic candidates and ban advertising from Republican candidates? I thought that was against the law. Hrmmmm..
What are the merits of defining people by their […]
My guess is that he didn't Godstud. There were q[…]
Not in the least. As I expected, no evidence. […]
July 17, Wednesday The morning papers of Washin[…]