noemon wrote:Facebook bans black people, women, immigrants and religious people ALL the frigging time. I highly doubt you will find a single person that is political active that has not been banned or censored at some point in facebook. People who break its TOS get banned by the droves.
The one and only black person in here has been banned more times you have got a warning for.
Obviously, I'm talking about a class of people, not individual cases for individual reasons. "Terms of service" is often used as mere artifice for banning people whom they disagree with, usually politically.
noemon wrote:Second I see some people still insisting that the BLM are as guilty as Trump for inciting people to insurrection.
Perhaps. I think the more salient point is that many Democrat politicians and many media talking heads insisted that riots were merely incidental and that what we saw throughout 2020 was "mostly peaceful protests" even when we were seeing businesses and police stations burned and federal court houses mortared.
noemon wrote:You have made similar arguments from what I recall and once again it simply betrays the extreme bias of these people.
I think people have the right to protest. I don't think they have the right to break the law.
noemon wrote:The BLM fight for the right of Black people to a life free from racism, Trump and his supporters were fighting for sedition.
BLM is also known for marching around saying, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Trump's supporters were protesting what they sincerely believe is a stolen presidential election.
noemon wrote:The BLM Leaders do not rally people to seditious activities, they rally them to protest.
Sure. And agent provocateurs infiltrate and engage in violence. The leaders never get arrested, because they never actually break the law. Trump didn't break the law either.
noemon wrote:Some protests get out of hand either because of the police or because of the protesters, that has been true for all protests in history and across the entire world. It does not justify sedition in any way, shape or form nor does it undermine the constitutional right to protest.
Sure. However, plenty of politicians have come quite close to calling for physical violence--Maxine Waters is a fine example. She will not get arrested for it. She will not be kicked out of Congress for it. She will not even be criticized by members of her own party or left wing pundits for that behavior. I understand you dislike Donald Trump, but he has always told his supporters to respect law enforcement. You don't always hear that from BLM or a lot of Democrat politicians. How many Democrat politicians have been met with physical violence lately? Steve Scalise got shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter and almost lost his life. Rand Paul has been assaulted twice. People in support of BLM and Antifa have blocked freeways (which is unlawful), have launched mortars into federal court houses, set police precincts on fire, and took over parts of cities, declaring them autonomous zones. How you see launching mortars into a federal court house as a protest that got out of hand, or taking over parts of cities and calling them autonomous zones, and contrasting people protesting at the capitol because they sincerely think an election has been stolen as sedition suggests your political passions govern your perceptions.
wat0n wrote:Facebook did ban people who were inciting violence (e.g. looting) back in 2020, regardless of their ideology (if they even had one). Also, Trump wasn't banned due to his ideology but for something a lot more concrete than that.
They should take down any material that is a clear violation of the law. However, they need to be careful how they do that, because they can also open themselves up to suit if they slander or libel people by extension when those people haven't broken the law.
wat0n wrote:That's complicated, I think, because it could say it's being compelled to allow that speech on its platform - also a First Amendment issue.
It's not that complicated. Your telephone company cannot refuse you service, because they don't like how you vote. That sort of regulation is probably coming to social media at some point.
noemon wrote:Really? and who will have the power to determine who is allowed in the other's private property?
Public utilities commissions. It's the same as governing telecommunications networks, electrical and gas utilities, internet service providers, etc.
Admin Edit: Rule 3 Violation, Extreme institutional racism.
Rugoz wrote:Claiming the election was stolen is not some random "political claim", it goes at the very heart of the system. It legitimizes political violence.
Again, this is sort of an interesting thing. You people only seem to be concerned about it when people on the right say such things. Every single Republican president since Nixon has been subject to claims by Democrats in Congress and in session that they stole the election. Sheila Jackson Lee said that about George W. Bush in 2004, and now calls him a patriot because Trump and Bush don't get along and she now thinks it's a smart thing to call someone a patriot who she earlier accused of stealing an election. Trump was subjected to a dossier financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign, compiled by Christopher Steele and fed to the FBI in order to get an independent counsel appointed to vex the Trump administration and make a public case that Trump was working with the Russians who interfered in the US elections thereby making Trump president. Have you forgotten that so quickly? Are you saying that the Democrats were attacking the very foundations of democracy? Are you saying the Democrats have been attacking the foundations of democracy for the last 30 years?
Rugoz wrote: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).
That's corporate lawyers on the Supreme Court. There are lots of Republicans who think companies should not be allowed to make unlimited contributions. They are not a majority, however. Did you ever hear of John McCain? Citizens United was overturning aspects of McCain-Feingold--legislation written in part by a Republican. You people really need to learn to rely on primary sources and not get your information from the media or social networks. McCain-Feingold should be your first clue that your statement is materially false.
Ganeshas Rat wrote: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.
Use minds.com. It's open source. Facebook is an In-Q-Tel creation. It's CIA. It's basically used for spying on the entire world. It's best to steer clear of Facebook, etc.
MistyTiger wrote:Trump has never been a good person.
He was when he was giving money to Democrats. Here's Trump with Rosa Parks and Mohammed Ali.
Guess who encouraged Donald Trump to run for president. His good friend Bill Clinton. Oooffff! I'll bet Bill Clinton regrets that day.
MistyTiger wrote:Then why is election day on the first day in November?
It's not. It's on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Why? Democrats would call that voter suppression. The founders did not want idiots to vote. So if you couldn't keep that formulation straight, you would not know which day election day was. That's how they kept idiots from voting in early America.
MistyTiger wrote: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.
Publicly traded companies, companies that sell to the general public, companies with over 50 employees and so on are subject to all sorts of regulations. It is not even remotely the sort of libertarian argument you're making.
Politics_Observer wrote:It's not OK in my book either Misty. Well said!
I thought you were going to single-handedly save black people from discrimination. Don't you support Republican civil rights legislation that requires businesses to serve blacks? You haven't become a segregationist now too, have you?
MistyTiger wrote:Some of you do not remember that the founders were concerned about the government taking freedom away from the people.
Or property... like their slaves. They also were for uniform excise taxes and apportioned capitations as the only way of funding government operations so that everybody paid the same amount in taxes, rich or poor.
MistyTiger wrote:The government actually has no business imposing decisions on member banning.
Really? You would have them run a health care system and then say that they have to business with something much less trivial?
MistyTiger wrote:The government should only be concerned about monopolies and anti-trust legislation.
Oh, ok. So we should get rid of workplace safety regulations then? Right? We should allow mines and steel furnaces to operate in an unsafe manner, because the government shouldn't be involved, right? I guess you were a big fan of all the regulations Trump removed, right? Trump removed more than twenty five thousand pages of regulations from the Federal Register. You agree with what Trump did in terms of deregulation, right?
-- Joe Biden