Facebook Forced Conservatives to Sign Confidentiality Agreements Before Summit About Censorship

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

You're being drama queens and reading way too far in to this.

It's probably an NDA to protect Facebook's intellectual property and I find it amazing that people would use this as a chance to play victim.

Special little snowflakes...

The day Zuckerberg respects intellectual property is the day I sprout wings on my @ss.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

No, it suggests that he was about to talk about something he should not have been talking about.

There is no violation of going against a Confidentiality Agreement by saying you signed one. That is what Carlson stopped himself from saying. The question is why would he be afraid of saying he signed one?

Maybe he wasn't afraid of saying anything. Perhaps he intentionally cut himself off in order to create a nice clickbait, Right Wing story that will generate tons of web hits on the Right Wing nutter sites.

Mission accomplished, Tucker.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

No, it suggests that he was about to talk about something he should not have been talking about.

There is no violation of going against a Confidentiality Agreement by saying you signed one. That is what Carlson stopped himself from saying. The question is why would he be afraid of saying he signed one?

Maybe he wasn't afraid of saying anything. Perhaps he intentionally cut himself off in order to create a nice clickbait, Right Wing story that will generate tons of web hits on the Right Wing nutter sites.

Mission accomplished, Tucker.

Sounds like a Conspiracy!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Let me clarify for you then, stop using FB as a source for your news.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: seeker1963

The fact that he had to adjust because he started to talk about the agreements suggests there is more to the story.

No, it suggests that he was about to talk about something he should not have been talking about.

There is no violation of going against a Confidentiality Agreement by saying you signed one. That is what Carlson stopped himself from saying. The question is why would he be afraid of saying he signed one?

Maybe he wasn't afraid of saying anything. Perhaps he intentionally cut himself off in order to create a nice clickbait, Right Wing story that will generate tons of web hits on the Right Wing nutter sites.

Mission accomplished, Tucker.

Sounds like a Conspiracy!

Perhaps.

Or maybe they know their target audience and how easy it is to generate money from their sensitive nature.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: shooterbrody

Let me clarify for you then, stop using FB as a source for your news.

And yet I keep reading how the govt is supposed to save us all from this type of discrimination.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The gov't is supposed to save you from censorship? Are you mad gay people are given equal rights because it's apples to oranges.

Enjoy your FB. It's a private organization that is not run by the gov't. Like ATS, they can do whatever they want because freedom of speech doesn't apply to the Internet.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: shooterbrody

The gov't is supposed to save you from censorship? Are you mad gay people are given equal rights because it's apples to oranges.

Enjoy your FB. It's a private organization that is not run by the gov't. Like ATS, they can do whatever they want because freedom of speech doesn't apply to the Internet.

First I am glad you acknowledge FB engaged in censorship.
Secondly it is not apples and oranges ,rights are rights for all not a select few that agree with your particular point of view.
FB is a business no different than the bakers, FB is not allowed to discriminate.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's cute, you putting words into mouth. I never said FB did any such thing and I would have no idea because I don't go on FB. That said, the gov't is not here to protect from censorship from FB or ATS. Do a search and you'll discover plenty of people accuse ATS of the very same thing. Where's the outrage or Uncle Sam to save us?!

a reply to: Swills

FB represents THE INTERNET for alot of americans. If this type of discrimination goes on, the internet will get this kind of FCC treatment which will be bad for everyone.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: shooterbrody

I dunno what it's gonna take for you to understand the World Wide Web isn't subject to our constitution. Freedom of speech is to prevent the gov't from limiting its population, not FB.

Well, I'm bored of this convo so I'm moving on.

a reply to: Swills

FB corporate hq is in the usa
FB is a publicly held company
It is not some magical entity on the www
FB can not discriminate

a reply to: shooterbrody

Facebook is a private company. This concept seems hard to grasp for people on both sides of the political spectrum lately, but a private entity has the right to restrict, regulate and host what they want to on their servers. The First Amendment guarantees that the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict your right to say what you want. Private businesses like stores, websites and restaurants are not bound by the Constitution, which applies only to government entities. A separate series of laws regulates private entities and what rights and responsibilities they have.

Let me say that again, in clearer terms. The government cannot interfere or regulate speech. A private corporation can "censor" whatever they like.

Facebook censoring stuff? I see plenty of nonsense from both sides of the political spectrum. Frankly it would be nice if they censored it all. And if people chose to sign a blanket NDA that is their choice. Although if that was the case why would the conservative reps not just walk away and say in public the FB wanted to censor them it would be great PR. Unless it was strictly on inside company info which would be expected.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

I didnt say they couldnt censor it is their sandbox
I said they cant discriminate
big difference
Oh and can you buy fb stock? I think that means they are a public company

The effectiveness of project Mockingbird has been really outstanding, imagine trying to pull off a 9/11 stunt without such dominant control of the media - result would be an epic fail.

Now with the rise of the internet how can our dogs of war continue their games? Facebook is just one of many rising platforms of increasing social awareness and group thought. With facebook being one of the bigger sites at this time it does make it a prime candidate for the military games and people herding to continue.