Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Or....


Facebook can sale information and access to advertising in an un preside unprecedented.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

What should NOT happen is that Repubs conspire to force free speech into the policies of private companies. Any bets on whether or not that is something seriously discussed?

The main problem is section 230 was put in place back in 1996 with no idea of what the future held. Facebook and others have abused the protection section 230 provides them, and now they have grown into ma bell size of control. They bought up much of the services on the internet between Twitter, Facebook and others where they have basically ganged together politically motivated.

If you make a living on the net they can remove you completely shutting off your voice, income, funds, payments etc. All because they don't like your politics.

So maybe redo section 230 to meet the environment we have today to at lease provide legal means for someone who is completely eliminated.

Just saying the words Hunter Biden can see you perma banned, as example. Is that what you think is right...

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: gortex

It turned into a blog, announced yesterday

I see , that must be disappointing.

a reply to: gortex


Hah, it is pretty funny watching these people shout their dribble while shaking their fists at the sky in a blind rage that has sold to them online in corners like this, and then simply furrow their brows in a confused kind of frustration at their own ineptitude.

It seems that none his most ardent supporters are capable of building a functioning digital platform, hmmm, I wonder why that is?

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: gortex


Hah, it is pretty funny watching these people shout their dribble while shaking their fists at the sky in a blind rage that has sold to them online in corners like this, and then simply furrow their brows in a confused kind of frustration at their own ineptitude.

It seems that none his most ardent supporters are capable of building a functioning digital platform, hmmm, I wonder why that is?

obviously only democrats can internet. Derp!

a reply to: Xtrozero

And how repealing Section 230 will advance conservatives goals here? Let’s say it’s repealed and Facebook faces liability for content on their platforms... what will prevent Facebook for going even harder on the crackdown on content that goes against their guidelines?

a reply to: gortex

Could not care less about Trump's plans, but it is good to see someone high profile going back to individual websites and blogs.

You know the good old days of crazy DIY websites like the ones that gave this site foundations for content.

Seems Facebook's Oversight Board had more to say.

Donald Trump's ban from Facebook and Instagram has been upheld by Facebook's Oversight Board.

But it criticised the permanent nature of the ban as beyond the scope of Facebook's normal penalties.

It has ordered Facebook to review the decision and "justify a proportionate response" that is applied to everyone, including ordinary users.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Trump will be back on Facebook within 6 months.

a reply to: Butterfinger

You know the good old days of crazy DIY websites like the ones that gave this site foundations for content.

Yeah , I made a UFO website.

I am killing my Fascistbook account as of today. Tired of feeding the beast. They make money off of every post that every person makes. Not me, not anymore.

If enough people did this, it'd make a difference.

I am killing my Fascistbook account as of today. Tired of feeding the beast. They make money off of every post that every person makes. Not me, not anymore.

If enough people did this, it'd make a difference.

originally posted by: elevatedone
I couldn't have said that better myself. A very sad day for America. This is absurd in my opinion. I stopped and tried to think, when did it change, when did it get so bad. One thought came to mind, the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. I don't want to get off on a tangent about that event, but that's when I remember things changing, people getting more "butt hurt", more censorship.

I'm sure there are other incidents that caused it, that one comes to mind though.

So... where do we go from here?

Agreed !

"Where do we go from here?"

You should campaign to punish anyone engaging in censorship, like those banning threads mocking Fauci or anorexic whales....ooops....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: elevatedone

Much like laws and amendments that came out of the Reconstruction period, it's in poor taste to deliberate and possibly enforce or create new laws while a group is...emotionally compromised.

I get the anger and concern, but this is not the way to intelligently respond. I expect better from our elected officials.

Well, I did when I was 8. I've grown up and know better now.

What should NOT happen is that Repubs conspire to force free speech into the policies of private companies. Any bets on whether or not that is something seriously discussed?

We also shouldn't force anti-discrimination laws into the policies of private companies too right? If I don't want to serve minorities as customers that's ok since it's a private company!

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
There is no free speech in a monopoly.

I see your point, but I would argue that Facebook is no longer a monopoly. Yes, it has twice the users of Twitter, but only about 30% more than Instagram.

The unfortunate fact is that most of the social-media platforms trend far-left in their approach to enforcing policy against users, and until that can be changed, there is a definite collective monopoly (oxymoron?) against true freedom of thought. I'm a huge advocate of ensuring that policies on such powerful platforms are enforced fairly and equally, which they obviously are not, but I'm not an advocate of the federal government telling private companies what they must allow.

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity

You're either not familiar with basic human rights, or you're a little bit mental, either way, thanks for the laugh.

No...thank you for the well thought-out and formulated reply. Great content! You contributed greatly to the discussion at hand.

But in an effort to feed the troll anyhow, which "basic human right" have I rallied against in what you quoted from me? I eagerly await your deep thinking on the matter...

a reply to: incoserv

Just for accuracy sake...that’s not how FB makes money.

I don't understand why Conservatives don't just abandon these social media leftist cesspools.

a reply to: jjkenobi

That’s the same thing I ask myself. Like I don’t have and I’m not really interested in having a Parler, Gab or any other right wing leaning outfit account. Why out of my own free will support something I really don’t like?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't disagree with some of your points, but that does nothing to negate my opinion that government should not be forcing private companies to be doing anything, especially when a biased sect of politicians is potentially attempting to force a company/companies to do something.

I'm a big believer in very limited government, and I see stuff like this as government abusing their power.

I do agree that Section 230 was oddly written and does get abused, and I also think that some of the protections afforded to online entities take things too far, but again, I'm not talking about a logical update to Section 230 because I don't trust either side of our government to be able to do that.

As far as what I think is right about these companies banning people: It's their company, their platform, their rules. I just want to see them apply their rules fairly and evenly. We all are fully capable of reading the terms of use before blabbering on these platforms. Hell, even ATS has banned people before, and I think that they absolutely should be able to do that. I'm pretty sure that there are certain topics that will immediately get OPs removed as well.

That's okay, because it's their site and we're just free users.

And I understand your point about destroying livelihoods over political disagreements and I would have to assume that someone could sue for proven damages over that and hopefully win, but that again brings up the issue that we have access to terms of service prior to relying on such platforms for our livelihoods. YouTube can demonetize channels on what seems to be a whim sometimes--and they can, because it's their platform. I think that it's ethically and morally reprehensible, but I also see it as their right to control their business as they see fit.

What we need in regard to FB and Twitter and YT and other far-left companies is to gain traction with a new one that is openly willing to apply their rules to all users equally and fairly. I'm even very trepidatious in saying that such equal and fair application of rules should be punitively enforced at some government level, but I don't want to see that have to happen, and sincerely hope that it doesn't go that route.

And I've written and shared many controversial things on FB and Twitter, and have never even been suspended over anything...and I probably should have been, especially during the Obama years and the Clinton and Epstein issues. I've even written "Hunter Biden" before.

But those are just my thoughts on it...I truly do understand that it has been allowed to grow into a problem whose size is out of control, and there may have to be some heavy-handed dealings with these companies to right the course, I just don't like government choosing to take that route, so I hope that it doesn't go that way. I will say that the fact that these companies have started manipulating political stuff during election years does bring federal involvement into the picture, so we'll have to see what happens.

originally posted by: Tekner

We also shouldn't force anti-discrimination laws into the policies of private companies too right? If I don't want to serve minorities as customers that's ok since it's a private company!

Correct, we should not.

But that doesn't mean that we as a society should allow such practices by frequenting and supporting such businesses, and we should all watch with smiles as such bigoted people would lose their livelihoods.

I don't know if you've noticed, but at this stage in American society, these "anti-discrimination laws" appear to be used more for frivolous lawsuits and "cancelling" people unfairly than they are for legitimate concerns about discriminatory practices that stem from bigotry or racism.