Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Wow, four more posts for one reply and you still haven't admitted that Facebook doesn't control all the information likely you falsely claimed.

Please quote where I used the exact words “controls all information”.

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not the one that needs to back up my statements about monopolies, that would be you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not the one that needs to back up my statements about monopolies, that would be you.

Classic you.

You get called out, and gets huffy.

The context of my original post with cited sources to add clarity.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
There is a bit more to it than that...

While the first amendment mentions congress by name it is upheld by the supreme court that it also includes the rest of the federal government. The due process clause and the 14th amendment extend those protections to state governments as well.

Which still doesn't mean it applies to private businesses or citizens but with very few and very well defined exceptions. This isn't one of them.

Yet. It’s being used to cancel and silence a specific groups first amendment rights. And silence opposition during elections. I would say Facebook needs broken up for the fact they have a monopoly on controlling information.

Facebook is a social network monopoly that buys, copies or kills competitors, antitrust committee finds

www.cnbc.com...

I do find it appalling people support Facebook.

With further clarity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is this false?

And that is, indeed, what Facebook has become: not just a monopoly, but a natural monopoly. The company is, without doubt, a monopoly; it possesses dominant share in several subsectors of the consumer internet industry, be they social media, web-based text messaging or photo-sharing. That dominant share qualifies as monopoly in most major markets; in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has, in the past, suggested that firms with more than a 50 percent market could constitute monopoly.

www.cigionline.org...

With further clarity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How Many Companies Does Facebook Own?
Facebook has acquired 78 companies over the past 15 years. The company’s first major purchase was made on Aug. 23, 2005, when they bought the Facebook.com domain name for $200,000, making the official switch from their original domain, Thefacebook.com.

www.titlemax.com...

With further clarity

Oh. You don’t realize I also am referring to the data Facebook data mines, sales, and uses.


Making the below by your a blatantly false statement by you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Wow, four more posts for one reply and you still haven't admitted that Facebook doesn't control all the information likely you falsely claimed.

a reply to: neutronflux

Let me know when Facebook has a monopoly on information. The news channels I just watched, along with reality, disagree with you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So. Please quote where I posted Facebook controls all data

You can’t. Because all you can do is make false arguments. Blatant intellectual dishonesty by you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Let me know when Facebook has a monopoly on information. The news channels I just watched, along with reality, disagree with you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

Let me know when Facebook has a monopoly on information. The news channels I just watched, along with reality, disagree with you.

Your silly.

a reply to: neutronflux

'You're'.

Let me know when that Facebook monopoly occurs. Then your statement might have some basis in reality.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neutronflux

'You're'.

Let me know when that Facebook monopoly occurs. Then your statement might have some basis in reality.

You mean like the concern of the original cited source? Setting the context of my post?

Facebook is a social network monopoly that buys, copies or kills competitors, antitrust committee finds

www.cnbc.com...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I did my research.

You are not acknowledging that this finding, which was indeed about a company that owned a town, is used as precedent for other suits of a similar nature: those in which a privately owned property opened up for general public use for the benefit of the property owner is ruled by the statutory and Constitutional rights of those who use it.

I read about the town in Alabama. My only interest in that case is its use as precedent. Ignoring that finding because it is not specifically about fb is disingenuous. The ruling applies to any and all private properties opened up for public use. The degree of use or benefit to the owner by the public determines how strictly the statutory and Constitutional rights of the users are preserved. In the case of fb it would seem that the company, which would not exist without acts of public expression, is entirely dependent upon the general public's ability to express themselves. Providing a public forum and encouraging public expression upon same, then censoring certain aspects of that expression due to political preference changes the status of the company. What began as a public forum for the purposes of personal expression of the general public now seeks to control the flow of information, using the personal expressions of the people, for the purpose of leveraging political influence.

“...the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

Ah republicans.

“We don’t want guberment to do much. We don’t like big guberment!”

“Please Mr guberment, do something about this nasty business that does thing we don’t like and our little fee-fees get hurt!”

a reply to: neutronflux

Let me know when that Facebook monopoly occurs. Then your statement might have some basis in reality.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I did my research.

You are not acknowledging that this finding, which was indeed about a company that owned a town...

If you did your research you wouldn't erroneously said it had nothing to do with a company town when I told you it had to do with a company town.

The ruling has nothing to do with the internet or the Supreme Court rulings on the internet where they say it is not a public forum with the very limited exception of access to it via a public institution.

I just consulted my Encyclopedia Facebookica and it clearly stated "this thread is going nowhere"

originally posted by: TXRabbit
I just consulted my Encyclopedia Facebookica and it clearly stated "this thread is going nowhere"

Neither is Facebook, and those that stay in power. Propped up by Facebook propaganda.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ah democrats.

Miss the entire concept, resort to insults, and feign superiority.

If you believe any infringement of free speech is acceptable, I pity you.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not a Democrat. Hell, not even American.

Nice try though champ.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I did my research.

You are not acknowledging that this finding, which was indeed about a company that owned a town...

If you did your research you wouldn't erroneously said it had nothing to do with a company town when I told you it had to do with a company town.

The ruling has nothing to do with the internet or the Supreme Court rulings on the internet where they say it is not a public forum with the very limited exception of access to it via a public institution.

Your judgement is clouded.

I said I knew the original decision DID have to do with a town in Alabama. I said it is also a precedent which does NOT limit its use to just "towns" vs. first amendment.

Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines.

The importance of the Internet as the "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," requires that the courts perpetually uphold the freedom of speech.

link

The court declared the internet to be a free speech zone and did not include limitations to that freedom beyond the existing limitations of speech in public forums referring to things like shouting "FIre!" in a public place or some other act that may cause harm in some way.

I know I am just erroneously saying things in a thread that is allegedly going nowhere, but it sure looks to me like the courts believe the internet is indeed a free speech zone. I mean, actually using the words "free speech zone" is a dead giveaway for most people but I bet there is still an argument coming. I guess I should look forward to your explanation of how the supreme court didn't mean what it said and your opinion is the correct one... Or will you deny the statement exists altogether? Or maybe assert it only applies to porno websites, not social media? Or maybe images but not words? Anything to undermine my position regardless of how baseless it is?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Spoken like a true liberal then. Same ridiculous views, different flag.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I’m all over the spectrum baby!

But if you want to label me anything, you can just call me daddy.