Zuckerberg personally decides Alex Jones/Info wars fate

pawz

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/technology/facebook-banned-infowars-now-what.html

BennyBeaver

NY Times is your source?

phineas

The left vs right political divide is there to trick us in to giving away our rights. We cant give them away any quicker, just to score a win for our team. Bunch of suckers.

BennyBeaver

I didn’t read the article but Zucjerberg can do whatever the fuck he wants w Facebook. It has nothing to do with giving away rights.

If Jones had a rights infringement case he’d have filed it already.

Pitchfork51

BennyBeaver said:

I didn’t read the article but Zucjerberg can do whatever the fuck he wants w Facebook. It has nothing to do with giving away rights.

If Jones had a rights infringement case he’d have filed it already.

Supposedly there's some issue where if they want to be a platform or something they aren't supposed to censor stuff but if they want to censor they can't advertise themselves as an unbiased platform.

Idk I dont really care

allpurpleallgold

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

CirrhosisDawg

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

Troomps are victims.

They are spied upon. Abused by the deep state. Denied free speech. Taken advantage of by third world labor. Earned every penny of their Medicaid, Medicare and social security so don’t you dare touch the welfare they EARNED!1! Mexicans steal their jobs. A $25B useless wall is a solid investment to prevent unskilled, uneducated labor from denying them employment. China manipulates its currency. The EU is a national security threat so the US imposes tariffs. Farmers get $12B in welfare to fight the ensuing and hopeless trade war. While receiving massive subsidies, and paying little to no tax they insist they support the welfare state.

Troomps.

GrundleStiltzkin

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

Fair poont

pawz

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I, for one, am going to continue to bitch about all three.

DerekJohnson

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Pitchfork51

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Agreed. It's mostly that they are portraying themselves in a different light than the reality.

oregonblitzkrieg

The 'hate speech' category created by the left is just a tool for the government, the media and American tech companies to crack down on free speech. There's a sick tide of Orwellian totalitarianism coming from the international left, it's represented here by the democrat party and never Trump republicans.

allpurpleallgold

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Ok so your own rules here agree that there is a line and you’re just disagreeing with where to draw it. Alex Jones is a con man, he talks about civil war and he’s called a massacre of children fake and accused the parents of the dead kids of being actors which led to them being harassed by his viewers. Maybe that’s not where you would draw the line but do you really have a problem with a line being drawn there?

I don’t understand how you can say they should be able to do what they want but object to their reason. Can they do what they want or do they need to give reasons you approve of first? If they can do what they want then they can lie about their reasons if that’s what they want to do.

DerekJohnson

allpurpleallgold said:

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Ok so your own rules here agree that there is a line and you’re just disagreeing with where to draw it. Alex Jones is a con man, he talks about civil war and he’s called a massacre of children fake and accused the parents of the dead kids of being actors which led to them being harassed by his viewers. Maybe that’s not where you would draw the line but do you really have a problem with a line being drawn there?

I don’t understand how you can say they should be able to do what they want but object to their reason. Can they do what they want or do they need to give reasons you approve of first? If they can do what they want then they can lie about their reasons if that’s what they want to do.

I don't object to their reason. I object to their lack of integrity.

Sledog

allpurpleallgold said:

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Ok so your own rules here agree that there is a line and you’re just disagreeing with where to draw it. Alex Jones is a con man, he talks about civil war and he’s called a massacre of children fake and accused the parents of the dead kids of being actors which led to them being harassed by his viewers. Maybe that’s not where you would draw the line but do you really have a problem with a line being drawn there?

I don’t understand how you can say they should be able to do what they want but object to their reason. Can they do what they want or do they need to give reasons you approve of first? If they can do what they want then they can lie about their reasons if that’s what they want to do.

So Facebook should ban all of the media because the Trump Russia collusion story is fake? Only seems fair.

allpurpleallgold

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Ok so your own rules here agree that there is a line and you’re just disagreeing with where to draw it. Alex Jones is a con man, he talks about civil war and he’s called a massacre of children fake and accused the parents of the dead kids of being actors which led to them being harassed by his viewers. Maybe that’s not where you would draw the line but do you really have a problem with a line being drawn there?

I don’t understand how you can say they should be able to do what they want but object to their reason. Can they do what they want or do they need to give reasons you approve of first? If they can do what they want then they can lie about their reasons if that’s what they want to do.

I don't object to their reason. I object to their lack of integrity.

ISPs have bribed politicians so they can run monopolies. Apple has sweatshops. Our president had a sham university. Wall Street sent the entire country into a recession. The same Facebook is spying on its users. Our former president Barack Obama’s increased spying on American citizens. The president before that sent us into a war with Iraq because they wanted a war. The news media lied about Hillary Clinton’s lead on Bernie Sanders, counting votes that had no been cast, to influence the primary.

The difference in how we are viewing this situation appears to be that you still have some expectation of integrity whereas I’ve realized people with power have no integrity.

oregonblitzkrieg

Social media platforms and the internet in general have become the public space/forum where people gather to interact, share ideas, talk about politics and other stuff. They have too much power to decide what gets heard and what doesn't. Things can't stay like they are now, it's not working.

Either apply the rules of the first amendment to big tech companies by creating an Internet Bill of Rights or something like that to protect free speech and punish online censorship, or break them up.

pawz

allpurpleallgold said:

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

DerekJohnson said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Given the rights stance on net neutrality and corporate pac money I find objecting to this to be laughable.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, those companies should be able to do what they want. But on the other hand, Facebook is being duplicitous when they say it's due to eliminating hate speech. That's bullshit. It's 100% political. Hardcore Husky allows for all opinions, with very few limitations on free speech. ("N-word", child porn, pro-Nazi, etc.)

Ok so your own rules here agree that there is a line and you’re just disagreeing with where to draw it. Alex Jones is a con man, he talks about civil war and he’s called a massacre of children fake and accused the parents of the dead kids of being actors which led to them being harassed by his viewers. Maybe that’s not where you would draw the line but do you really have a problem with a line being drawn there?

I don’t understand how you can say they should be able to do what they want but object to their reason. Can they do what they want or do they need to give reasons you approve of first? If they can do what they want then they can lie about their reasons if that’s what they want to do.

I don't object to their reason. I object to their lack of integrity.

ISPs have bribed politicians so they can run monopolies. Apple has sweatshops. Our president had a sham university. Wall Street sent the entire country into a recession. The same Facebook is spying on its users. Our former president Barack Obama’s increased spying on American citizens. The president before that sent us into a war with Iraq because they wanted a war. The news media lied about Hillary Clinton’s lead on Bernie Sanders, counting votes that had no been cast, to influence the primary.

The difference in how we are viewing this situation appears to be that you still have some expectation of integrity whereas I’ve realized people with power have no integrity.

I have a dream. That one day all man can talk about these issues without being assigned a right vs left narrative.

None of it is acceptable.

GrundleStiltzkin

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Social media platforms and the internet in general have become the public space/forum where people gather to interact, share ideas, talk about politics and other stuff. They have too much power to decide what gets heard and what doesn't. Things can't stay like they are now, it's not working.

Either apply the rules of the first amendment to big tech companies by creating an Internet Bill of Rights or something like that to protect free speech and punish online censorship, or break them up.

Sounds a lot like nationalization to me.

oregonblitzkrieg

GrundleStiltzkin said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Social media platforms and the internet in general have become the public space/forum where people gather to interact, share ideas, talk about politics and other stuff. They have too much power to decide what gets heard and what doesn't. Things can't stay like they are now, it's not working.

Either apply the rules of the first amendment to big tech companies by creating an Internet Bill of Rights or something like that to protect free speech and punish online censorship, or break them up.

Sounds a lot like nationalization to me.

Your libertarianism is running into a dead end here. Let everyone do whatever they want and just say fuck it doesn't work in every situation. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and a few other big tech companies when taken together, basically control the public square now and the flow of information ideas. Too much power concentrated in too few hands. We already have the evidence and know how companies like Facebook and Google cooperate with foreign governments to crack down on their own citizens. You're a clown if you think they should have that kind of power, and that they're not already doing it here in the USA.

Pitchfork51

GrundleStiltzkin said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Social media platforms and the internet in general have become the public space/forum where people gather to interact, share ideas, talk about politics and other stuff. They have too much power to decide what gets heard and what doesn't. Things can't stay like they are now, it's not working.

Either apply the rules of the first amendment to big tech companies by creating an Internet Bill of Rights or something like that to protect free speech and punish online censorship, or break them up.

Sounds a lot like nationalization to me.

It's definitely a new frontier.

Pretty much all information and interaction is done through like 3 big companies.

It's just too easy for them to push an agenda. I don't really know the solution to make things better.


Then again I don't use facebook so who gives a fuck.