Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

NYT

I actually read this earlier. When you think about it...it's kind of astonishing so many Americans have been so okay with a few companies essentially grabbing hold of the new public square.

As people who are not on the left we are mocked with "they're private companies" though that excuse seems to not be usable when Facebook legally sells ads to some russians.

The market will decide.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The market will decide.

I'd agree...if we had not seen places like Gab struggle in the way they did.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The market will decide.

Heh, gottem

Originally posted by Robtard
Heh, gottem

Not really.

You people really need to decide if "but private business!" works as a shield or not.

eg Back when the homophobic bakers were refusing public service to people cos "eww, gayz!", it was cool and it was decided as such that they should be allowed to do whatever and the market would sink or float them for their actions.

Originally posted by Robtard
You people really need to decide if "but private business!" works as a shield or not.

eg Back when the homophobic bakers were refusing public service to people cos "eww, gayz!", it was cool and it was decided as such that they should be allowed to do whatever and the market would sink or float them for their actions.

I think the left needs to decide as well. They sure didn't like the excuse when it came to the baker. Yet they are okay with a few companies controlling the new public square cuz...why?

EDIT: I'll tell you this, I'd be willing to compromise and say if the day comes when 2-3 conservative owned companies control all cake making I would revisit my opinion on it.

Originally posted by Robtard
You people really need to decide if "but private business!" works as a shield or not.

eg Back when the homophobic bakers were refusing public service to people cos "eww, gayz!", it was cool and it was decided as such that they should be allowed to do whatever and the market would sink or float them for their actions.

There is a point when private business ends and Facebook a now public company / utility, now can control elections.

The left should be far more concerned about this than they are considering 2016 Russian interference.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think the left needs to decide as well. They sure didn't like the excuse when it came to the baker. Yet they are okay with a few companies controlling the new public square cuz...why?

EDIT: I'll tell you this, I'd be willing to compromise and say if the day comes when 2-3 conservative owned companies control all cake making I would revisit my opinion on it. The baker issue was an issue of violating someone else's rights. It was a rights issue. eg Someone can't hang a "No Jews Allowed" sign in a public place of business.

What issue is this with FB?

Originally posted by Robtard
The baker issue was an issue of violating someone else's rights. It was a rights issue. eg Someone can't hang a "No Jews Allowed" sign in a public place of business.

What issue is this with FB?

If FB has the right to refuse service so should the baker.

My problem with the social media companies is they have control of the new public square. Yes Rob: that is more important than if a tranny or gay guy gets a cake.

Though like I said, I'd be willing to compromise and say if the day comes when 2-3 conservative owned companies control all cake making I would revisit my opinion on it.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
There is a point when private business ends and Facebook a now public company / utility, now can control elections.

The left should be far more concerned about this than they are considering 2016 Russian interference.

That needs to be shown and by extension, lots of companies would fall under those lines.

If you're pointing the finger at me, I'd personally enjoy seeing Zuckerberg curled up on the floor in the fetal position sucking on his thumb for comfort that will never be had while tears flow unrestricted from his closed puffy eyes because FB crashed and burned. But make it valid and legal.

If we're gonna go with the "it's a private company" fine, I do not want to hear democrats whine ever again about russians buying ads on facebook. Period. You will deal with it and you will smile as you do it.

Originally posted by Surtur
If FB has the right to refuse service so should the baker.

My problem with the social media companies is they have control of the new public square. Yes Rob: that is more important than if a tranny or gay guy gets a cake.

Though like I said, I'd be willing to compromise and say if the day comes when 2-3 conservative owned companies control all cake making I would revisit my opinion on it.

All FB users sign off on an EULA, that's how they generally do the "you broke the rules" angle and I'm pretty sure if FB did a "no service to gays" policy there would be issues.

Is saying "the new public square" the new catch phrase?

You still think these multi-billion dollar companies are "Leftist!". Cute. I laughed.

Originally posted by Robtard
All FB users sign off on an EULA, that's how they generally do the "you broke the rules" angle and I'm pretty sure if FB did a "no service to gays" policy there would be issues.

Is saying "the new public square" the new catch phrase?

You still think these multi-billion dollar companies are "Leftist!". Cute. I laughed.

I think, at the end of the day, they are bias against conservatives. I don't care if a monkey in a leisure suit owns them, all that matters is who they pander to and who they don't kiddo

And like I said: then no more whining about russia buying facebook ads from the dems.

Originally posted by Surtur
If we're gonna go with the "it's a private company" fine...

Seems like you're protesting because the reasoning you initially used is being used by others and it happens to be on something you happen to not agree with now.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're protesting because the reasoning you initially used is being used by others and it happens to be on something you happen to not agree with now.

Good trolling kid

I'm sorry but how are you any different here Robtard? How is your standard any more consistent?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm sorry but how are you any different here Robtard? How is your standard any more consistent?

How is it not?

I said I'm cool with FB being shattered, just make it valid and legal.

what's facebook?

Originally posted by Robtard
The baker issue was an issue of violating someone else's rights. It was a rights issue. eg Someone can't hang a "No Jews Allowed" sign in a public place of business.

What issue is this with FB?

No. No sir. You've got that backwards. Literally, the ruling on the case says you've got that backwards.

Some tried to violate the cake baker's rights by forcing him to make a custom cake that was against the baker's morals.


Be sure and state he facts correctly, good sir.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. No sir. You've got that backwards. Literally, the ruling on the case says you've got that backwards.

Some tried to violate the cake baker's rights by forcing him to make a custom cake that was against the baker's morals.


Be sure and state he facts correctly, good sir.

I believe the baker in question was a Christian?

Originally posted by steverules_2
I believe the baker in question was a Christian?

Correct. The custom cake was a "gay cake." He refused.

He got sued. He appealed. He lost. He appealed. US Courts ruled in his favor. Said you can't force someone to do art for you.

So, let me get this straight:



Zuckerberg has total control of Facebook, due to majority share. Correct?


Co-founder calling for it to be broken up.



Would this not serve to remove the reigns of the company from Zuckerbergs iron grip, and allow other barons to rule? Essentially, we're talking about melting down the Iron Throne and dividing up rule among multiple kingdoms.



Sounds like a scheme to dilute Zuc's power and grip over the monolith.

No. Did you even bother to read the article? The co-founder no longer owns any shares in the company, he liquidated his shares years ago. The "point" is that Facebook has become too big and powerful and should be broken up. Which I absolutely agree with (even though I don't see it as truly feasible). And calling Mark a "victim" in such a case is downright laughable.

Originally posted by ares834
No. Did you even bother to read the article? The co-founder no longer owns any shares in the company, he liquidated his shares years ago. The "point" is that Facebook has become too big and powerful and should be broken up. Which I absolutely agree with (even though I don't see it as truly feasible). And calling Mark a "victim" in such a case is downright laughable.


Oh, he's the victim allright. He was probably shrewd enough to see this coup coming.



And no, I totally did not read the article.

A private company curtailing freedom of speech, when individuals are using that "right" to spread hate seems wholly justified. These people use platforms as a way to reach out to the vulnerable who are looking for someone to blame and validation there shit life is someone else's fault, be it gays, blacks, Muslims, people having sex, etc. if it prevents the borderline mentally ill being taken advantage of, excellent!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm sorry but how are you any different here Robtard? How is your standard any more consistent?

As I've said: if we had 2-3 companies that controlled all cake making I'd feel differently. That is the *same* reason I feel different about the "private company" excuse when it comes to the social media companies. And btw I find that excuse bunk now that we've had the government step in and say Trump can't block folk.

I'd also feel differently about the baker if, like these companies, he selectively applied his rules, for example like baking a wedding cake for gay conservatives, but not gay liberals.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
A private company curtailing freedom of speech, when individuals are using that "right" to spread hate seems wholly justified. These people use platforms as a way to reach out to the vulnerable who are looking for someone to blame and validation there shit life is someone else's fault, be it gays, blacks, Muslims, people having sex, etc. if it prevents the borderline mentally ill being taken advantage of, excellent!

So it's okay for this private company to sell Russia all the ads it wants, correct?

And even Republicans didn't seem to care very much when the courts ruled on that trump twitter ban thing. I don't think either side truly wants to address any government overreach because each side knows power is temporary and that if they aren't in power eventually they will be again and they wanna be able to overreach when their time comes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, noted. In context and out of context, you had it backwards.

I'm here to help when you spin things the wrong way. You're welcome.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/13D90nlAuPEIM0/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
And even Republicans didn't seem to care very much when the courts ruled on that trump twitter ban thing. I don't think either side truly wants to address any government overreach because each side knows power is temporary and that if they aren't in power eventually they will be again and they wanna be able to overreach when their time comes.

This is correct.

The issue is not that Republicans are freedom loving, Conservative, family values, politicians.

No.

They are warmongering, hypocritical, money loving, oligarchs.

Just like the Democrats. They are just more open about their xenophobia, warmongering, and money-loving than the Dems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, noted. In context and out of context, you had it backwards.

I'm here to help when you spin things the wrong way. You're welcome.

This boils down to FB/Twitter/Youtube etc no longer in good faith acting as a platform and instead taking the role of publisher. Fine, however in doing so they lose the privileges and protections afforded platform status vs publisher.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This boils down to FB/Twitter/Youtube etc no longer in good faith acting as a platform and instead taking the role of publisher. Fine, however in doing so they lose the privileges and protections afforded platform status vs publisher.

As noted, if you can legally prove that, cool and make it so.

Originally posted by Robtard


He is wrong, but it is not worth correcting him. Let baby have his bottle, so we do not have to hear his tantrum.

It is Friday...

Aint It Funny how KMC has a LOT in common with the Big Corp Owned Social Media Sites.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/55d9722c8e374f156838660ecbadd2ab/tumblr_mqun5sHJ9u1sxub9ao1_500.gif

Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:

Facebook Caught LYING About Censorship, Regulation Is Coming

vgn-fuZ_tEc

Yeah, you know what? There is to be no whining when these places get regulated. They 100% brought it on themselves. It's not hard to just ban illegal content and nothing else, they couldn't do it and they'll pay the price for their bias. Oh well, can't say they weren't warned.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is wrong, but it is not worth correcting him. Let baby have his bottle, so we do not have to hear his tantrum.

This is bait, right? Here, there's the convo to save you time:


Originally posted by Robtard
eg Back when the homophobic bakers were refusing public service to people cos "eww, gayz!", it was cool and it was decided as such that they should be allowed to do whatever and the market would sink or float them for their actions.

Originally posted by Robtard
The baker issue was an issue of violating someone else's rights. It was a rights issue. eg Someone can't hang a "No Jews Allowed" sign in a public place of business.

What issue is this with FB?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. No sir. You've got that backwards. Literally, the ruling on the case says you've got that backwards.

Some tried to violate the cake baker's rights by forcing him to make a custom cake that was against the baker's morals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The custom cake was a "gay cake." He refused.

He got sued. He appealed. He lost. He appealed. US Courts ruled in his favor. Said you can't force someone to do art for you.

Originally posted by Robtard
That post wasn't about the ruling, it was the "Leftist issue" in regards to what the baker did. You'll note I said "issue" four times in that post. Go note it.

Also as noted, we're now in the 'private business can do what it likes' phase. Please attack what I actually said, ser.

That last post is what most people know as the "Robtard word-game backpedal special."

For those who don't wanna watch the Tim Pool video, Facebook has at different times claimed to be a platform and a publisher. In court in 2018 they claimed to be a publisher.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is bait, right? Here, there's the convo to save you time:












That last post is what most people know as the "Robtard word-game backpedal special."

Yeah it's a game Rob plays often.

Its the ONLY Game pretty much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is bait, right? Here, there's the convo to save you time:


That last post is what most people know as the "Robtard word-game backpedal special."


Incorrect.

-My first quote is me noting/acknowledging that what the baker did is now legal and kosher.

-The second quote is me noting what the "Leftist" issue was with the baker's original actions.

-The last quote is me pointing out that you're mixing my points to attack.

Granted, I know you're aware of this and are just doing a thing.

Something I might be thinking about that may change up the equation is foreign countries looking to place demands on social media, such as France, as to what they are not allowed to have on their platforms.

If such a thing is the case, then would the companies in that interest already be stripped of their private business freedoms by foreign governments? And would the question become, do we pass legislation so that other countries cannot dictate what Americans are allowed to say on social media, or do we do nothing and let them dictate it, since either way the companies have lost their private business freedoms.

Isn't that kind of what Europe is doing right now? Article 13 or whatever?

Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:

White House REFUSES Major International Call For Censorship Online

hhZN-O0eXjY