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?
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.
Originally posted by ares834
Uh, that’s the point.
That's absolutely not the point. Companies are broken up for a lot of reasons, but an assault on a successful majority shareholder because you want what he earned is not one of them.
Such is a victim of his own success. He's being penalized for making Facebook into the successful company that it is, and the vultures are looking to feast.
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?
Originally posted by Robtard
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.
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. 😮💨
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.
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.
And the "Digital businesses can not be public accommodation" phase, going by the other thread.
Which is a debatable contention, going by past rulings.
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.
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. 🙂
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 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.