She's real good at predicting the future too.
Facebook Ban (24 hours)
- Thread starter itsbob
- Start date
HGMilstead
Active Member
I suppose the ones regulated as public utilities might be considered under different guidelines, but those nuanced concerns aside, yes. I would be forced to deal with it like a big boy. Would you?
ETA: if fb mistreats me for whatever reasons and I want to keep using their services then it seems to me that I have three options: I either follow their stupid rules, I stop using their services, or I try to change their rules. Whining about it online seems to help exactly zero of these.
Last edited:
Seriously!?!
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
They didn't put in jail for that. They put you in jail because you are a conservative.......
I am not kidding! I was "warned" on my birthday for posting something about that chickie who was pulled over by the police for being on her cell and she claimed that she was "afraid" of him and then began berating him all kinds of ways (the officer showed INCREDIBLE verbal restraint) and I called her a "self absorbed bitch" and was dinged for "bullying".
500% !!!
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
You should STFU, hide your true beliefs, and bend to the will of the demonrats. I'll wait.....
The thing is - I NEVER POST CONTROVERSIAL THINGS! There are many forumites who are FB friends with me - and they can attest to it. Maybe a little sarcasm (ok, a lot) and a few flying monkeys here and there -but I don't post about politics or anything going on that is very controversial. I might comment on others' pages, but I keep mine very light and nice.
It's not because I am a shrinking violet!
It's because my job revolves around customer service and we all know how stupid people can act if you disagree with them. I do not own the business I work for, so I am not going to jeopardize their livelihood just to have the last word in politics.ontheriver
Well-Known Member
HG, I see you watching.... Should I post your PM's?
My bad, wrong thread.....
My bad, wrong thread.....
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
When I figure out how to do that I will.
Internet social media sites are in a separate category, they are not regulated by anyone, they are not accountable for what they allow on their sites by an act of congress, so they can't be sued like a newspaper or other media.
They are protected by section 230 which classifies them as basically a public platform, the electronic town square.
They claim they don't own the content, they don't control it, they can't be held responsible for another persons free speech.
Except they withhold the privilege of blocking content and banning people who's opinion they do not agree with.
So are they exempt from being held liable or are they now a publisher and liable for the content on their platform?
Because democrats control the legislative and executive branch, they know they can have their cake and eat it too
HGMilstead
Active Member
Yes, this is the heart of the matter for this issue. Regarded as they currently function, then they can impose their rules as they see fit. Regarded as a public platform then they would have to allow for all sorts of speech they don’t like.
personally I’m not too sure where I stand on this, as I genuinely dislike social media platforms (present company excluded). but the argument that 230’s protections should be overturned is a strong one, I think, so when push comes to shove I land on that side of the fence.
many many Dems anticipated and sought solutions to this issue, though (one quick Google search reveals this from 2019: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...egulate-big-tech-facebook-google-amazon-apple), and only after feeling unfairly targeted do republicans want to address this issue, too.
the Dems seem split over this issue now that they are in power, which isn’t all that surprising, but this is merely my impression. They certainly seem less adamant or noisy about this issue right now but evidently many still are interested in pursuing it (see https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...0-moderation-warner-klobuchar-facebook-google)
The social media giants, Facebook, Twitter, etc. like having it their way, basically they can promote a political agenda without fear of being held liable for slander. They can block any dissent and filter out any content that doesn't fit their doctrine, yet are immune to regulation by the FCC, FEC, or any other regulatory body, including the courts. Since they are promoting in large the policy of the Democrat party, and fluffing their image by blocking any information to the contrary, (can we say "it's already been debunked" but 12 months later we learn that those inside the intelligence and medical community do believe that the virus was man made, in Wuhan and spread from that lab. "China" or "Wuhan" virus would be appropriate, as that is exactly where this variant was created.
Here's the problem:
Twitter and especially Fakebook pulled a bait & switch. They sold themselves as free speech on the internet, which drew people to them. FB went as far as to offer "free" business sites so folks could use a FB page as a website instead of having a real one built and paid for. (I warned clients and others about allowing FB to own your online business presence but they didn't listen to me any more than anyone else does. They thought I was just trying to sell them something they could get for free. How now, brown cow?)
Neither are free speech any longer - that was a lie and bait. They did it long enough to get ingrained and have people invested and relying on them for information, and then they pulled the rug out.
And now they own the web presences of an amazing number of small businesses. And, bitch, if you don't toe the political line not only will they whack your personal account but they'll take out your business "website" as well.
That sort of predatory marketing is supposed to be illegal because it's absolutely fraud, and yet here we are. I'm guessing it's only illegal for smallfries who can't funnel big money to politicians, because if a local car dealer or retailer tried that they would find themselves in court right quick.
Twitter and especially Fakebook pulled a bait & switch. They sold themselves as free speech on the internet, which drew people to them. FB went as far as to offer "free" business sites so folks could use a FB page as a website instead of having a real one built and paid for. (I warned clients and others about allowing FB to own your online business presence but they didn't listen to me any more than anyone else does. They thought I was just trying to sell them something they could get for free. How now, brown cow?)
Neither are free speech any longer - that was a lie and bait. They did it long enough to get ingrained and have people invested and relying on them for information, and then they pulled the rug out.
And now they own the web presences of an amazing number of small businesses. And, bitch, if you don't toe the political line not only will they whack your personal account but they'll take out your business "website" as well.
That sort of predatory marketing is supposed to be illegal because it's absolutely fraud, and yet here we are. I'm guessing it's only illegal for smallfries who can't funnel big money to politicians, because if a local car dealer or retailer tried that they would find themselves in court right quick.
Plus, they turn pages into "businesses," which are not.
I have a page for updates about my cats - - - Business Page
I have another for discussing things with members of my religion - - - Business Page
AND, Facebook seems not to employ any real humans with whom one can discuss changing these pages back into a non-business mode.
HGMilstead
Active Member
sincere question: is it true that once a business sets up a fb page to serve as its website that said business cannot also launch a separate, non-fb website?
my understanding is that fb is merely a platform on which to share things, like info about a business, but that this in no way entitles fb to any control over your business.
assuming my understanding is correct, the. I’m not sure what the big deal is. someone sets up a fb business page, fb cancels or restricts access to that page because they don’t like the user’s politics, and then the user says “eff it. I’ll just set up a more traditional site for my business.”
it seems the complaint is that losing out on fb’s platform can mean losing out on business, but that’s more of a problem of fb being so popular. for the time being if you want to use their popular platform to promote your business, then you gotta play by their dumb rules.