What if Uber instituted a policy to not pick up people at church on Sunday's. Think that would go unchallenged? Hey... its their company right?
Facebook protected you from "unsafe" Diamond and Silk
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
If that is the case, I'm fine with it. My concern is when a user here decides to pick up a different sock puppet because they think it gains them the upper hand in a discussion. It's deceitful.
He already does go down that road for years. Why do you think he puts the squeeze on right wing elements on FB? But he is smart enough to not publicly say so. What one does and how they sell it to the unassuming public and electorate are apparently very different things. My point was and still is that FB is a private enterprise and can do whatever it wants as long as it does not violate any laws That includes disadvantaging conservative posters or banning right wing extremists. We can disagree with such freedom but we can't pretend that freedom does not exist.
I do perform my research before I post just as you seem to crawl into every user's ass and seem to turn over their previous posts 5 times before you launch your personal assaults. Care to let me get back on topic please?
People can challenge everything. But your example would never succeed in court. A baker can refuse to sell to homos if he is so inclined and there is nothing you can do about other than "challenge"
What does that even mean or what are you implying? I prefer plain and simple language.
I am not going to work out Zuckerbergs legal or marketing or business arguments for him.
He is facing legal class action suits, maybe suits from individuals, and he will most likely have a return trip to congress to explain his views and actions more. If he wants to go back and argue or argue in any legal actions that he is free to exclude trump supporters or black conservative women, then he should go right ahead and do that. It will be a lot of fun to watch.
cha-ching.
I will not be replying further to you for now. Something isnt right in regard to the issue or curious factor that Mr. Tao raised in regard to your recent sign-up or not. Probably everything is okay but I dont care to participate with you.
Well we need to agree to disagree then. Whatever lawsuits there may be, I am pretty certain if they are based on disgruntled users who feel disadvantaged because of views they expressed then those suits won't have any merit. It's just business and economics bro, and extremist conservatism does not work for FB and most other tech firms, purely commerce wise speaking. Don't feel offended.
I think we are beyond that. The argument now is whether or not there should be laws restricting the ability of social media monopolists to engage in censorship. As usual, establishment cuck republicans are way behind the curve on this, and are still muttering things like "they are a private company" as if that is the end of discussion.
Hotels are private companies too. They can't restrict who they let rooms to. Restaurants are private companies and engaged in interstate commerce only in the most tangential manner yet congress passed laws requiring them to serve all comers. Your local electric company can't cut your service because your Christmas display annoyed them.
If we have to bake your fucking cake, you damn well should not be allowed to censor us.