The Hose is Back
Member
I thought we wanted less government involvement in private sector.
So you do think the government should be involved in private sector companies?Precisely. The laws are already there and need to be enforced. Ever since the Obama admin there seems to be a split in the judicial system. One set of laws for democrats, and another fro everyone else. This must stop.
Dear Greg T:Here's the issue as I see it. Maybe AW can interject with some of his experience.
Social media USED to be social media when they allowed people to speak their minds. BUT, since they've decided to pick and choose what they will allow, and it's mostly one-sided, they have actually morphed into publishers. This being the case, they should be bound by the same laws and rules to which publishers are held. This means they must accept opposing views and allow unedited, and/or uncensored posts of political topics. Am I close on this, AW?
No, I do not, but they already are. There are commerce laws, and a whole shitload of tax laws and things I know nothing about. The problem is that they are not enforced unilaterally. If a law applies to you it should also apply to me. Thats not the case.So you do think the government should be involved in private sector companies?
Do you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?No, I do not, but they already are. There are commerce laws, and a whole shitload of tax laws and things I know nothing about. The problem is that they are not enforced unilaterally. If a law applies to you it should also apply to me. Thats not the case.
It's not about first amendment. It's about if they can be held in libel or slander. They can have their rules all they want, but publishers are held to those rules.I disagree. I'm sure some of these social media companies didn't know how strong they would become, and I'm sure they've needed to adjust their terms and conditions from time to time. However, none of it falls under the 1st amendment. I've been to a lot of homes in Southeast Asia, where you are asked to take your shoes off. It's their home, their rules. If I don't like it, I can choose not to visit.
You may think it's unfair, but it's doesn't have anything to do with your 1st amendment rights.
It's already happening. People are getting censored for calling blm protests riots while others call the capitol hill a riot and it's allowed. The idea is the same, but not the post. Antifa can call for violent protest but Trump supporters are pulled.Do you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?
Right to refuse business has nothing to do with this.DONT MOST ALL "BIG" COMPANIES KNOW THEY WILL GET SUED AT SOME POINT? DONT THEY HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER SUCH THINGS? BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS SOME SLIME BALL JUST LOOKING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK AND THE COMPANIES KNOW ITS JUST PART OF DOING BUSINESS. MAYBE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, I DONT DO EITHER, ARE DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THOSE FOLKS BUILT THEIR BUSINESS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN IT THE WAY THEY SEE FIT. IF THEY DONT WANT TO TOLERATE A CERTAIN POLITICAL VIEWPOINT, GOOD FOR THEM. LIKE HOSE SAID, YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT USE IT.
CURRENT CASE IN POINT. IF YOU WANT TO SHOP AT A STORE THAT SAYS "YOU MUST WEAR A MASK TO ENTER AND SHOP HERE". DONT BE A LITTLE FUCKING CRYBABY, PUT ONE ON AND SHOP OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
HOSE'S SHOE COMPARRISON WAS A LITTLE OFF, BUT REALLY CLOSE. SAY ONE OF YOUR KIDS IS MARRYING SOMEONE. THAT SOMEONES PARENTS RENT A VENUE FOR A PRIVATE DINNER FOR 100 PEOPLE. THEY PAID FOR THE WHOLE THING. THE VENUE IS A PUBLIC PLACE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. YOU SHOW UP AND THERE IS A SIGN ON THE DOOR, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR SHOES. YOU GO TALK TO MANAGEMENT AND THEY SAY ITS THE FAMILIES RULE, NOT THEIRS. DO YOU GET TO WALK IN WITH SHOES ON OR DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF WHOS PAYING FOR THE VENUE? OR DO YOU JUST LEAVE BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT TO REMOVE YOUR SHOES?
That depends on what is posted. They DO have many different policies depending upon what or who is posting. For example, my friend posted, " White lives matter so lets standardize law". He was promptly placed on fb jail for 30 days. I changed white to black and remained free. We've tested this at least 4 times. Worked every time. We posted Clinton swinging from a rope and got booted. We posted Trumps severed head with no repercussions. FB has been censoring conservatives and cons. views for a long timeDo you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?
They can do that if it's illegal activity.That depends on what is posted. They DO have many different policies depending upon what or who is posting. For example, my friend posted, " White lives matter so lets standardize law". He was promptly placed on fb jail for 30 days. I changed white to black and remained free. We've tested this at least 4 times. Worked every time. We posted Clinton swinging from a rope and got booted. We posted Trumps severed head with no repercussions. FB has been censoring conservatives and cons. views for a long time
Consider this; Your cell phone carrier tells you it doesn't like the people you speak to or text with and shuts down your service. Allowed because it's a private business?
That's exactly what I meant. Now that I read it again I didn't explain well. What I'm saying is that they're listening to conversations and reading texts and punishing you for the content. That's exactly what FB and Twitter are doing and getting away with it. If phone companies, ISPs, etc. did the same thing they'd be slammed for it.They can do that if it's illegal activity.
You could just go to a different carrier. The problem is, as we see it now, what happens if no major carrier gives you service because of something you said on a carriers line and all were pressured socially/financially to not have you as a paying custome
I've never understood the idea of leaders for elected officials. For ranking military? CEOs? Coaches? Sure.Boom!!! That's what I've been saying. I don't like her verbiage, tho, when it comes to our elected officials. Elected officials are not leaders. They're supposed to be followers. They work for us and we pay their salaries so they should be following the will of the people. Also, she may call herself a democrat, but she is no contemporary democrat. She's more of a JFK democrat more leaning towards libertarian.
Let's just face it. Unless something huge happens in a couple of days our entire country is fucked. The reason we had a revolution and told England to get fucked, the war, the lives lost, the hardships....all for naught. We're back to the 1600s. As I said......democrats need to be exterminated.Looking like Amazon has beenblack mailed by the statepulled Parler from its servers.
The irony here is that democrats keep saying its a free market when its never been free. They complain over and over that capitalism is bad. It's only bad when it doesn't suit them.
Keep in mind, in a free market Amazon can do what it wants. But a free market doesn't include the state coming after Amazon, either.
Needless to say, I will stop my spending at Amazon. I will be going to Roku for my streaming services. That's my "free market" choice.