Internet Censorship.

[tigermud]

We?ll see.

Maybe she?ll run for president one day and win.

She just turned 30-she?s right around the same age as AOC.

They always say that after the first ban when there is too much reasonable backlash

https://www.theblaze.com/news/facebook-claims-it-suspended-candace-owens-page-by-mistake

It?s only a matter of time before they do it again though that?s the trend, she makes a hellva lot more sense than AOC and left can?t stand her

Candace Owens (born April 29, 1989)[1] is an American conservative[2][3][4] commentator and political activist. She is known for her pro-Trump activism and her criticism of Black Lives Matter and of the Democratic Party.[5][6][7] She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA between 2017 and 2019.[8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6026935398001/#sp=show-clips

 

[tinselwolverine]

They always say that after the first ban when there is too much reasonable backlash

https://www.theblaze.com/news/facebook-claims-it-suspended-candace-owens-page-by-mistake

It?s only a matter of time before they do it again though that?s the trend, she makes a hellva lot more sense than AOC and left can?t stand her

Candace Owens (born April 29, 1989)[1] is an American conservative[2][3][4] commentator and political activist. She is known for her pro-Trump activism and her criticism of Black Lives Matter and of the Democratic Party.[5][6][7] She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA between 2017 and 2019.[8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

You quoted me before I could add my great at it about Candace and AOC.

 

[tigermud]

You quoted me before I could add my great at it about Candace and AOC.

LOL :cheers:

 

[tinselwolverine]

She does seem to have stooped to Twitter trolling some pretty marginal lady comedian whose opinion on things doesn?t really matter, Sarah Silverman, Chelsea Handler and Kathy Griffin, in a pretty obnoxious and insulting manner.

From what I discovered Owens is the one who initiated the hostility.

That?s not really a good look.

Right now she lives in New York-maybe she?ll move to a more conservative area but it?s going to be tough for a conservative to be elected to Congress from New York.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Here's an approach to maybe, kind of, sort of, see things Tigermud's way on this topic if you squint: if an organization, or a group of organizations develop some degree of authority over people that rivals the government's in some way, they they should face similar restrictions to that power in cases where people have rights protecting the government from going too far. Arguing that freedom of speech laws apply to private media platforms is legally wrong, but if a collection of media companies could be argued to have a degree of control...


...nope. That's as far I've taken this half-baked idea. I tried.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Here's an approach to maybe, kind of, sort of, see things Tigermud's way on this topic if you squint: if an organization, or a group of organizations develop some degree of authority over people that rivals the government's in some way, they they should face similar restrictions to that power in cases where people have rights protecting the government from going too far. Arguing that freedom of speech laws apply to private media platforms is legally wrong, but if a collection of media companies could be argued to have a degree of control...


...nope. That's as far I've taken this half-baked idea. I tried.

Yep.

Private company Facebook-given credit by some as having way more power and influence than they actually do - has never stifled anybody?s free speech ever-not once.

They never stifled my free speech and here I am to prove it on the DSF.

Tigermud proves his free speech here on the DSF and most probably on numerous other platforms everyday.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not saying that at all. point is, throwing around these labels doesn't describe the reality of the situation at all or who's in charge

actually, it describes the reality to a T. Pointing out that the physics department does some work for defense companies doesn't invalidate the fact that the campus, like the majority of campuses is controlled by liberals and leftists.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yep.

Private company Facebook-given credit by some as having way more power and influence than they actually do - has never stifled anybody?s free speech ever-not once.

They never stifled my free speech and here I am to prove it on the DSF.

Tigermud proves his free speech here on the DSF and most probably on numerous other platforms everyday.

Isn't actually the case that they have stifled free speech but it's not against the law for them to do it?

Also, re: gulo's point, isn't there a point where they exert a certain level of control over the content and at that point they actually become publishers or a "news" outlet? I seem to recall that being a sticking point for them and whether they were one or the other determined whether they were legally allowed to censor people. It came up after Zuckerberg testified before congress and let slip that they control content and it was supposedly some "gotcha" moment but I don't recall if it had to do with censorship or something else. Where's mc? I need some research.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Isn't actually the case that they have stifled free speech but it's not against the law for them to do it?

No.

The case is Facebook doesn?t stifle free speech at all - exactly as I said in what you quoted.

Facebook?s power is illusory - except possibly in a counterintuitive way; anytime they take an action against a poster it generally provides more access than they otherwise would have had.

I don?t use metaphors of Mao Tse Tung everyday; but that said, Facebook is a paper tiger.

Candace Owens spoke directly to the Congress of the United States - Facebook didn?t cause that to happen and Facebook didn?t stop that from happening.

Anyway I?ve already made this point about Facebook a bunch of times.

EDIT: Just checked; the metaphor ?paper tiger? apparently predates Mao by centuries.

So that?s cool.

 

[Michchamp]

actually, it describes the reality to a T. Pointing out that the physics department does some work for defense companies doesn't invalidate the fact that the campus, like the majority of campuses is controlled by liberals and leftists.

do you know what the word "control" means?

 

[tinselwolverine]

It?s funny, I still own the website disassociatedpress.com, and maybe the reason I haven?t revived it is because I get too much satisfaction out of writing satire here that I?ve gotten lazy.

I just thought of a really funny article-?Facebook Declares Bankruptcy in the Wake of Grumpy Cat?s Death? - maybe I should get onto writing that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Isn't actually the case that they have stifled free speech but it's not against the law for them to do it?

Also, re: gulo's point, isn't there a point where they exert a certain level of control over the content and at that point they actually become publishers or a "news" outlet? I seem to recall that being a sticking point for them and whether they were one or the other determined whether they were legally allowed to censor people. It came up after Zuckerberg testified before congress and let slip that they control content and it was supposedly some "gotcha" moment but I don't recall if it had to do with censorship or something else. Where's mc? I need some research.

You could call them a news outlet, sure. Or we could be talking about a news outlet instead of facebook. If you imagine some population that gets all their speech from one place, you could say an age bracket that only looks at certain websites, or imagine some fictional megacorp that completely takes over some small area of the country, should their responsibility (or alternately, our rights) increase as their power increases? It's not really a new thing. ABC, NBC, and CBS News used to have a huge amount of press power and in theory, the FCC was supposed to enforce a 'Fairness Doctrine'.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It's not really a new thing. ABC, NBC, and CBS News used to have a huge amount of press power and in theory, the FCC was supposed to enforce a 'Fairness Doctrine'.

But not really.

The FCC was ?supposed to? enforce the Fairness Doctrine according to itself.


In 1987, the DC Court of Appeals found that the ?fairness doctrine? was not mandated by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, and was therefore not required to be enforced.

The case was Meredith Corp. v. the FCC.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But not really.

The FCC was ?supposed to? enforce the Fairness Doctrine according to itself.


In 1987, the DC Court of Appeals found that the ?fairness doctrine? was not mandated by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, and was therefore not required to be enforced.

The case was Meredith Corp. v. the FCC.

That's fair

Half-baked idea --> half-baked law

 

[tinselwolverine]

That's fair

Half-baked idea --> half-baked law

Exactly.

Fair.

It was supposed to give access to libtards and Republitards both.

Turns out, one can?t shut either libtards nor Republitards up anyway, no matter what.

So, fair.

 

[Spartanmack]

You could call them a news outlet, sure. Or we could be talking about a news outlet instead of facebook. If you imagine some population that gets all their speech from one place, you could say an age bracket that only looks at certain websites, or imagine some fictional megacorp that completely takes over some small area of the country, should their responsibility (or alternately, our rights) increase as their power increases? It's not really a new thing. ABC, NBC, and CBS News used to have a huge amount of press power and in theory, the FCC was supposed to enforce a 'Fairness Doctrine'.

now i remember or at least i think i do - it wasnt a fairness doctrine or free speech issue - i think it was that if their actions indicated they controlled content they could be responsible for copyright infringement and/or held to more stingent regulatuons around advertising by their users or something like that.

 

[Spartanmack]

do you know what the word "control" means?

zing! turd for the win!

 

[Spartanmack]

No.

The case is Facebook doesn?t stifle free speech at all - exactly as I said in what you quoted.

Facebook?s power is illusory - except possibly in a counterintuitive way; anytime they take an action against a poster it generally provides more access than they otherwise would have had.

I don?t use metaphors of Mao Tse Tung everyday; but that said, Facebook is a paper tiger.

Candace Owens spoke directly to the Congress of the United States - Facebook didn?t cause that to happen and Facebook didn?t stop that from happening.

Anyway I?ve already made this point about Facebook a bunch of times.

EDIT: Just checked; the metaphor ?paper tiger? apparently predates Mao by centuries.

So that?s cool.

i disagree - i think they are clearly stifling free speech or just speech, but they have a right to do it. i think its stupid and bad business, but they have the right to do it. its a form of legal discrimination.

 

[tinselwolverine]

now i remember or at least i think i do - it wasnt a fairness doctrine or free speech issue - i think it was that if their actions indicated they controlled content they could be responsible for copyright infringement by their posters or something like that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm....

That sounds a little wack.

Somebody voluntarily posts their own work on Facebook... and subjects Facebook to copyright infringement?

Or somebody?s work gets banned by Facebook?and subjects Facebook to copyright infringement?

What am I missing here?

 

[tigermud]

What your missing is that big tech and the left are both in agreement with censoring speech and labeling anything they don?t agree with as hate speech, they are following the chicom social credit score model it?s total authoritarianism and if our far lefty dem candidates gain control of the office and both houses this will become gumbit backed policy and legislation IMO. Harris has already publicly stated she?s on broad with it all.

Just because we all have normalcy bias and think the USA is immune to it all doesn?t make us immune

https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all/

There are barbarians at the door and trump is trying to prevent clown world order from taking over.