Link Banning? Liberals At Facebook Up the Ante on Suppression of Free Speech

@Ryannnnnn
Don't look now, but you are on SW.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Northwest Don't look now, but your asinine evasions are intellectually vacuous as ever. SW doesn't track your every move. SW doesn't require real names/identies and thus doesn't sell data about you to advertizers (or give it away to government). SW doesn't build vast databases on your online activities in order to generate and monetize personality profiles.

Your comparison of SW to Fedbook, much like your polemical style, is for shit.

@Theseus
Here's a hint: slapping a few words together, that sound interesting, does not necessarily make a coherent sentence. Yours certainly does not.


That means absolutely nothing. But, it shows that you have no clue how social network collect and use data.

I don't need to know who you are, to target you. It's called data science. Look it up. And, as a matter of fact, giving access to you, through advertising, is one of the ways they make money.


No organization provides data to the government voluntarily, A bit of advice for you though, the government can force an organization to provide any data it wants, via a court order. That's a fact of life.


Shit son, that's EXACTLY what they do. See the terms and conditions. They tell you there, that anything you put on the site, is theirs to use, for as long as it remains IN THEIR DATABASE.


Wake up pal, and smell the advertising. Perhaps you pay, and don't see ads, but those who don't pay, see ads. Here's how it works: SW has a contract, or contracts, with Google and others. Through Application Program Interfaces (APIs), they pass the information in your profile, even if it's fake, and everything you post, to these companies advertising engines. They in turn, push ads on your pages.

The fact that you make these claims, tells me that you have NO clue.


I'm curious, do you use a Thesaurus application, to make yourself sound interesting? I have some news for you, it's about as fake as you might imagine, when you take your head out of your ass.

As a matter of fact, and as I'm typing this, that very Facebook, is using the advertising interface, SW provides, to push ads on you. Wallow in your ignorance.

@AbbeyRhode oh the irony.

@JP1119 Great post! And yes, under the current perversion of capitalism wherein government-created corporations are given the rights of personhood, Fedbook can indeed censor content as it wishes...but BECAUSE corporations are birthed by, given rights by and protected by government, they act as extensions or arms OF government. (That's never been more true than in big tech.) As you aptly noted, only government (and obviously, its arms, extensions or agencies) is prohibited from censoring content.

And this is why the two issues are interlinked. As private companies (proprietorships), their respective owners can censor whatever they want. Public corporations, however, operate under the aegis of Government and thus cannot censor. Public corporations are GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

This issue is far, FAR bigger than anyone realizes. At its core is an underlying, yet wholly flawed assumption: that corporations are "persons" with rights guaranteed thereto by the Constitution.

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout its called 4chan, and 8 chan.
go have a look
also lets not forget

https://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy.

very illuminating

Not sure I follow.. if you don’t like these platforms don’t visit..
Has the world gone mad?@SatyrService

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout i was suggesting alternates for those that want a platform more in line with their views. there are many more if you like
I threw in the conservapedia link because we would all benefit from more attention to logic in our thought and language

@Cierzo Agreed, but "corporate capitalism" isn't capitalism at all. It's closer to Mussolinian corporatism or fascism.

@MistyCee FWIW, Pizzagate believers are morons. Fedbook users are morons. Twitter and Instagram users are a very special brand of moron!

Why anyone would VOLUNTEER to be tracked/spied on by everyone from government to Internet pervs and nutters of various stripe is completely beyond me!

@Theseus Well, I do it to keep an eye on my kids, but I'm not happy about doing it.

@MistyCee Even so, you and your kids understand that your keeping an eye on them is done in the context of love.

That love isn't replicated in/by Fedbook, et al.

@PrivateHell It's a gravity well for losers. People who couldn't get laid to save their lives are on Fedbook.

@Graylight This isn't the classic yelling fire in a crowded theater exception. This is a whole new genre of Constitutional law. As far as I (and you, apparently) know there is no precedent insofar as "hate speech" is concerned.

Now, for the purpose of this discussion, if you want to link "hate speech" to established precedent in re: the "fighting words" or "iminent harm" arguments (which in themselves are of dubious constitutionality), you'll have to cite specific cases/examples.

I do give you credit for researching the issue, though. That's ten times more than most do on this forum.

@easterniowegin IMO, this is an excellent point. Thus far no one has objectively defined what constitutes "hate speech." It's defined "on the fly" to suit the agenda of the definer.

@Theseus the framers left out an important part, huh: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" . . . . Unless you are saying something that a specific demographic doesn't agree with.
Lmao. I keep saying if someone is offended by something someone said, then the 1st A is working correctly