- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Facebook bans Trump indefinitely from the platform
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:38 am to TROLA
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:38 am to TROLA
quote:
Brain dead as usual from a man and company who've benefitted so much from freedom of speech.. Once again proving they dont get or just dont care about the opposing view
If you would've told me 10 years ago that the left would use multinational corporations and big business to threaten and coerce the public into submission out of fear of ruination, I would've told you that you were insane.
2
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:38 am to goofball
quote:
Big Tech has been trying to censor non-progressives for years. Trump in particular.
Yep. Squeeze out any sort of conservative though now that they are the main influencers of information dissemination.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:38 am to caro81
quote:Had you read beyond six posts you would see that is widely (though not universally) understood and that the debate is centered around "should they" not "can they".
only read like six posts in and getting general jist of this thread. facebook, private company, twitter, private company. They can ban whatever they want. free speech has not be violated. Trump i sable to say what he wants. the platforms he chooses is up to him, and said platforms dont support it, they can deny.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:39 am to Salmon
quote:
like trying to define them as "information monopolies" or something?
Perhaps. I just don't see why it has to be a blanket application of the law. Only that it applies to certain platforms.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:39 am to hikingfan
another reason to think social media sucks
They are activists
They are activists
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:40 am to LarryDavid
quote:great choice guys
The guy with the codes to the nukes is deemed too dangerous for a twitter or facebook account
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:40 am to Salmon
quote:I thought the same exact thing when I saw some people mention the 25th amendment
This will definitely calm people that think they are being ignored or disenfranchised.
Good job Twitter/Facebook.
Self awareness is dead.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:41 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
great choice guys
At least biden can't remember the codes, so that should keep the world safe.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:41 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Yep. Squeeze out any sort of conservative though now that they are the main influencers of information dissemination.
It's funny how the reaction to people being upset about this was "well, go start your own twitter" so people start parler and the left is screaming about shutting them down too.
One thing I've learned is that you can't give these people an inch because it's never good enough.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:42 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
230 keeps them from having to censor.
It also grants them the right to censor
quote:
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:43 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I just don't see why it has to be a blanket application of the law. Only that it applies to certain platforms.
I mean, for legal purposes, you are going to have come up for a legit reason why you are punishing just certain platforms
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:46 am to Salmon
quote:
I mean, for legal purposes, you are going to have come up for a legit reason why you are punishing just certain platforms
This post was edited on 1/7/21 at 10:47 am
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:47 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I know.
well I think that is the reason why its kinda all or nothing, no?
nobody has come up with a good enough way to distinguish certain platforms that wouldn't have other unattended consequences
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:49 am to upgrayedd
quote:
It's funny how the reaction to people being upset about this was "well, go start your own twitter" so people start parler and the left is screaming about shutting them down too.
I am baffled at how people that claim to be liberal fight so hard against opposing speech.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:50 am to dewster
quote:
You can't be a real liberal and stills support censorship like this. It's a massively conflicting view.
Because they aren't "Liberals", baw. They are Communists. The sad part is a lot of them are Communists and they don't even know it.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:50 am to Salmon
quote:
well I think that is the reason why its kinda all or nothing, no?
nobody has come up with a good enough way to distinguish certain platforms that wouldn't have other unattended consequences
I'm not sure.
Perhaps no one has challenged it in the correct way or actually challenged it at all.
I know congress has looked at it several times, but those buffoons have no clue how social media works. One thing is clear, though. Twitter and FB are safe from congress for the next 4 years. The democrats would never give up their most valuable weapon.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:52 am to hikingfan
He should have self banned himself 4 years ago, then he wouldnt have nearly the issues he's had.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:52 am to member12
quote:
I am baffled at how people that claim to be liberal fight so hard against opposing speech.
I'm pro business, etc. But when businesses can gang up on a person who the media has deemed "out of line" and "de-person" that individual, then there's a pretty significant problem.
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:53 am to hikingfan
Welcome to China
Posted on 1/7/21 at 10:53 am to Salmon
So we should all be outraged whenever an admin here bans a poster?
Cause their "freedom of speech" has been violated?
Like it or not...FB and Twitter are private companies and can do whatever they want in determining who does/doesn't use their platforms.
I thought most of you were all about private companies being able to do what they wanted?
Cause their "freedom of speech" has been violated?
Like it or not...FB and Twitter are private companies and can do whatever they want in determining who does/doesn't use their platforms.
I thought most of you were all about private companies being able to do what they wanted?
Page 4 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News