- 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
FB now helping laws pass (GUN CONTROL) by silencing people within states
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:24 pm
As you heard from Zuck's own mouth, he took credit for helping Doug Jones get elected by censoring people on FB.
NOW you are seeing them get involved in silencing people who are making people aware of things coming up for vote.....Like Gun control.
So what happens, They start banning groups that are pro the 2nd.
They blocked Oregon Firearms Federation founder and director Kevin Starrett from being able to post a few days ago.
No explanation.
LINK
NOW you are seeing them get involved in silencing people who are making people aware of things coming up for vote.....Like Gun control.
quote:
In Oregon, Initiative Petition 43 would ban 95% of the guns currently owned and require currently legal gun owners to turn in anything that would violate the new prospective law, while petition number 44 would result in grandpa being tossed in jail if someone steals his gun and uses it in a crime.
So what happens, They start banning groups that are pro the 2nd.
They blocked Oregon Firearms Federation founder and director Kevin Starrett from being able to post a few days ago.
No explanation.
LINK
5
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:25 pm to Jjdoc
You're obsessed with facebook
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:28 pm to Powerman
Almost as if he’s not in favor of companies working to restrict constitutional rights. Crazy concept.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:28 pm to Jjdoc
My only question is why anyone would have a FB account.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:29 pm to Jjdoc
Facebook is what World Government looks like, works it way into your life smoothly, very little discomfort to the anesthetized 
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:30 pm to Damone
quote:
Almost as if he’s not in favor of companies working to restrict constitutional rights.
If only companies could actually restrict constitutional rights.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 8:44 pm to Powerman
quote:
You're obsessed with facebook
Society is obsessed with Facebook, which makes their censorship a problem.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:15 pm to TerryDawg03
Exactly.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:19 pm to Powerman
quote:
You're obsessed with facebook
No...I'm Obsessed with freedom!
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:28 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
Society is obsessed with Facebook, which makes their censorship a problem.
What solution would you suggest?
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:31 pm to stat19
quote:
My only question is why anyone would have a FB account.
It's a pretty useful tool to keep up with friends and family.
But, you are so cool for having that stance
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:34 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
No...I'm Obsessed with freedom!
But not Facebook's freedom as a corporation, apparently. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against government interference in business -- hence their opposition to things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This thread seems to imply that the government should do something, which would require a new law drawing on the Commerce Clause (because political ideology is not covered in the aforementioned Civil Rights Act of 1964). This would, to say the least, be a somewhat hypocritical stance for any Republican or conservative to adopt.
So, and I ask this in all seriousness -- are you suggesting that we need a new law? If not, what are you suggesting we do about it?
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:39 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
quote:
Society is obsessed with Facebook, which makes their censorship a problem.
What solution would you suggest?
I don’t have a solution to the problem, but identifying the problem is one step closer.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:43 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
I thought conservatives were supposed to be against government interference in business -- hence their opposition to things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That was the democrats.
quote:
This thread seems to imply that the government should do something, which would require a new law drawing on the Commerce Clause (because political ideology is not covered in the aforementioned Civil Rights Act of 1964). This would, to say the least, be a somewhat hypocritical stance for any Republican or conservative to adopt.
No it wouldn't.
FB has violated sec 230 of CDA. They are now a publisher and should be subject to that.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:44 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
and I ask this in all seriousness -- are you suggesting that we need a new law? If not, what are you suggesting we do about i
I suggest the MSM report this and make everyone aware. Be sort of like a watchdog for the citizenry so that they may make an informed decision about using Facebook.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:52 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
FB has violated sec 230 of CDA. They are now a publisher and should be subject to that.
Admittedly, I am not an expert here. But a cursory search for CDA 230 shows it provides immunity to "interactive web services" for the speech of others. That means FB can't get in trouble for what people post on FB. However, I don't see how that means FB is unable to censor content.
Please explain how CDA 230 does that.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:52 pm to BRgetthenet
quote:
I suggest the MSM report this and make everyone aware. Be sort of like a watchdog for the citizenry so that they may make an informed decision about using Facebook.
That seems like a reasonable approach.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 9:54 pm to Powerman
quote:
You're obsessed with facebook
Did it slip your mind that you flamed for 5 pages about companies taking sides on the gun control question in another thread just minutes ago, or are you just severely touched?
Posted on 4/22/18 at 10:02 pm to TxTiger82
It gives them immunity under the assumption that they are neutral to the speech. By censoring certain users they are no longer neutral.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 10:43 pm to Jjdoc
There's no way either of those laws would pass constitutional muster
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News