- 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: It appears that Zuckerberg lied to Congress
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:08 am to olddawg26
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:08 am to olddawg26
quote:
Where exactly do you get your pre picked out fake news
CNBC Aug 17, one of a zillion
Since your Google is obviously broken, why don't you take this story and shove it up your arse?
1
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:21 am to gthog61
quote:You said:
Since your Google is obviously broken, why don't you take this story and shove it up your arse?
quote:And your evidence of this is:
The leftists were holding him up as a great president hopeful.
quote:
More signs point to Mark Zuckerberg possibly running for president in 2020
quote:Look I know I’m a poor poster, but you’re absolutely terrible. All you do is insult others. Pathetic really.
why don't you take this story and shove it up your arse?
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 7:22 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:23 am to djmicrobe
quote:
Congress can create a law to fine companies for many infractions, such as, discrimination. FB is discriminating against conservatives by falsely claiming conservatives are a "danger to the community".
FB is allowing real dangers to the community to go unimpeded.
..so yes, Congress could pass a law fining a company that discriminates against a certain group of people.
Aren't libs against discrimination?
Its unfortunate people didnt have these ideas when Net Neutrality was being discussed.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:54 am to djmicrobe
quote:
This is a violation of Freedom of speech. The FB platform is a Freedom of speech platform.
lol no
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:56 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
It was a business decision to remove a page visited by millions of people without a specific reason for the removal? Sounds like a really smart business decision.
it may or may not be a smart business decision, but it's not censorship or a freedom of speech issue.
Facebook has a right to associate with who they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:58 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Facebook has a right to associate with who they wish for whatever reason they wish.
So if you dont like it just go build another platform.
I love liberals
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:03 am to SDVTiger
quote:
So if you dont like it just go build another platform.
I love liberals
suddenly not so free market anymore, eh? I love fake conservatives who claim to value limited government until they don't
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:09 am to CleverUserName
Yep - another public fraud just like Clinton
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:12 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I love fake conservatives
Im a conservative?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:15 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:19 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
He wasn't under oath.
I am not familiar with "being under oath" but I've always thought that you had to be under an investigation to be placed under oath. If government can force you to testify under oath without their being any cause, what's the point of the 1A?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:19 am to djmicrobe
quote:
Zuck claims that FB has contacted Diamond and Silk. DS says FB has NOT contacted them. Was Zuck under oath? Can Congress have him arrested for perjury? He told a blatant lie when he was on the hotseat.
Approx 45 Obama people are now working at FB.
Should Congress pass a law to fine FB up to $1 million per day for reducing traffic to a FB page or removing a person's FB page if an investigation proves there was no just cause;therefore, FB discriminated against a person(s)?
This is a violation of Freedom of speech. The FB platform is a Freedom of speech platform.
DS has a right for other people to hear their voice. FB is discriminating against DS because they are conservative.
LINK
Cruz said that “there are a great many Americans who, I think, are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship.” Cruz noted that Diamond and Silk, sisters who have become famous for their pro-Trump videos, recently said that their Facebook page was blocked after the site determined it to be “unsafe to the community.”
Wow this is crazy and melty.
Right now it's just a he-said-she-said. I don't know why that makes you so certain that he's the one that's lying here. Never mind. I think I do know why. It's because you want so badly to believe that it's true.
quote:
Approx 45 Obama people are now working at FB.
Facebook hires Talent.
quote:
Should Congress pass a law to fine FB up to $1 million per day for reducing traffic to a FB page or removing a person's FB page if an investigation proves there was no just cause;therefore, FB discriminated against a person(s)?
No.
quote:
This is a violation of Freedom of speech.
Nope.
quote:
DS has a right for other people to hear their voice. FB is discriminating against DS because they are conservative.
I thought it was because of all their videos talking about pizzagate and crap like that.
Actually think their videos should stay just so we can have their existence on permanent record so everybody can laugh at it in about 10 years.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 8:37 am to djmicrobe
quote:
This is a violation of Freedom of speech. The FB platform is a Freedom of speech platform.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:14 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Two issues: 1. the word altogether
It doesn't even come into play...
The fact is the SCOTUS agreed 100% that social media and the ability to be on it falls under the 1st Amendment.
quote:
2. more importantly, this was regarding a case of the GOVERNMENT limiting access to social media
That's right. It is. REGARDLESS it now labels social media as a free speech platform. Like it or not.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:16 am to LSURussian
quote:
Look, dumbass, that case was about the government forbidding certain people, like sex offenders, from accsessing social media. It wasn't about the social media provider limiting accsess by certain people.
I know exactly what the case was about. It still establishes that the SCOTUS see's access to Social Media as free speech.
IF you don't get that, you are the dumbass.
Now would you like to address the issue of section 230?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:18 am to CleverUserName
Yes, it was political theater and nothing else.
Anybody who spent one minute watching it had totally wasted one minute of their lives because nothing said means anything.
Anybody who spent one minute watching it had totally wasted one minute of their lives because nothing said means anything.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:20 am to djmicrobe
Should anyone be surprised?
Hell he even lied about creating Facebook
Hell he even lied about creating Facebook
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:20 am to Scrowe
quote:
Hopefully they lose this, their neutrality is in question with the actions they have taken with account closures, post blocking, and an employee termination.
That's right. They have become the publisher and there are responsible for anything that happens now.
Lot's of lawsuits.......
Posted on 4/12/18 at 3:39 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
It doesn't even come into play...
The fact is the SCOTUS agreed 100% that social media and the ability to be on it falls under the 1st Amendment.
quote:
2. more importantly, this was regarding a case of the GOVERNMENT limiting access to social media
That's right. It is. REGARDLESS it now labels social media as a free speech platform. Like it or not.
I reread Packingham this AM and it simply doesn't say what you think it says. There is no question social media can be a free speech platform, however, the court is simply saying the government can't deny the right of one (even a convicted felon) the right to use the various free speech platforms on the internet. Edit: I should have added for completeness that Alito, Thomas and Roberts noted in their concurring opinion that there could be situations where restricting the access to certain sites might be reasonable.
The 1A covers the government limiting free speech and this is what Packingham is all about. You either can't understand the 1A, can't understand the opinion or you are so blinded by your desires you simply see what you want to see.
Note in the opinion Kennedy wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." Again the key is government. The court simply noted that the internet is a place where free speech can/does exist but nowhere in the opinion did it place any requirement on internet platforms to allow all of what could be considered free speech.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 4/12/18 at 3:42 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
He wasn't under oath.
Doesn't matter ... it's still a Federal crime to lie to Congress. Being under oath has no bearing on that fact.
He committed a crime right in front of God and everybody on national TV and he should be brought-up on charges of lying to Congress.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News