- 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: Tim Poole responds to “muh private company” defense of social media giants
Posted on 5/5/19 at 2:26 pm to FlexDawg
Posted on 5/5/19 at 2:26 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
Facebook is no threat to conservative thought nor do they have a monopoly.
What fantasy land do you live in?
In fairness, Myspace still exists. If conservatives, libertarians, and old school liberals started using it again in large numbers it would be a viable alternative.
0
Posted on 5/5/19 at 2:26 pm to Stingray
OMG
Loosen up that “Tim” foil
Loosen up that “Tim” foil
This post was edited on 5/5/19 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 5/5/19 at 2:31 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
OMG
Loosen up that Tim foil
Just saying, there is a bit a fascism.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 2:35 pm to Stingray
There will be if you have your way and the President can dictate what media content is permissible.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:32 pm to Kino74
quote:If the state allows for such a thing. Running a business isn’t a first amendment right.
Can a Baker ban sales of wedding cakes because their religion believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:32 pm to Shiftyplus1
quote:
Can you imagine if 30 years ago, Ma Bell cut your service off for espousing conservative beliefs over the phone?
This should just be posted over and over. If the 1st Amendment is the means by which the thought police snuff out alternative ideas, something has gone horribly wrong.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:38 pm to xiv
quote:
If the state allows for such a thing. Running a business isn’t a first amendment right.
The first amendment is incorporated. Government forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs is against the first amendment.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:43 pm to Gr8t8s
But you can sue a private company for not making a same sex wedding cake?? Guess the left picks and chooses who they want the government to get
This post was edited on 5/5/19 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:44 pm to Kino74
quote:Nobody is forced to run a business.
Government forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs is against the first amendment.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:49 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
He is a short sighted idiot. What would he want AOC or Bernie to do with these powers he wants the President to have?
You are a short sighted idiot.
What makes u think the Democrats need some sort of precedent to justify anything they do?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 3:51 pm to xiv
quote:
obody is forced to run a business.
You mean like the tech guys who are engaging in Political campaigning for one side?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:01 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
What fantasy land do you live in?
A fantasy land of MySpace getting dethroned, AOL and AIM getting dethroned, the Chive falling down, Reddit, and all of these other social media giants existing with Facebook. I'm all for eliminating the barriers to entry so other companies can get into the market, but the idea that they are monopolies is a little ridiculous.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:10 pm to Lsupimp
Yea attacking them as antitrust is the way to go. These tech giants control their own markets and there is no alternative. The same rules should not apply to them. I’m all for free markets and business owners being able to do as they please. But a corporation should have to abide by different rules, and a monopoly cannot be allowed to dictate everything, as that is not really a “free market”
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:26 pm to xiv
quote:
Nobody is forced to run a business.
Maybe you missed this part:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assembleand to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Apparently it doesn't matter where nor does it say or imply business.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:31 pm to Kino74
The running of a business is not the practicing of a religion. If it was, it would be unconstitutional to tax businesses.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:38 pm to oogabooga68
If Facebook dropped every conservative on their site or every liberal I would not care.
Why should I?
I don’t like this dictator rhetoric Trump is using in an attempt to force the private company Facebook to conform to his wishes on content.
Why should I?
I don’t like this dictator rhetoric Trump is using in an attempt to force the private company Facebook to conform to his wishes on content.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:41 pm to xiv
quote:
The running of a business is not the practicing of a religion. If it was, it would be unconstitutional to tax businesses.
But when that “business” becomes a defacto Political advocacy group that relies on publicly owned utilities to deliver its propaganda , then We have to have a different conversation.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:42 pm to oogabooga68
Why do I see ads for JBE and Abraham on Facebook?
Why would a company whose business is selling advertising want to run off users???
Why would a company whose business is selling advertising want to run off users???
Posted on 5/5/19 at 4:42 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I don’t like this dictator rhetoric Trump is using in an attempt to force the private company Facebook to conform to his wishes on content.
If Trump wants to add laws, assuming anti-trust, doesn’t apply, I don’t like it. I’m for less government. Like removing the government granted immunity these platforms enjoy because they claim to not be able to police content on their platforms.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News