Trump's Facebook ban upheld by Oversight Board

originally posted by: Trueman
would you have same opinion if fb bans Obama, Hillary or Pelosi???

I would. Then they should ban all people who even think about posting about politics. They should also punch you in the teeth for posting pics of your kids sitting in on your work Teams calls.

F***ing LinkedIn has gotten filled with political posts at this point, I want bans there, dammit, and I want them now.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LinkedIn should be renamed VirtueSignalingIn

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How people used to do that before fb?

I don't believe what you said is a good reason.

I think fb users mostly like to seek popularity.

In all fairness, you have stated that you don't and won't use it. It could be that you are just creating a motive out of thin air here.

Yes, i am sure the little dopamine hit they get from likes is something most folks enjoy. Thats well documented. But the entire purpose of FB is to connect family and friends. The platform is designed for that function.

If it was truly for just connecting to family and friends there would be no argument over whether Trump was banned or not because I doubt Trump used it to connect to his loved ones.

originally posted by: TXRabbit
LinkedIn should be renamed VirtueSignalingIn

I made a fake secondary account just to post what I really think about people's kids, dog and politics.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I made a fake secondary account just to post what I really think about people's kids, dog and politics.

Fantastic idea. I could have some real fun selecting "my" profile picture

a reply to: TXRabbit

Mine looks like a dude on fire carrying a guitar case.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Flattery gets you everywhere my friend

Course it was!

And, Id bet many of the same folks defending it as a "private business" dont apply the same defense for a baker not wanting to decorate a cake.

Still believe the answer is a scalable application of Constitutional principles. Meaning, we would determine leeway or strictness in this area according to scale and market share, restricting organizations that can essentially influence, direct, or otherwise manipulate the general population as if they have the resources & real world impact of a government.

In this respect, a baker in a big city with many bakers could choose as they wish. A baker in a region that doesnt have another baker for hundreds of miles would not be able to do so.

At the global end of the spectrum, specifically with Facebook, we would determine it according to how much they control the flow of information. Beyond the state of things now, Facebook also wants to be the sole point of access for the internet altogether in many regions. Many are ignorant of what these companies are doing rught now, up to and including thinking Google (Alphabet, Inc) is "merely" a search engine.

This is particularly relevant when other companies at the same scale are operating under similar premises (or exactly the same ones). Alphabet Inc, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.

On top of all that, we have the issue that many forms of modern interaction are predicated on prolonging engagement as much as possible through addictive processes. Meaning, a site like Facebook wants people spending as much as time possible there, and achieve this through addiction. Since extremely emotional content gets the most clicks, the results of this paradigm are predictable.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
And, Id bet many of the same folks defending it as a "private business" dont apply the same defense for a baker not wanting to decorate a cake.

This guy does. You should be able to discriminate against whoever you want.

I wont bother with your business if you're some sort of racist/bigoted asshole but you should be allowed to be as big a racist/bigoted asshole as you want. Own that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know you do The word "many" was doing some pretty heavy lifting in that sentence.

Like I said though, I believe it should be determined by scale. Where the so-called "free-market" decides in regions where it is applicable, and in areas where it cant, it is restricted in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.

For what its worth, I do understand the implications and process for actually making this a reality. I also understand that most have very little interest. I believe that these principles shouldnt need to be enshrined in any document, rather they should already be engrained into who & what we are as a civilization after hundreds of years.. but here we are. So, I approve of paradigms that work towards actually instilling a sense of "these truths being self-evident" regardless of social group, government, company, or corporation.

a reply to: Serdgiam

IMO it comes down to individual people and businesses. I truly don’t get why some people on the left and right want particular businesses to act a certain way. You don’t like the business then don’t support it and move on to the next.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: LSU2018

But they are diverse...
Seriously though.
Anyone that thinks an oversight board actually had a serious discussion about trump being reinstated is an idiot.

Absolutely 100% right. Trump's "trial" to get his ban lifted from facebook was probably about as fair as Chauvin's trial. I'm sure the three gargoyles (de)liberated for about half a nano-second before reaching their decision that Trump was still too mean and dangerous.

originally posted by: Bunch
a reply to: Serdgiam

IMO it comes down to individual people and businesses. I truly don’t get why some people on the left and right want particular businesses to act a certain way. You don’t like the business then don’t support it and move on to the next.

Exactly. I hate the Walmart in Shreveport so if I must go to Walmart, I'm going to the one in north Bossier City near the high dollar gated communities.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Big International Corporations acting like governments !!!


😵‍💫😮

Even the Mainstream Media has been suckered into thinking FaceBook is critical to Donald Trump's future political success.

Without Facebook - Trump is in serious trouble!: www.politico.com...

Idiot media is stuck in a time warp. Unable to evolve.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Byrd

I would argue that you can preach on public sidewalks without permits at a college because the college doesn't own the sidewalks. Now, there may be a municipal authority that necessitates a permit for such a thing, but a college cannot ban a single type of protected free speech, especially on a part of their property that they don't own.

You might argue that, but it doesn't fly. Colleges do indeed ban that sort of thing. And in fact they do own the sidewalks... along with the buildings and the land.

ETA: And like others have said and I forgot to mention, the current issue lies with these businesses (and colleges, per your example) not being able to single out an individual for one thing and banning them, yet letting groups like BLM or Antifa, who definitely use the same platforms to incite violent protests, get away with the same activity and not banning them. It's he selective adherence to their "policy" that is causing the uproar more than anything else, IMO.

Having been on college campuses recently, i can tell you that if BLM or other organizations showed up and started shouting they'd get the same treatment as the preacher. In fact, they'll throw their own sororities or fraternities off property if they don't have a permit for an activity and if they're disrupting the normal processes of the college.

originally posted by: Arizona2
a reply to: Byrd

Do you know what else is actually contained within the parameters of being a " private business'?
Big Pharma companies.
Yet left leaning individuals have a fit with the cost of epipens and insulin, as well as other drugs.
Does your love for the rights of private businesses extend to these companies as well, or is your love a one way street walked mostly by hypocrites?

Actually, I'm all for business regulations... having remembered well what was written in our history books about the big railroads and monopolies in the late 1800's. So I have no problem with Facebook banning Trump or with Trump setting up his own network and banning anyone they think is ANTIFA or BLM or the like.

a reply to: ATruGod


.And his Reaction is Priceless .........




TRUMP 2024 !

originally posted by: Bunch
a reply to: Serdgiam

IMO it comes down to individual people and businesses. I truly don’t get why some people on the left and right want particular businesses to act a certain way. You don’t like the business then don’t support it and move on to the next.

Im not really on either the left or right. My ideals may be more closely aligned to the marketed ideals of the left, but I believe the actual actions of the right are more likely to lead somewhere productive.

That being said, youll probably be finding out the "why" soon enough.

The argument of "dont like it, dont support it" might have had more merit a year or two ago, for obvious reasons. Even there, I feel its a somewhat obsolete notion when dealing with certain areas of scale (societal, economic, cultural, etc.).

Its the same reason we created monopoly laws, but in a significantly more impactful & duplicitous context. I can only assume that those who take issue with wanting businesses to act a certain way are also completely against breaking up monopolies in the traditional sense.

The biggest difference now is that we are dealing with massive umbrella companies that transcend one mere economic sector. I personally believe the problems run much more deeply than that, in terms of government funding and special interests.. But even on the face of it, it seems like a serious issue to me. The public face of many of these organizations is decentralized and obfuscated. I mean, most havent even heard of Alphabet, Inc. Once we consider legitimate addiction as part of the equation, I believe it changes circumstances as well.

As it stands, a corporate tyranny could emerge that is 100% legal. They wouldnt be able to do things like imprison/restrict dissidents or shut down bank accounts, at least not in the beginning. But as they gain more influence, the government begins to act as a proxy in many respects.

Its pretty much The Iron Law of Oligarchy in action.

By the time people realize that corporate interests and government have become one in the same.. They inherently will already control where/how to buy goods, where/how information is shared, where/how medicine is applied, even what results the scientific process churns out. Given the right event, this can quickly snowball into assuming total, absolute control.

Once "private businesses" gain enough ubiquity and influence in a region, the government can begin to act as a proxy (and a subservient one at that). Particularly if the bureaucracy gains more power than elected officials.

If we expand the terms out to simply competing "social groups," we pretty much see the same process of vying for power and control throughout history. Arguably (maybe), we can see many of these things happening here and now as well. The social groups just have different names.

I do understand that plenty have no issue with the eradication of smaller, more independent businesses. Or even larger ones that buckle under the pressure that can be brought to bear by the "corporate establishment." There are genuine benefits to it.

Personally, I think its an issue though. In the more general picture, I dont suddenly become a fan of a corporate boot on my face just because its marketed well & bedazzled

TL;DR: I suppose the most relevant questions are: do you believe a "private business" can gain too much power? Could bureaucrats and politicians ever use private business as a way to bypass Constitutional (or similar) restrictions, or vice versa? Overall, I would even argue that a strictly libertarian approach is untenable without effective means of decentralization at the individual household level. Which is exactly the direction that I, personally, want to go.

originally posted by: Byrd
You might argue that, but it doesn't fly. Colleges do indeed ban that sort of thing. And in fact they do own the sidewalks... along with the buildings and the land.

I suggest that you research that a bit more. Yes, sidewalks running through campus versus the ones adjacent to public streets can have different rules, but the way that you phrased your comment, it was safe to assume that you meant sidewalks along public streets and not the walkways that criss-cross the campus--and sidewalks adjacent to public streets are considered "public forums," not private property where a school could remove you (they would have to call police).

Having been on college campuses recently, i can tell you that if BLM or other organizations showed up and started shouting they'd get the same treatment as the preacher. In fact, they'll throw their own sororities or fraternities off property if they don't have a permit for an activity and if they're disrupting the normal processes of the college.

Now you're moving the goalpost to make you seem correct. Your original comment was discussing preaching on a sidewalk, not 'shouting on college campuses,' nor was it pertaining to organizations that exist on the campuses.

originally posted by: Byrd
...colleges can ban religious people from standing on the sidewalks and preaching without permits...

Well, having worked in the legal profession and having encountered this issue specifically, you simply are not correct except for an extreme minority of situations. Seriously, I suggest a bit deeper research into the topic before tripling down in another response. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this, but if the goal is to deny ignorance, I'm just doing my part.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, a college campus has gates usually their own police, and yes they own the sidewalks. I guess a small community college might use a public road but id say that's extremely rare. Any college like the one I work at indeed does control who and where they can assemble. People are regularly removed from our campus for unlawful assembly. You have to have a permit if you don't campus police remove you.