Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Fail.

Yeah, maybe you should write an op-ed that has to be accepted because of the equal time rule.

UNITED STATES et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

Read it and learn something.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
The permission to post comes from Facebook when you accept their terms and conditions. The algorithms they use to flag posts also can get kicked up to an actual person for review.

Not really a complicated notion to comprehend if you aren't too busy being disingenuous.

I agree, so why are you constantly being disingenuous?

You apparently cannot comprehend the difference between a process whereby 'posts' are submitted as candidates for being published (an op-ed), and end user posts that are just posting things, none of which require any special pre-approval.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
...none of which require any special pre-approval.

The pre-approval is the terms and conditions.

Try posting about Holocaust denial here and see what happens.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl

The pre-approval is the terms and conditions.

BS - but whatever, you can pontificate and obfuscate all you want, I'm not interested in participating with your nonsense.

I mainly just wanted to point out your ridiculously inapplicable analogvy.

Carry on with the nonsense...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I mainly just wanted to point out your ridiculously inapplicable analogvy.

My analogvy is a good one, it's even a good analogy too, because the argument isn't about the opinion-removal mechanism, it's about removing the opinion.

Your opinion is moderated either way but feel free to think the process makes a difference.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You are still clinging to that one little scrap like its a life preserver. lmao

I already addressed that. I admitted I used it incorrectly, and explained what my original intent was.

Now, after all that, you are using it like a red herring. Its just an attempt to distract attention from the fact that I asked you two specific questions and you have still failed to answer either of them. Instead, you just keep regurgitating the same little cheerio of a life preserver your argument is desperately clinging to.

Asserting that you won the entire argument because you proved one semi-relevant point incorrect is a logical fallacy.

Its just sad dude...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You are still clinging to that one little scrap like its a life preserver.

Because it's correct. Call me when the Supreme Court applies your argument to specific internet websites.