Facebook extends Trump's ban to 2 years, resolves to be harsher on politicians

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[captaincranky]

Partisans and ideologues are mental slaves. Both parties and every politician is corrupt.

No, politicians are narcissistic sociopaths."Men of faith", are pathological liars as well.
The inherent greed, thievery, and rampant corruption, are just percs of the job, as well as being only a part of the overarching psychopathy.

 

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[wiyosaya]

I don't care about your 1st amendment. When I comment on story, it is how I think thing should work, not how they work in your country.

My understanding of this situation, this politician was not convict guilty of any crime by your government. But Facebook is ban politician. Does this not seem like election manipulation? It does to unbias outsider. That is tricky thing about democracy. You don't have democracy if you manipulate politics because you don't agree or like a candidate. Everyone want to blame Russia for election manipulation through Facebook, but it ok when Facebook manipulate election through Facebook?

Trump, at this point, is a private citizen, not a politician. Thus he is subject to the same policy rules on platforms like Fakebook and Tweeter as other private citizens are.

 

[captaincranky]

You come off like you think you said something very profound. You didn't and neither did I. I however got to the point succinctly while you bloviated.

Wow, you post better than me. Whoopee. (If you don't mind saying so yourself).

BTW, "mental slaves" to who? (If you don't mind me asking)

"Blovated", Oh look, that's so cute, you learned a new word..

 

[captaincranky]

Trump, at this point, is a private citizen, not a politician. Thus he is subject to the same policy rules on platforms like Fakebook and Tweeter as other private citizens are.

Nuh, uh, uh, Trump is coming back by August.

(I'm trying to switch sides and gain a stroke).

I wish somebody would have warned me about the SJW Convention being in town.

 

[wiyosaya]

Nuh, uh, uh, Trump is coming back by August.

(I'm trying to switch sides and gain a stroke).

I wish somebody would have warned me about the SJW Convention being in town.

So he thinks, and so are those two senators that got voted out of where was it? GA?

In the future, , I suggest that SJW convention = TS article on most any conservative being banned from Fakebook, or, for that matter, any "social media platform" banning any conservative "voice."

 

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[captaincranky]

So he thinks, and so are those two senators that got voted out of where was it? GA?

Well you know all "the Donald" has to do, is call their attorney general and tell him to, "find the votes". You know, real subtle like.

In the future, , I suggest that SJW convention = TS article on most any conservative being banned from Fakebook, or, for that matter, any "social media platform" banning any conservative "voice."

By, "social media platform", do mean one of those personal data mining and sale operations"?

Donald Trump is so smart, and Kim Kardashian's a** is so big. I wish I was as smart as Mr.Trump, and my a** was as big as Kim's.

I'm on the verge, the very brink, sign me up..

 

[NightAntilli]

Bullcrap. You want oppression? Go down that slippery slope of telling companies like Fakebook and Tweeter what they can and cannot have posted on their platforms. Pretty soon after that, the government will be telling you what you can and cannot say about the government itself, and Bang, there you have the US being exactly like communist China.

Seems like you agree... Trying to control what is allowed to be said is a recipe for disaster.
But because you dislike Trump, suddenly you want an exception....

But conservatives are all up in arms because they think they are being slighted, so they want the constitution changed because it now offends their sensibilities. IMO, conservatives should pull their heads out of their a$$es and realize that in a country like the US, laws apply to everyone and not just when they are convenient for them.

I have no interest in your shallow US-biased conservative vs liberal ramblings. Again, this goes beyond that. You seem to grasp it, but somehow you can't apply it outside of the US-based political spectrum.

 

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[captaincranky]

I have no interest in your shallow US-biased conservative vs liberal ramblings.

You say that, but you don't mean it.

You argue for the sport of it to no end point..

Donald Trump is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. (If he hasn't already had one and it's ongoing)..

Do you really think that Facebook has the obligation to allow him to publish the concepts that, "if it didn't come out of my mouth it's a lie". Or, how about, If it didn't come out of my mouth it's fake news". I'm really won the election, the Democrats stole it from. He's a classless, vulgar, rude, buffoon, and IMO Facebook has not only the right, but the obligation, to withdraw his ability to use the site as a platform for his perpetual lying.

And that's whether you like it, or not. You're using bizarre, broad brushstrokes of idealism, to support a rather flimsy ideology

 

[NightAntilli]

Your second fact is not a fact; rather, it seems to be an interpretation of a recent news article that said that Biden has ordered an investigation into the origin of COVID-19. Biden is not saying that the virus originated in the lab; he is just saying he wants the origin of COVID-19 investigated. https://apnews.com/f98d73476a1a4942ca5528fa5dfff70f The investigation is consistent with what other scientists are saying, and unlike Trump, Biden is not insisting that it did originate in a Wuhan lab. Unlike Trump, Biden is looking for the truth and Biden is not looking for the truth to be what he imagines the truth is - as Trump always does. Trump's truth is founded in his delusional imagination.

And as to your Fact 1, Trump insisted, as opposed to presenting irrefutable evidence, that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab, if not in fact, then it was by his persistent references to things like the Kung Flu. Trump has a habit of insisting that things are true when he has no evidence. Take, for example, that he is no longer president. He claims the election was stolen from him, and in numerous court cases, could present no credible evidence of his theories of the election being stolen.

Literally anything taken that comes from the mouth of Trump as fact, is, based on Trumps prior lies, a lie.

I suspect that Trump persistently lies is a big part of the reason Fakebook banned him.

Obviously, I simplified the situation. But the point is still exactly the same. You're just arguing semantics, because you don't like the argument.

People were being banned from the likes of Facebook for even considering the idea that the virus originated from the Wuhan Lab. No matter how legitimate the arguments or concerns, they were dismissed because Trump was loud and said something similar.
If those same people would say the exact same thing now, they would not be banned. You don't see that as a problem? It's easy to blame everything on Trump, because everyone loves to look for a scapegoat. But Trump is not the issue.

It all stands on section 230 of the communications decency act, where corporations are not liable for what users post, but at the same time have the freedom to censor whatever they don't like. If that is not a recipe for oppression, I don't know what is.

This policy by Facebook has nothing to do with doing the right thing or keeping politicians in check. It has everything to do with controlling the thoughts of the masses. It's about directing what is allowed to be talked about and what isn't; The exact thing you claim that can be a big problem.

You say that, but you don't mean it.

You argue for the sport of it to no end point..

I'm not the one constantly bringing up Trump as the focal point of the argument.

Do you really think that Facebook has the obligation to allow him to publish the concepts that, "if it didn't come out of my mouth it's a lie". Or, how about, If it didn't come out of my mouth it's fake news". I'm really won the election, the Democrats stole it from. He's a classless, vulgar, rude, buffoon, and IMO Facebook has not only the right, but the obligation, to withdraw his ability to use the site as a platform for his perpetual lying.

Right there. You are pro censoring things that you don't like. THAT is the problem.

 

[scavengerspc]

Facebook is global. Facebook policy is global. It is not policy for only one politician. It is not policy for only one country.

Absolutely 100% not true. Like any company, Facebook suits its policy based on local laws and regulations.

 

[captaincranky]

Obviously, I simplified the situation. But the point is still exactly the same. You're just arguing semantics, because you don't like the argument.

People were being banned from the likes of Facebook for even considering the idea that the virus originated from the Wuhan Lab. No matter how legitimate the arguments or concerns, they were dismissed because Trump was loud and said something similar.
If those same people would say the exact same thing now, they would not be banned. You don't see that as a problem? It's easy to blame everything on Trump, because everyone loves to look for a scapegoat. But Trump is not the issue.

It all stands on section 230 of the communications decency act, where corporations are not liable for what users post, but at the same time have the freedom to censor whatever they don't like. If that is not a recipe for oppression, I don't know what is.

This policy by Facebook has nothing to do with doing the right thing or keeping politicians in check. It has everything to do with controlling the thoughts of the masses. It's about directing what is allowed to be talked about and what isn't; The exact thing you claim that can be a big problem.


I'm not the one constantly bringing up Trump as the focal point of the argument.


Right there. You are pro censoring things that you don't like. THAT is the problem.

My, that certainly is a long post.

Consider this, if someone had had the good sense to censor Adolf Hitler, we wouldn't have had WWII.

 

[captaincranky]

Absolutely 100% not true. Like any company, Facebook suits its policy based on local laws and regulations.

But they base themselves where they'll pay the least in taxes.

Very true. Wasn't Google at one point developing a censored version of its search engine for China?

 

[scavengerspc]

The Democrats and big tech have basically declared war on conservatism and the GOP.

I don't think you noticed, but conservatives in general and the GOP as a whole has declared war on each other. The Dems have never been as much the problem for them as poisonous ideas and a total lack of future strategy for decades. They don't have plans, and they don't know what they want. All they have had is what they don't want.

 

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[scavengerspc]

But they base themselves where they'll pay the least in taxes.

Very true. Wasn't Google at one point developing a censored version of its search engine for China?

Could be, I dont really know much about this but I do know there are only 3 countries in the world that has banned them.

 

[scavengerspc]

Both sides in-fight. Your other point I agree with to an extent, but conservatism itself dictates this trajectory more than that the GOP is a neutered failure. Hence why I referred to it as a stain that needs to be erased.

I agree about the infighting, but damn man it has gone to a new level with the right.
I have never made it a secret that I am left of center, but it is still concerning to me. America needs a strong Democratic and Republican Party.

 

[captaincranky]

Both sides in-fight. Your other point I agree with to an extent, but conservatism itself dictates this trajectory more than that the GOP is a neutered failure. Hence why I referred to it as a stain that needs to be erased.

I don't think you can effectively separate "the GOP", from "conservatism", in any meaningful way.

They're certainly not going to go away, nor are they likely to do anything but try to obstruct the Democrats.

If one breaks ranks toward liberalism, the rest of the wolf pack turns on him.

 

[captaincranky]

I have never made it a secret that I am left of center, but it is still concerning to me. America needs a strong Democratic and Republican Party.

At this point I settle for somewhere in the vicinity of sane.

 

[NightAntilli]

My, that certainly is a long post.

Consider this, if someone had had the good sense to censor Adolf Hitler, we wouldn't have had WWII.

Flip that perspective... What if you look at who/what enabled Adolf Hitler to get so much power instead? Because ultimately, he didn't do all that on his own. He had a whole following that thought it was a good idea to 'censor' a certain group of people... You know... Kind of like how we like to 'cancel' people nowadays. Or how we are creating two classes of citizens depending on whether they are vaccinated or not... Or how we have started beating people up for not wearing a mask... Or whether someone likes AMD or nVidia... And so on and so on...

It's because of their blind spot that people fall into atrocities, not because of what they do see. Everyone that followed Hitler thought they were on the right side at the time. In hindsight everyone thinks they would have done things differently. But when everyone is in the middle of it, they exert the exact same behavior as those that followed Hitler.
You see it in the ones wanting to ban cryptocurrencies and miners so they can have cheaper graphics cards. You see it in the ones wanting to censor one political side and not the other. You see it in the ones wanting to believe only the likes of Snopes and calling everyone that questions the main narrative 'conspiracy theorists'.

Labels are dangerous. All I can say is, thread carefully, because you're walking a VERY fine line already. And just to quote... "Nobody can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it for yourself".

 

[pcnthuziast]

~deleted by author~

 

[captaincranky]

Flip that perspective... What if you look at who/what enabled Adolf Hitler to get so much power instead? Because ultimately, he didn't do all that on his own. He had a whole following that thought it was a good idea to 'censor' a certain group of people... You know... Kind of like how we like to 'cancel' people nowadays. Or how we are creating two classes of citizens depending on whether they are vaccinated or not... Or how we have started beating people up for not wearing a mask... Or whether someone likes AMD or nVidia... And so on and so on...

It's because of their blind spot that people fall into atrocities, not because of what they do see. Everyone that followed Hitler thought they were on the right side at the time. In hindsight everyone thinks they would have done things differently. But when everyone is in the middle of it, they exert the exact same behavior as those that followed Hitler.
You see it in the ones wanting to ban cryptocurrencies and miners so they can have cheaper graphics cards. You see it in the ones wanting to censor one political side and not the other. You see it in the ones wanting to believe only the likes of Snopes and calling everyone that questions the main narrative 'conspiracy theorists'.

Labels are dangerous. All I can say is, thread carefully, because you're walking a VERY fine line already. And just to quote... "Nobody can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it for yourself".

No, I'm not walking a fine line. Trump is dangerous because of his followers, der same as der Fuhrer. Wasn't January 6th enough to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?