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

[wiyosaya]

A) I’m not an american, put your shocked monkey away mate
B) What I’m talking about is similar to Common Carrier applied to telecommunications where there are higher standards for discrimination and refusal to serve customers etc, in return the service enjoys greater protections from liability

So if you are not an american, why are you pretending that you understand any iota of decided constitutional law in the US?

He is silenced on big public social platforms, which has a big effect on influence. Your disingenuity here (by pretending it doesn't do much) is hilarious, especially suggesting the media's political coverage is trustworthy.

But you're the type of person who doesn't care who's speech gets stifled as long as it's not your guy's. Your clear hatred of 1 man means that you're not only ok with it, but you blindly support it (no issues raised).
If it were flipped you would be howling about it

Anyways, if you won't even admit that these p̶u̶b̶l̶I̶s̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ platforms might've overstepped their bounds, there's no point responding to you further.

The current president is not the grade-school bully that the former president was, and, does not rule by tweet.

In any event, you have no case. Read the constitution, and quit pretending you care about it and what it represents because your guy lost. Get over it.

Let me fix that for you Twitter...they will be harsher on CONSERVATIVE politicians
until they become "woke".

Like liberals are not treated exactly the same by conservative venues. I would not get anywhere near a conservative platform, so I don't give a crap. Besides, the constitution applies to conservative platforms just like it does to Fakebook and Tweeter. Its law.

As I have said, it amazes me that those of you who pretend to support the constitution have no clue whatsoever about how it applies to US law.

If Fakebook says they will be harder on politicians, time will tell if they are. You people are accusing me of being OK with this ruling because it goes against some dolt I cannot stand.

What you fail to recognize is how the constitution applies in the matter, and it doesn't mean Jack Sh!t what I think, because the over-riding factor is the US Constitution and how it applies - not whether I care who's side feels like they are getting the sh!t end of the stick. I don't give a flying crap about Fakebook. I have never had a Fakebook account, and I never will. To me, its a POS platform for people who like to pretend they are important and have nothing better in life to do. I feel sorry for those addicted to the platform.

Just keep pretending that you guys give a crap about the US Constitution, and you will end up losing what you pretend to care about so much.

Even the new FL law that says that social media platforms cannot ban politicians was immediately challenged in court on the basis that it is unconstitutional. We'll see where that goes.

In the meantime, I wish you well in your land of alternate reality. I think you guys are angry simply because you have no say and you think there's a conspiracy going on against conservatives. To me, you're pathetic and will not understand, at all, until your voices destroy what you claim to care about.

 

[Xex360]

Facebook is a private company as such they are free to do whatever they want in their platform. As such I don't see any problem when they ban anyone, tyne issue is why did we give Facebook such power, the same goes for twitter we basically give then the power they have now.

 

[ShadowDeath]

"harsher on politicians" Funny, I don't see them banning Fauci after all that misinformation he spread based on the emails we're seeing.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I'll never understand why anyone would fight so hard to be able to act the fool on the internet for everyone to see.

It makes it easier to know who to stay away from, but the exposure to the stupidity is still tiring.

 

[Arbie]

If it were flipped you would be howling about it ... these p̶u̶b̶l̶I̶s̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ platforms might've overstepped their bounds

• I'm a Democrat and won't howl if some Dem politician starts ranting lies on Twitter and gets banned. I *will* start thinking about who can replace them. So don't speak for me, please.

• As pointed out repeatedly, these platforms are not required to give *anyone* access. The First Amendment doesn't apply. You seem to have a real problem grasping that. I wonder why it's so hard.

 

[m4a4]

• I'm a Democrat and won't howl if some Dem politician starts ranting lies on Twitter and gets banned. I *will* start thinking about who can replace them. So don't speak for me, please.

• As pointed out repeatedly, these platforms are not required to give *anyone* access. The First Amendment doesn't apply. You seem to have a real problem grasping that. I wonder why it's so hard.

Are you wyosaya's 2nd account? Because that's the only reason why the context of what I said there applies to you

And you must be a genious. Ever heard of Section 230? You even quoted the publisher/platform bit of context

Seriously, next time you want to jump into a conversation you're not a part of with guns blazing (with 0 context as to what's happening), don't.

 

[terzaerian]

That's just the thing. The 1st Amendment prevents the US Government from making or enforcing laws that limit the freedom of speech (except in cases already decided by SCOTUS where inciting violence is not considered a 1st Amendment right). The 1st Amendment is not written such that private companies are required to let everyone and anyone say whatever they please at any time.

I just do not get why people cannot seem to grasp this.

If you do not like what fakebook is doing, do as I do. Don't bother with the stupid platform at all.

My proposal does not violate the first amendment whatsoever. When someone seeks and attains public office, they should lose those protections: they have assumed the mantle of the government whose abuses the Constitution is designed to protect us against. They are no longer a private citizen, but a public official. Furthermore, it could be argued that their communications over social media are simply a form of campaigning, and that by allowing politicians to make those posts, they are effectively contributing to said campaign.

Barring a politician from using social media will not suppress their message if we assume that treatment is given to all politicians equally: they have followers that will gladly parrot it. If anything it will improve freedom of speech for everyone else, as Facebook and other social media have taken pains to protect politicians and public figures; removing them from the platform categorially removes them as a liability, and also removes the credibility of accusations of bias.

 

[duckofdeath]

Wow, so Facebook can censor what we see to drive their own political agenda?

They own the hardware. Or do you argue that I can come to your home and write whatever I like on your walls, in the name of free speech?

 

[duckofdeath]

My proposal does not violate the first amendment whatsoever. When someone seeks and attains public office, they should lose those protections: they have assumed the mantle of the government whose abuses the Constitution is designed to protect us against. They are no longer a private citizen, but a public official. Furthermore, it could be argued that their communications over social media are simply a form of campaigning, and that by allowing politicians to make those posts, they are effectively contributing to said campaign.

Barring a politician from using social media will not suppress their message if we assume that treatment is given to all politicians equally: they have followers that will gladly parrot it. If anything it will improve freedom of speech for everyone else, as Facebook and other social media have taken pains to protect politicians and public figures; removing them from the platform categorially removes them as a liability, and also removes the credibility of accusations of bias.

You can argue whatever you like, with your own mouth. Thinking someone else is required to repeat it is your problem here.

 

[Austinturner]

So if you are not an american, why are you pretending that you understand any iota of decided constitutional law in the US?

I’m raising the topic as it has been floated and discussed by others and it is interesting. It does impact the rest of the world as the companies have global reach and the way the US regulates them will tend to set the standard for their behaviour elsewhere. You don’t have to be American to have an opinion or a discussion here. There is a wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility

I am in favour of regulation when it is in the public interest, I think Google (and potentially Facebook) have built what have become essential services for society and greater regulation may be warranted.


I think in the case of a treasonous president, crazy prime minister etc the legislative bodies should be using their legal powers to deal with them, not powerful private companies.

 

[Lounds]

An ex British politician who is known for being a lying piece of **** telling Facebook to ban an Ex American politician who is also a massive liar... Oh the irony.

 

[psycros]

LOL!!! "Insurrection"...laughable. Maybe we should talk about how Zuckerburg bought off election judges to the tune of $350 million two months before the votes were counted. Or how a mountain of irrefutable evidence proving election fraud was rampant was totally ignored by those same judges. Yeah, how about we talk about that actual insurrection.

 

[Shadowboxer]

But if such were forced on Fakebook, worthless as Fakebook is, it would be unconstitutional in the US.

And as I see it, the republican party has only itself to blame for the current situation in the US. They revoked something called "The Fairness Doctrine" during Regan's reign because they felt that it infringed on the 1st Amendment rights of companies. Look where it got them, and the US with all the in the US media these days.

It wouldn’t be unconstitutional to create a digital bill of rights at all, what a load of garbage. You would require Facebook or any other digital platform to provide people with their rights in the digital space, much like businesses on the ground have to ensure people’s rights are honoured in real life.

The really scary thing is, the democrats and their supporters seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the politician they hate being silenced. How far do they go? Re-education camps for trump supporters or anyone the left calls a racist? That is the next step. No wonder almost all totalitarian Nazi like regimes start on the left.

You guys best hope the tables don’t turn. If you don’t do anything about the right being silenced in America then when the reverse happens the democrats will have no right to be upset.

 

[Beerfloat]

The really scary thing is, the democrats and their supporters seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the politician they hate being silenced. How far do they go? Re-education camps for trump supporters or anyone the left calls a racist? That is the next step. No wonder almost all totalitarian Nazi like regimes start on the left.

Silenced? There's barely any place left on the Internet, or any other channel of communication for that matter, where you're not habitually subjected to the loud right wing pity party and tripe like your post.

Really, Trump ought to be grateful there's still *anyone* who will host his lies, insults and stupidity on their platform.

 

[yRaz]

They own the hardware. Or do you argue that I can come to your home and write whatever I like on your walls, in the name of free speech?

non-equivalence, but nice try. When services like Facebook become this large they start to fall into a category of what's called a public service and, then yes, everyone can write on their walls.

However, if you want a real world example of "writing on walls", I live in Pittsburgh and we have walls that are considered "public art projects." The walls are technically private property but people can go there and wrote graffiti all over them in the name of art. You can't stop people from writing horrible things on them but they can be charged later for things like hate speech

 

[Adi6293]

Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Trump is a Russian/Putin asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.

How is he a Russian asset? Please prove it to me with actual evidence......

 

[captaincranky]

The only way I see to stop a private company from refusing to serve a customer (in this case trump) would be to pass legislation. I’m thinking along the lines of phone companies, create a new class of utilities with extra protection and rules, “tech platforms over 1 billion users” for example and regulate them as utilities.

I don’t know if this is necessary though as people will eventually just move on from facebook anyway.

But yet, Facebook keeps expanding YoY. People lack the thoughtfulness, or even the common sense to evaluate it,properly..

Abandon it? Hell, they'll embrace even more. Facebook may lose followers of Trump. But wouldn't you agree, it's better off without them? They will gravitate back to getting the "true insights and real news". from the likes of Kim Kardashian (**), and "Trans-Jenner", or whatever he/she's calling him/herself these days (***).

(**) And really, what woman in the USA today, doesn't need tips and inspiration on how to grow their a**es bigger, and which feminine hygiene spray to use, in case it starts to develop an unpleasant odor when you succeed?

(**) IMO Mr, now Ms, Jenner's sex change was a publicity stunt, brought on by being emasculated by the Kardashian women over a period of decades. Moral? "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em". (Or maybe it was to avoid testicular cancer (yeah right)).

 

[Tantor]

Normally, I would oppose such a ban on any political figure, regardless of party affiliation, but Trump is a Russian/Putin asset, and as such is a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to the U. S., and should be treated as such.

Silly.

I'm amazed that people keep peddling that old worthless canard. The Mueller investigation came up with zero, zilch, nada. Trump declassified all that documentation and it clearly shows that the Russian collusion accusations were produced by Clinton and a group of highly placed Leftists.

On the other hand, there is enormous circumstantial evidence that Hunter Biden is a Chinese asset, and so is his father, by default. The only reason a meth head like Hunter got massively lucrative board positions on Chinese and Ukrainian corporations was for access to his father.

Joe Biden is not running the government. Everyone knows the guy is not capable. So who is running the government? Certainly nobody that we voted for. One thing is for sure. They don't want Americans to wake up to the truth, that's why they are OCD about banning skeptics.

 

[Tantor]

Silenced? There's barely any place left on the Internet, or any other channel of communication for that matter, where you're not habitually subjected to the loud right wing pity party and tripe like your post.

Really, Trump ought to be grateful there's still *anyone* who will host his lies, insults and stupidity on their platform.

You obviously dislike America and American values. Have you ever considered leaving the US?

 

[terzaerian]

But yet, Facebook keeps expanding YoY. People lack the thoughtfulness, or even the common sense to evaluate it,properly..

No. Facebook's user growth has been stagnating in the West for the past couple years, only momentarily bouyed by the pandemic.

 

[scavengerspc]

Wow, so Facebook can censor what we see to drive their own political agenda?

All private companies can do the same.

 

[Arbie]

Are you wyosaya's 2nd account? Because that's the only reason why the context of what I said there applies to you

And you must be a genious. Ever heard of Section 230? You even quoted the publisher/platform bit of context

Seriously, next time you want to jump into a conversation you're not a part of with guns blazing (with 0 context as to what's happening), don't.

I don't care whom you thought you were addressing in your public posts! Deal.

 

[Arbie]

Joe Biden is not running the government. Everyone knows the guy is not capable. So who is running the government? Certainly nobody that we voted for. One thing is for sure. They don't want Americans to wake up to the truth...

You are lost in loony-land. Hope you find a way back someday.

 

[captaincranky]

Silly.

I'm amazed that people keep peddling that old worthless canard. The Mueller investigation came up with zero, zilch, nada. Trump declassified all that documentation and it clearly shows that the Russian collusion accusations were produced by Clinton and a group of highly placed Leftists.

On the other hand, there is enormous circumstantial evidence that Hunter Biden is a Chinese asset, and so is his father, by default. The only reason a meth head like Hunter got massively lucrative board positions on Chinese and Ukrainian corporations was for access to his father.

Joe Biden is not running the government. Everyone knows the guy is not capable. So who is running the government? Certainly nobody that we voted for. One thing is for sure. They don't want Americans to wake up to the truth, that's why they are OCD about banning skeptics.

You obviously dislike America and American values. Have you ever considered leaving the US?

"My country, love it or leave it"! Now there's an old saw I haven't heard for decades).

As for the rest of it, don't f**king worry about it. Trump will be reinstated again by August.!

All I have to say is, "MTPDA". (Make the Presidency Delusional Again).

 

[Arbie]

Here's what so telling... After four years of power and their god being able to spout thousands of lies uncontested (from our White House!) the alt-right have finally had their wings clipped. And what do they fall back on? Whining about the reduced platform access, and name-calling. To defend the indefensible Trump, attack Biden! Rant about his... lisp! Call on the Parler medical experts to diagnose that as dementia, then rant about that!

The Trump administration purposely made the worst transition in modern history. They not only did nothing to help the new team, they put up obstacles! Trump kept pretending he'd still be President up to Jan 6! Biden's national security briefings were delayed for weeks. This transition was a crime against the nation. And Trump had four years to screw things up. Biden has had four months to do anything about all that plus the standard rash of new problems.

Your complaints are pathetic. The nation voted Trump out, and regardless of what you think of Biden the man, he isn't a pathological liar nor an egomaniacal wanna-be dictator riding on dog-whistle racism and demagoguery. I'll take his failings over those any day.