F*ck Facebook and the Cuckerberg

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

They just banned my girl on IG. Again.

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

Big oof

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I believe in the 1st amendment but you can't run into a movie theater and yell fire either. Walk into a restaurant and start calling all the black employees "nigggers" and see how much your first amendment protects you. People can't go spreading lies about the virus and not expect to be kept in check.

You seem to be misunderstanding the 1st amendment. It does not protect against speech that creates a "clear and present danger", such as yelling fire in a crowded theater (Schenck v. United States , 1919), but it most certainly does protect what you are now referring to, "hate speech".

You have posed two very different arguments. The first is a clear and present danger. The 1st does not protect against someone inciting violence specifically ("go murder <insert name or group of people>"), but it does protect someone who says "<insert name> doesn't deserve to be alive".

Your second argument is commonly called "hate speech" these days, and the 1st certainly does protect such things. As vile as something someone from the KKK might say is, it is protected. Why? Because hate speech is a subjective term, and there is no trustworthy authority that can define such things without human bias. For example, your example, it is socially acceptable for a black person to walk into a restaurant and say it. So, is it only hate speech when non-blacks say it? Okay, how <exactly> do we then define "black people"? What about people who are half black, quarter black, etc? This is a slippery slope with no definable borders. So the government is not entrusted with defining those borders, we simply rely on social norms to define what we consider acceptable.

And who do you trust to believe. That question goes both ways.

The question I posed wasn't who to believe, it was who to trust to define what is misinformation. Let's use covid for example. Last year Fauci told us masks weren't necessary. The people arguing against freedom of speech claimed he was the authority on the subject. Then Fauci changed his tune and said masks are necessary, and admitted that he intentionally lied in order to avoid a mask shortage so doctors and nurses would still have access to them. Then he said 2 masks. Then he said one mask was enough. Where in that tangled web is the "truth"?

If you don't want to be on Facebook that is your choice. Spread your word somewhere else.

You are, again, misrepresenting my point. The point I made was that legally speaking, facebook is considered a social media platform so that it cannot be held liable for anything said on it's platform, but is simultaneously considered a publisher so as to legally allow it to police what is and is not said on it's platform. That is not how these laws are suppose to work. FB literally gets the best of both worlds, inexplicably. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why our govt gives FB specifically the advantages of both types of platforms, when (for example) book publishers do not get both, and neither do other lesser social media platforms.

As for your point that if you don't like how FB polices content, go elsewhere... that was the same argument people made for not breaking up Bell telephone's monopoly back in the early 1980's. The problem with that argument is, legally speaking, what is defined as a monopoly. Bell (AT&T) had much less of a monopoly when the US govt decided it had too much power and broke it into separate systems (AT&T continued to provide long distance while regional Bell companies provided local phone service). But facebook is larger than Bell ever was, since it is literally a global monopoly of sorts. A global monopoly that, again, seems to get special legal privileges its potential up-and-coming competitors do not get. Factor into that how FB got together with the Apple Store, google, and a few other big tech companies to squash competitors such as tumblr and parler, and the case for a monopoly is clear. Zuckerberg has been in the news lately fighting against the anti-trust laws trying to be put in place to break up that monopoly for these reasons.

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

I guess you don't get banned for saying ninja here anymore

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

You seem to be misunderstanding the 1st amendment. It does not protect against speech that creates a "clear and present danger", such as yelling fire in a crowded theater (Schenck v. United States , 1919), but it most certainly does protect what you are now referring to, "hate speech".

You have posed two very different arguments. The first is a clear and present danger. The 1st does not protect against someone inciting violence specifically ("go murder <insert name or group of people>"), but it does protect someone who says "<insert name> doesn't deserve to be alive".

Your second argument is commonly called "hate speech" these days, and the 1st certainly does protect such things. As vile as something someone from the KKK might say is, it is protected. Why? Because hate speech is a subjective term, and there is no trustworthy authority that can define such things without human bias. For example, your example, it is socially acceptable for a black person to walk into a restaurant and say it. So, is it only hate speech when non-blacks say it? Okay, how <exactly> do we then define "black people"? What about people who are half black, quarter black, etc? This is a slippery slope with no definable borders. So the government is not entrusted with defining those borders, we simply rely on social norms to define what we consider acceptable.



The question I posed wasn't who to believe, it was who to trust to define what is misinformation. Let's use covid for example. Last year Fauci told us masks weren't necessary. The people arguing against freedom of speech claimed he was the authority on the subject. Then Fauci changed his tune and said masks are necessary, and admitted that he intentionally lied in order to avoid a mask shortage so doctors and nurses would still have access to them. Then he said 2 masks. Then he said one mask was enough. Where in that tangled web is the "truth"?




You are, again, misrepresenting my point. The point I made was that legally speaking, facebook is considered a social media platform so that it cannot be held liable for anything said on it's platform, but is simultaneously considered a publisher so as to legally allow it to police what is and is not said on it's platform. That is not how these laws are suppose to work. FB literally gets the best of both worlds, inexplicably. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why our govt gives FB specifically the advantages of both types of platforms, when (for example) book publishers do not get both, and neither do other lesser social media platforms.

As for your point that if you don't like how FB polices content, go elsewhere... that was the same argument people made for not breaking up Bell telephone's monopoly back in the early 1980's. The problem with that argument is, legally speaking, what is defined as a monopoly. Bell (AT&T) had much less of a monopoly when the US govt decided it had too much power and broke it into separate systems (AT&T continued to provide long distance while regional Bell companies provided local phone service). But facebook is larger than Bell ever was, since it is literally a global monopoly of sorts. A global monopoly that, again, seems to get special legal privileges its potential up-and-coming competitors do not get. Factor into that how FB got together with the Apple Store, google, and a few other big tech companies to squash competitors such as tumblr and parler, and the case for a monopoly is clear. Zuckerberg has been in the news lately fighting against the anti-trust laws trying to be put in place to break up that monopoly for these reasons.

Sorry to say, but typing that lengthy post was a waste of your time. Bobby will probably just reply with some talking point.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

I guess you don't get banned for saying ninja here anymore

Mad censorship exists here but yet these fucktards are falsely complaining about the 1st amendment and FB. It's absolutely comical. Like watching a train wreck.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Sorry to say, but typing that lengthy post was a waste of your time. Bobby will probably just reply with some talking point.

I'm not even reading that ahit

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

Mad censorship exists here but yet these fucktard are falsely complaining about the 1st amendment. It's absolutely comical. Like watching a train wreck.

Considering bobytwonames isn't banned for using the N word, I'd say censorship is nonexistent here. 6 years ago, that would be an automatic ban. Pretty much the only thing you couldn't say

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Considering bobytwonames isn't banned for using the N word, I'd say censorship is nonexistent here. 6 years ago, that would be an automatic ban. Pretty much the only thing you couldn't say

***, ****, *****, ******, dumbass, *****, ****. Yet you can say dick and shit

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

***, ****, *****, ******, *******, *****, ****. Yet you can say dick and shit

Interesting. Changing a letter color still works though

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Interesting. Changing a letter color still works though

Yeah but it's annoying. I usually just insert an * where the vowel goes. Such as *ss, b*tch, c*nt, f*ck, etc. Can't even say ass here and they bitch about Facebook. That's hilariously fucking stupid.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Can't say f*ggot but you can say cuck because he's into that sort of thing

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Considering bobytwonames isn't banned for using the N word, I'd say censorship is nonexistent here. 6 years ago, that would be an automatic ban. Pretty much the only thing you couldn't say

When I was a mod it was literally the only banned word (and it's slang terms).

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

Can't say f*ggot but you can say cuck because he's into that sort of thing

Cuck is a less-common slur. Not surprised the filter doesn't catch it.

 

[adulbrich 5,000+ posts]

When I was a mod it was literally the only banned word (and it's slang terms).

That's the only thing I ever remember mods getting upset by. Does this place even have mods anymore?