EXPOSED! Facebook Playing Dictator

[240B]

Constitution
By Joe Newby 
April 9, 2018

As we and others reported Saturday, Facebook, the social media giant once dubbed the “world’s most dangerous censor,” told the outspoken pro-Trump duo Diamond and Silk that their content was “dangerous” to their community.  Appearing on Fox News Sunday morning, they shredded CEO Mark Zuckerberg, telling him to “suck it up, buttercup” and let them speak their truth.

“How are we unsafe to the community,” they asked, telling Fox that they don’t sell drugs and don’t belong to a gang.

(more)
https://constitution.com/exposed-facebook-playing-dictator-2/

[ABX]

Hyperbole much?

They are a private business. We may not like the content they always choose to serve and not serve, but that's their business.

You can't whine a Christian bookstore is 'playing dictator' because they don't carry Buddhist books (and vice versa or pick anything else to replace them).

If you don't like how they do business, don't choose to be their product (yes, you are the product they are selling, not the customer).

[240B]

Facebook is so huge, so globally pervasive and ubiquitous, it is hard to argue that it is merely a 'private business'. I think it has evolved beyond that and has become more of a public service, similar to broadcast television. As broadcasts are regulated, so should Facebook have some controls to ensure that it is serving the public interests, as all public industries have.

Comparing Facebook to a local bakery or private bookstore is insulting to intelligent debate.

[ABX]

Facebook is so huge, so globally pervasive and ubiquitous, it is hard to argue that it is merely a 'private business'. I think it has evolved beyond that and has become more of a public service, similar to broadcast television. As broadcasts are regulated, so should Facebook have some controls to ensure that it is serving the public interests, as all public industries have.

Comparing Facebook to a local bakery or private bookstore is insulting to intelligent debate.

Could the same be said for Wal Mart, which has a larger reach?

How about Microsoft?  Apple? 

What point do you feel a private business becomes a 'public service' and thus, should be controlled and centrally planned by the State?

[240B]

Wal-Mart, Apple, and Microsoft, are not restricting sales only to people they agree with. When Wal-Mart starts kicking people out for wearing a MAGA hat or shirt, when Apple and Microsoft start corrupting their OS if you write or post something they disagree with, then I will see the equivalence.

Facebook is becoming more of a political outlet, a kind of PAC, than it is a commercial enterprise. And with its scope and reach, that is a dangerous thing. Like it or not, Zuckerberg is an international political figure with a global platform to push his agenda. There is much more involved here than just simple commerce.

[ABX]

Wal-Mart, Apple, and Microsoft, are not restricting sales only to people they agree with. When Wal-Mart starts kicking people out for wearing a MAGA hat or shirt, when Apple and Microsoft start corrupting their OS if you write or post something they disagree with, then I will see the equivalence.

Facebook is becoming more of a political outlet, a kind of PAC, than it is a commercial enterprise. And with its scope and reach, that is a dangerous thing. Like it or not, Zuckerberg is an international political figure with a global platform to push his agenda. There is much more involved here than just simple commerce.

All of them restrict what products they sell.

You aren't Facebook's customer, you are the product they are selling...

But all that aside, are you seriously suggesting Big Brother control and regulation over social media now?

What happens when it is a Democrat in charge and they suddenly have that power?

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have away.

[240B]

But all that aside, are you seriously suggesting Big Brother control and regulation over social media now?

No. Of course not. I wouldn't want the government to control content, in fact that is exactly what is happening now with Zuckerberg. But I do see a need for the government to get involved in some aspects of Facebook, particularly in terms of restricting access based on political affiliation.

Facebook has become a part of America's infrastructure, whether they intended to or not. We can't have Federal Marshals guarding the on-ramp of a freeway and decided who is pure enough to use it and who will be denied, based on whom they voted for in the last election.

[INVAR]

But I do see a need for the government to get involved in some aspects of Facebook, particularly in terms of restricting access based on political affiliation.

Are you out of your mind daft?  You want to hand government power to arbitrarily decide what is 'fair' and what must be permitted and allowed in the running of a private business? 

Look, we already have that with government and the courts telling bakeries, florists, photographers and Bed & Breakfasts that they have to discard their faith and serve homosexual celebrations.  Now you want that same power to be handed to government to impose a Social Media 'fairness doctrine'???

Facebook has become a part of America's infrastructure,

No, it isn't. 

We can't have Federal Marshals guarding the on-ramp of a freeway and decided who is pure enough to use it and who will be denied, based on whom they voted for in the last election.

Roads are not a private business.  We can have private armed guards restricting access to a Hotel parking garage, except for approved guests that are checked into the establishment.  Facebook is not an on-ramp to the internet.  It's a social media app.  You can get online and surf and watch videos and listen to music and never once use Facebook.

Empowering government to restrict a private business to determine 'fairness' is Fascist or Marxist at heart, depending on what ideology is in power in DC.

[240B]

Are you out of your mind daft?  You want to hand government power to arbitrarily decide what is 'fair' and what must be permitted and allowed in the running of a private business? 

Look, we already have that with government and the courts telling bakeries, florists, photographers and Bed & Breakfasts that they have to discard their faith and serve homosexual celebrations.  Now you want that same power to be handed to government to impose a Social Media 'fairness doctrine'???


No, it isn't. 

Roads are not a private business.  We can have private armed guards restricting access to a Hotel parking garage, except for approved guests that are checked into the establishment.  Facebook is not an on-ramp to the internet.  It's a social media app.  You can get online and surf and watch videos and listen to music and never once use Facebook.

Empowering government to restrict a private business to determine 'fairness' is Fascist or Marxist at heart, depending on what ideology is in power in DC.

You missed every single point of my debate.

Control of what is 'fair' is already happening now, in the hands of a hippy far-Left billionaire. I don't see how it could be any worse than it already is.

[LauraTXNM]

If we compare Facebook or even better YouTube to the broadcast networks....  there are broadcast standards about violence, sex, "bad" language.  But I don't see how the government could control the programs that are made; the networks create programs based on the market. 

[INVAR]

You missed every single point of my debate.

Control of what is 'fair' is already happening now, in the hands of a hippy far-Left billionaire. I don't see how it could be any worse than it already is.

FACEBOOK IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS.  I am not forced to use it in order to live my life.

It is not part of our infrastructure, it is not a national security imperative.  Anyone who does not like the rules they set and the censorship they engage in, is free to not use their service, and start their own competition to Facebook or find another app to stay in touch with peeps.

Handing government power to regulate 'fairness' on the internet is handing them the very authority and weapon it will use to actually silence any dissent or contrary opinion to what they deem politically correct, under the force and color of law.

NO.  A true Conservative does not want government to get their greasy fingers into determining 'fairness'.

But a Populist will.

[ABX]

FACEBOOK IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS.  I am not forced to use it in order to live my life.

It is not part of our infrastructure, it is not a national security imperative.  Anyone who does not like the rules they set and the censorship they engage in, is free to not use their service, and start their own competition to Facebook or find another app to stay in touch with peeps.

Handing government power to regulate 'fairness' on the internet is handing them the very authority and weapon it will use to actually silence any dissent or contrary opinion to what they deem politically correct, under the force and color of law.

NO.  A true Conservative does not want government to get their greasy fingers into determining 'fairness'.

But a Populist will.

I've mentioned so many times about the disturbing trend I've been seeing- Conservatives as a group, who once stood for small government, now just want their own version of a big, powerful government to use their hammer of force for their own pet issues.

They can't stand that others have a different mindset or different opinion and don't want to compete in that market (even if it doesn't seem fair sometimes). They want their own big brother.

And no, I don't think this is because of Trump. This trend long predates him, so don't think this is a dig on any specific politician- this is a bigger trend.

[Concerned]

If there's indeed a market for an anti-Facebook maybe @240B should create it.  After all, I believe Fox News was largely created in response to CNN and MSNBC.  If Facebook is evil, there should be demand for an alternative just as there was for Fox News.  As a private enterprise, I don't want the government dictating to them what they should or should not do.  If they're being "unfair", the market should respond to it and competitors should appear to compete against them.  Of course, I don't expect to see lots of competitors to Facebook though. 

[Sanguine]

I've mentioned so many times about the disturbing trend I've been seeing- Conservatives as a group, who once stood for small government, now just want their own version of a big, powerful government to use their hammer of force for their own pet issues.

They can't stand that others have a different mindset or different opinion and don't want to compete in that market (even if it doesn't seem fair sometimes). They want their own big brother.

And no, I don't think this is because of Trump. This trend long predates him, so don't think this is a dig on any specific politician- this is a bigger trend.

I agree, Ab.  It's very disturbing.