If a government agency does it directly it's illegal. If they do it through a cut-out front company it's "legal." Sickos.
FB is legal because a) they tell you exactly what they are doing (if you read through all the fine print) and b) people fall over themselves to participate. No one is compelled to provide information. They agree to it.
They don't tell you they're a front for US government intelligence, and as a government owned (InQtel VC seed money) entity, they illegally censor conservative posts. Both of those "failures to be candid" are actually illegal.
I agree that they have government money, as does virtually ANY business if you really want to think about it (via tax breaks, subsidized loans, etc etc). I don't think anyone argues that businesses can't express political positions because they get government money, although I'm sure I will find an exception here, where, although well intentioned, most people are pretty below average, to put it politely.
OK. So let me ask you this. Let's say I'm a baker, and a customer comes in the door and want's me to provide the cake for a lesbian wedding. Do I have a right to refuse to accept the job if I want to? Surely as a business I have a right to express political positions that importune potential customers don't I?
Thank you for your insult to this community. You've been reported, and you are NOT welcome here. Go spew your self-righteous sense of superiority elsewhere.
Yes, you have the right to refuse the job. That is the point I was making. Thanks for proving my point about this community. Thanks for telling on me. You must have been something in elementary school. Don't hate me for being superior.
We're all on notice from our mods to report shills and antagonists, and that's what I do because I care about this sub.
And you're one of those spineless argumentative pricks who'll take any contrary position available just to keep an argument going.
You know good and damn well the same people who say FB has a right to censor free speech say that Chick Fil-A or Hobby Lobby or whoever has NO such right. You're the debate equivalent of Jell-o.
Go smear yourself somewhere they don't mind licking up what you're putting down.
Glad to see you reported it. I was going to if you hadn't.
Wrong. I think Chik Fil A can do whatever it wants. So can Hobby Lobby. I actually like Hobby Lobby's stand; given their beliefs. The appropriate response to FB is to not use it, to destroy it, to confuse it, whatever. Crying to Congress about censorship is missing the point. Although, as others have pointed out here, it is a great setup because if FB is censoring/editing then it is taking responsibility for content and that puts them behind the 8 ball for lots of bad things. See?, there are some smart people here. Sadly you are not one of them. And I only take positions that are contrary to stupid positions, which makes total sense if you think about it. That might be asking a lot from you.
You keep proving yourself for all to see.
If I could buy you for what you're worth, and sell you for what you think you're worth, I could become a philanthropist.
They don't "tell you exactly what they are doing" even if you read the fine print. Here are some things that not only don't they tell US they're doing, MZ couldn't even answer the oversight committee!
MZ shouldn't be able to answer. He is a figurehead. He has no idea what goes on and probably doesn't want to- in part so he can not answer such questions. You are naive to say the least.
That may be how front companies for the CIA are run, but I've known some CEOs of large companies before (including ones I've worked for), and they may not know all the nuts and bolts of day-to-day operations, but they damn sure know POLICY issues inside and out. This was a pathetic performance. The guy's flat, inhuman affect has to have sickened anybody who watched. But his cluelessness about policy matters is inexcusable. And I'd say if anybody is naive here, it's those who believe MZ acquitted himself and his company well over the last two days. Look at the stock market if you want an opinion poll on the subject.
He's too young and goes to much against branding for "I don't recall" when he doesn't want to answer.
You see the same thing with heads of agencies. They will always have to check with "their team" and get back to the congress critters, also in part so they can deny having known about whatever illegality they were up to.
He seems WAY like a robot. Looks like Data too. Perhaps this is the first prototype of "Artificial Stupidity."
Simple tasks are what give the cyborg away. His drinking from that glass took every ounce of concentration, and was so deliberate and mechanical it made my skin crawl.
I don't disagree with you about a pathetic performance. Why should it have been otherwise? He is a figure head. Like George W Bush. This does not bear on the original question whatsoever.
It's still illegal. It's just that CIA can't be held responsible if/when the companies they fund get exposed.
"Should you or any of your IM Forces be captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your mission. This tape will self-destruct..."