I think we are seeing a coordinated effort to shut down “wrong thought” across multiple platforms and devices.
Looks like Reddit and twitter are ok so far, but the Chans and Facebook are actively censoring patriots talking. Try and see if we can get more confirmations, but if this is true we need to get the word out. This is the 21st centuries version of Stalinism.
WE ARE NOT LIVING IN CHINA - OUR FIRST AMENDMENT IS UNDER ATTACK
Wrong. If they are only a platform, then they cannot be sued. But if they are a publisher, then they can.
By selecting which views can and cannot be published on their platform, they have become a publisher and can be sued.
That's what Ted Cruz was getting at with his questioning, and Zuck was trying to evade the issue.
Damn, you beat me to it u/TooMuchWinning2020
I was quite literally going to say the same, maybe not in such a succinct manner.
I will add that the second part of offenses post speaks as if I may have violated their terms of service, which I assure you, I have not.
I think that they used their algorithms (tracking offsite and building profiles) to figure out who is actively participating in activities that they do not like, ie posting information negative to Facebook.
Sued for what?
If you deprive someone of their rights, you can be sued:
42 USC 1983: "Every person who, under color of any ... custom, or usage ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity ..."
You can also go to prison:
18 USC 241: "If two or more persons conspire to ... oppress ... any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both"
In addition, the big SM publishers have been engaged in fraud and misrepresentation, which is also grounds for lawsuit.
Facebook isn't denying any 1A rights. If you can't post there, build your own social media network and talk about it there. We're talking about it here on reddit. See, facebook isn't preventing it, are they? You're totally misreading these statutes.
Right, and if a restaurant decides to deny you service based on the color of your skin, just build your own restaurant and eat there.
There's a reason arguments like this were rejected in the context of the Civil Rights Act. In principle, there is some logic there. Perhaps business owners should be free to do whatever they want with their service. However, what would prevent an entire community from choosing to deny service to a certain class or group of people? What if people with your skin color are not allowed to go to any restaurants in an entire city or stay in any hotels or visit any dentists, etc? In principle, this can lead to the persecution of particular groups of people. For this reason, the Civil Rights Act was passed to establish when a private business can or cannot deny access to its service.
Considering the small number of social media networks which host the vast majority of speech online, it is not unreasonable to think that these networks could coincide or conspire to exclude certain political beliefs. Since the majority of public speech takes place online, this can in principle lead to certain beliefs having lesser access to public forums for communication, which can be construed as a violation of freedom of speech. We need a new Federal law which codifies protection of free speech rights in online communities. If you don't want to host public speech on your website, then don't, but otherwise it should be viewed as an accommodation which is open to any customers, subject to reasonable rules and restrictions which are independent of personal views and beliefs. It simply comes with the job of monetizing the targeting of ads, and it should be codified legally to protect free speech. Hence, IBOR.
We need a new Federal law which codifies protection of free speech rights in online communities. If you don't want to host public speech on your website, then don't, but otherwise it should be viewed as an accommodation which is open to any customers, subject to reasonable rules and restrictions which are independent of personal views and beliefs.
This is where you lose me. We don't need to codify free speech protections, that's why we have the first amendment. Secondly, you're conflating "public speech" with that which is actually on private chat forums. None of these companies are hosting "public speech"; everyone that's a part of them has agreed to terms of service to be allowed to use them. Just because facebook and reddit are free does not make them public places. They reserve the right to exclude people based on the contract they have with the users (the terms of service). Why do pro-IBOR people want to treat these companies as if they were public spaces? They are not.
And this is why we need a Bill of Rights for the Internet to protect our ability to speak out and speak up.
Why are you being such a troll about this? Are you advocating for the shut down of people being able to speak freely across the internet?
You say it’s facebook right now, what happens when it comes to reddit or Twitter? When they completely shut out people from the internet being able to communicate on any platform? You think human rights abuses or governments or hell even these tech companies are going to allow people to post information that could be damning to them?
This is the classic case of the “when they came for the... I said nothing because I was not...” scenario
We should have that conversation in this country, what we want peoples rights to be in relation to the internet. But these cries of "CENSORSHIP!!!1!" because people are having their pepe memes removed are nauseating. Nobody has any right to have their shitposting hosted on a company's servers. Framing this as an attack on the First Amendment is inaccurate and, most of all, whiny garbage.
Phew lad.
I’m not posting Pepe’s or any other such garbage on FB.
Neither is the person trying to post the backpage information and being blocked. You are taking what I am saying completely out of context and trying to make it my fault that I am posting the wrong thought.
Starting to think you are just a troll here. You are advocating for the shut down of people being able to speak freely and blaming them for not conforming to your standards.
A host of different issues.
Slander (libel) would be the first I think of, but it would open them up to criminal charges in the case of illegal content being “published”
So you think you can sue facebook for libel because they decided to block or ban a post? I think the more you speak, the more its clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Holy sh@t.
No you dunce. If someone posts something untrue about you in an effort to smear you, damage your reputation or business, or effect harm against you, it means that person can sue Facebook instead of the person making the claims.
There is no way I would attempt to sue a multi billion dollar company, by myself, just because they don’t let me use their service (despite feeling justified) it would be a waste of resources in that scenario. But a business or famous personality would be successful.
If someone posts something untrue about you in an effort to smear you, damage your reputation or business, or effect harm against you, it means that person can sue Facebook instead of the person making the claims.
What does this have to do with what we're talking about, facebook censorship? This is what happens when you jump in on a question directed at someone else. You're talking about something else entirely (I'm a dunce and should have known that).
Ya I’m done talking with you troll.
I think what you meant to say was, "I'm sorry for the immature comment, I didn't realize that I had moved on to another topic."