According to some Freepers banning conservatives on social media is cool and the right thing to do.
Dennis Prager is a very level-headed, scholarly guy.
He ain’t no Alex Jones.
Monopolistic public utilities such as Facebook need the heavy breathe of the federal government on their necks.
Hey! I know! Let’s make conservatives a protected class. Then FB, YouTube, and all other social media has to allow normal thinking people to post routine videos and comments.
Better yet; shut down FB completely along with every other conservative limiting social networking site until they shape up and fly right.
You just have to leave Facebook and Instagram. They are democrat party tools. Just train yourself to stop using them. Nobody really wants to see your pictures anyhow.
Shorting face book seems like easy money.
Facebook is a utility, just as Ma Bell was determined to be. It’s past time to break up the monopoly.
Facebook deletes Prager University from my feed every time it appeals. It’s there for a second, and then just disappears.
Either FB needs to be shut down like most other countries would do ( will have many correlate societal benefits!) or else ——- my much preferred solution — someone needs to set up a really good competitive service. They could make a TON of money as there’s certainly room for a couple more large websites of that character ( and this would be a nice free market solution, without involving government ).
A friend of mine was telling me about his son’s new job at Facebook. Among the benefits for working at the headquarters in the SF area:
1. Free meals - breakfast, lunch and dinner. Free snacks, too.
2. On site free dry cleaning and laundry
3. Free gym with climbing wall
4. Free laptop and phone, new one every year
5. Free shuttle service if you live within 10 miles.
6. A $35,000 “relocation” account for you to use as you wish while you are moving.
7. A $35,000 signing bonus
8. Fantastic stock options
9. 21 days vacation plus 11 holidays (to start)
10. A mandatory 30 day paid vacation/sabbatical every 3 years.
11. A $15,000 annual bonus if you live within 10 miles.
I could go on and on, but those were the ones I remembered. Dad bragged that his son was starting at $175K, but with the different bonus packages, he was going to be making over $300K a year.
All I could think was “it is going to suck for him when Facebook crashes and burns...”
Dennis Prager and hate speech do NOT belong in the same sentence.
He’s always worthwhile listening because I learn from him.
I can’t believe this is happening. Where’s some competition? It takes time to build, but some freedom-loving techies should be on it.
Question for those “level-headed” conservatives who didn’t come to Infowars defense... Do you care now?
Like most issues, this one is very easy to solve with common sense actions.
Imagine there was a magazine that had a letters to the editor section and only allowed neo-nazi letters to be published. Every week there were letters calling for the death of Jews and gays. Then one day one of their subscribers acted on it and killed a bus load of Jews. How should the government react?
Now, imagine there was a magazine that had a letters to the editor section and randomly picked 30 letters each month to put in the magazine. Some letters were about kitty cats. Some were about video games and a very small percentage were about killing Jews. Then imagine one of their subscribers kills a bus load of Jews. How should the government react?
The solution to the social media censorship question is this....
Pass a law saying that these companies can either 1.) Allow anyone to post anything (that is legal) and be absolved of any responsibility over the content OR 2.) Actively censor, edit and curate the content of their site and be held responsible for the content. By censoring conservative speech and allowing left wing speech, that is exactly what they are doing. They are actively picking which content they want to be on their site.
The next time a left wing nut shoots up a congressional baseball practice, the police will subpoena his social media activity. If he was viewing posts on Facebook or Tweets or videos on Youtube that advocated violence against Republicans, those content providers will be held accountable for actively curating the content of their site and PURPOSELY allowing the content he saw before he committed his crime.
On the other hand, they can simply remove and report to police any content which breaks the law such as human trafficking, child pornography, child abuse, evidence of violent crimes or property crimes, etc... and allow all other content. This way they are not responsible for what is on their site. They are truly a “public forum” where any opinion can be expressed regardless of how ridiculous.
They are trying to have it both ways. They are saying, “Free speech does not apply to private companies. We can censor whoever we want.” Then they turn around and say, “We can’t be held responsible for what these lunatics post on our forums.”
Of course, since this would actually solve the problem you won’t hear anyone propose it.
I can’t wait to hear how it was just an honest mistake.
It’s feeling more and more like 1984.
Maybe that might get Facebook's attention?
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
Would Anti-Trust laws apply here? They busted up Bell South for much less than this.
I dont like Prager. I think a lot of his info isn’t correct. But I dont think he should be censored.