Posted on 06/06/2019 8:11:26 AM PDT by Liberty7732
How does blocking posters do that?
False - disclosure of use is not use.
If one is not allowed to use their property without a required disclosure, and a threat of punishment, then one is absolutely NOT free to use their property as they like.
That's now your third Big Government belief that you've expressed.
That social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power" and not "private property". The conclusion seems obvious.
I simply started our conversation by pointing out that you are not for small government as you claim.
All you showed is that I am not for NO government - which I never claimed to be.
you think that property gained through Big Government crony capitalism, is private.
No I don't. How did social media allegedly gain property through Big Government crony capitalism?
If one is not allowed to use their property without a required disclosure, and a threat of punishment, then one is absolutely NOT free to use their property as they like.
False no matter how often you repeat it.
Jim Robinson - https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3749261/posts?page=19#19:
The government has no say over the politics, religion or viewpoints of any website or association.
Facebook, et al, also enjoy the same rights. The difference is we openly declare up front that we are a forum for like-minded traditional Judeo-Christian conservatives and that liberals, trolls, disrupters, etc, will be dismissed and removed at our moderators’ convenience. The others pretend to be open to all opinion, but obviously, they are not.
Like all other areas in our free market economy, free enterprise systems and free press publications and services, it’s always buyer’s choice/buyer beware. If you don’t like the service or can’t tolerate the politics of the service, don’t subscribe, don’t read, don’t use it.
He’s hopeless, not to mention ill informed. He actually believes that FB has all of it’s 2.3 billion users data on private “servers.” Maybe Hillary has them in her basement?
Where do you think they keep it - index cards?
That social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power" and not "private property". The conclusion seems obvious.
Interesting comment.
You've now twisted yourself into a pretzel, making the very point of some of the people that you've been arguing with.
So when Big Crony Capitalist Social Media has a monopolistic conglomeration of power, the "obvious conclusion" is what?
False no matter how often you repeat it.
Wow!
So the if Big Government tells you that you can't have as private property, a gun, without registering, without paying a fee and without barking like a dog at the moon, you think that that isn't a restriction on private property.
I have nothing further to add.
You've now twisted yourself into a pretzel, making the very point of some of the people that you've been arguing with.
I've seen no evidence that they have no private property.
False parallel on multiple fronts: "have" is not "use," and "register and pay a fee" is not "disclose."
I have nothing further to add.
Probably true.
I missed your answer to this question.
Start with global social media companies that want to do business with big tyrannical, anti American governments around the world.
Take Google and China for example.
It's those interests, and that crony capitalist relationship that makes Big Social Media an anti freedom, anti American, pro big government and pro tyranical, crony capitalist monopoly.
I missed your answer. What is the "obvious conclusion" on a course of action, when social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power"??
You implied that the "obvious conclusion" on a course of action is the very thing that you argued against, up and down this thread.
Yes, they did. Trump and his followers' social media engagement was instrumental in getting him elected. Trump cannot afford to lose a single vote next year. Shutting out voices of his support on social media will be devastating.
What "crony capitalist relationship"?
As I said, I’ve seen no evidence that they have no private property, which was one of your premises. Obviously, if that were true they’d have no property rights.
GOOGLE PLANS TO LAUNCH CENSORED SEARCH ENGINE IN CHINA, LEAKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL
Any private property they "earn", that results from an illicit crony capitalist relationship that they may have, theoretically is not their private property.
Epstein cited a piece he wrote for U.S. News and World Report entitled “The New Censorship” in which he explained that Google is “literally every day blocking access to millions of websites.”
“The power that these companies have to impact opinions, purchases, beliefs, attitudes, voting preferences – there’s never been power like this. No government has ever had power like this.
. In fact, I say in this upcoming article that if these companies in November all happen to be favoring the same political party, I estimate conservatively – and I emphasize conservatively, even though I’m not a ‘conservative’ – that they could shift upwards of 12 million votes,” he warned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.