This is the Facebook Is Evil ping list.
If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
Posted on 08/11/2020 11:04:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Two weeks ago, I wrote that the social media giants are refusing to allow people to publish anything about the Wuhan virus that contradicts information from the World Health Organization. This censorship hit close to home on Monday, when Facebook banned an American Thinker reader from posting William Sullivan's post about Sweden's successful decision not to implement lockdowns.
Nobody questions the fact that the social media giants — Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube — have way too much control over American discourse. Americans believe they're participating in a free exchange of ideas, but they're learning that they're actually communicating within a censorious, controlling environment that takes its marching orders from the Democrats and, even more worrisomely, from China (at least indirectly):
Think about this: the largest platforms in America for ordinary citizens who want to share and learn information have made it clear that no one can talk about Wuhan virus issues if the WHO has not preapproved the data. Frankly, it's a terrible idea to have the WHO as the gatekeeper.
The Wuhan virus began in China. It may have been accidental, or, as even the most level-headed people are wondering, it might not have been. Regardless, China consistently lied about it, either to hide its mistakes or to spread the virus and damage the world economy.
The WHO actively aided China's deceit. Katie Pavlich summed up the evidence, showing that the WHO had information in December that there was a dangerous virus on the loose but that it continued to report Chinese propaganda as fact, even after it was apparent that China was lying. Mike Pompeo asserts that U.S. intelligence shows that China paid to install WHO's current head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. (Tedros denies this charge.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Facebook had videos and posts shared that slandered Sandman. In that case, they simply functioned as a platform, leaving everything up. They were not liable for what users shared and wrote. If they had started deleting certain videos that defended Sandman’s innocence, they would have become a publisher just like the Washington Post. And they become liable just like the Post.
The issue at hand has NOTHING to do with slander or libel.
The compliant here isn’t what is being said, but what is not allowed to be said.
Get a clue.
I don’t know the case. Depends on proving actual harm to individual(s). If so, Sandman have every right to file a libel/slander suit against Facebook.
Nevertheless, this article not about with slander or libel. The compliant here isn’t what is being said, but what is not allowed to be said.
Correct, they are not "platforms" but rather making editorial decisions on content; ergo, they are "publishers". And while American Thinker does not have a case simply for being denied publication on Facebook, Facebook, being a publisher rather than a platform can be sued by regular citizens who have been the subject of any defamation "published" on Facebook. But right now Facebook and Twitter and Youtube are trying to have it both ways (a platform protected from lawsuits AND publisher free to editorialize), and that's not an animal that can be.
Get a clue.
Here's one. You are a cement head. What did I win?
No, being a publisher and tailoring content implies that they are a publisher, not a neutral channel. Right now you cannot sue Verizon because someone slandered you on a verizon phone. That is because they are a neutral channel, NOT a publisher.
Facebook, Google and the others get full protection from content based pawsuits because they claim NOT to be a publisher.
A newspaper or FOX or CNN can be legally held accountable for every word they publish. They are often sued successfully such as in the Sandman case.
Facebook and Google are fully protected because they claim to not be responsible for content. Yet, you say they get to edit content.
If you are correct, then they do not deserve ANY legal protection from litigation.
But their fascist arrangement with the US Government makes them immune. Ergo, they are NOT free enterprise or a private business any longer, if they ever were.
The STUPID Award.
Bye.
OK then whoever has been slandered should go after the slanderer, not the “neutral channel”. Or sue the “neutral channel”. Let it be fought out in the courts.
The point is the feds are the culprit when they engage with business where the feds purpose is not constitutional.
This is the Facebook Is Evil ping list.
If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
My wife forced me off it. I was getting too political and she was worried about her losing her job.
FB didn’t say they were banning me several years ago. They just would not let me log on. If they had allowed me to log on, maybe I could have “deleted” my account. Of course we know that they never really delete the information.
Gab, Parler, Bitchute. Get your accounts now.
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.