they're just skeeerd sh1tless he'll say NO THX!
Posted on 05/04/2021 10:40:30 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
Facebook created the Oversight Board a year ago to make final calls on the most difficult decisions the social network makes about what users can post. Each case is decided by 5 members of the 20-person board. They consider Facebook's rules and international human rights principles and seek out the views of outside experts and members of the public. In the Trump case, the board received more than 9,000 public comments. The final decision must be approved by a majority of the full board, and Facebook has agreed to abide by its ruling.
The Trump case is the biggest test so far of the board's legitimacy: whether it's seen as independent from the company that created and funds it, or whether it's seen as a cover to let Facebook duck responsibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Break them up. There should be no "control" over free speech. Reasonable expectations perhaps, but no banning.
Too late. Facistbook is exposed. Break them up.
Facebook has censored too much. They lost me!
DeSantis is proposing $250,000 per day fines for banning politicians.
It’s ironic that Trump can’t ban trolls from his comments section, but Facebook and Twitter can ban Trump.
“Break them up. There should be no “control” over free speech. Reasonable expectations perhaps, but no banning.”
Should private companies be allowed to develop their own policies or not. Conservatives argue a bakery should be allowed to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake. It would be hypocritical to make that argument and at the same time declare Facebook shouldn’t be allowed to set the rules for use of its services.
Should a motel be required to allow pets in the rooms? Should an over 55 community in Florida be required to allow families with children to purchase and inhabit homes?
We need the identities of these faceless censors to be public knowledge. Just like the members of a school board or a govt panel. Facebook censors deserve no special protections from civil action. Any citizen must be able to take the individuals to court for violations of constitutional rights.
Yep, time to break up and regulate as publishers
Trump doesn’t need them nor should ever go back. They’d just take him off again.
Cheap advertising; earned media.
forget it, POTUS. why give them the revenue. bring forth your own platform and capitalize on it.
Yes, as long as they are not a public utility, like facebook and twitter.
The only reason they would it self-serving, to stall off a future section 230 clamp-down if the present administration is no longer able to protect them.
they're just skeeerd sh1tless he'll say NO THX!
Priscilla CHAN (China) will decide.. WILL CHINA THROW US A BONE?
When do they ban the real disinformation spreaders?
Trump should tell Facebook not to bother and to go to hell.
FB has to say: “Please come back Mr. Trump, we apologize”
How about reinstating Donald J. Trump to the Presidency. That’s where he belongs. MAGA!!!
“Yes, as long as they are not a public utility, like facebook and twitter.”
By current law they are not considered to be public utilities. They have the same freedom to publish, or not publish, as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Fox News.
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.