Lol.
If only it were simply "brain pill salesmen," then you'd have stumbled on to something.
Censorship
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Lol.
If only it were simply "brain pill salesmen," then you'd have stumbled on to something.
There are over a billion people on fb.
I have a business to run. Facebook is critical to its success like any other monopolistic utility.
I would be happy to ditch facebook and instagram if not for that.
I guess the marketplace of ideas has spoken.
Google machine will tell you how to reduce the disparate impact of Google. Facebook will too.
No it doesn't pilt, and you're a big enough boy to figure out some things out on your own....unless they conflict with your value-system, then you're at a disadvantage.
There is no harm in being human.
So you can't even name an impediment?
It would be much easier than two posts of word salad.
Characterizing a business owner as a bitch cuck bc they won't leave a market, even though the market is biased against them on a personal level, tells me all I need to know about how you'll conduct yourself on this discussion.
For all the outrage from liberals about Russian Facebook ads to steal the election from Hillary, this is an interesting path you are taking here.
Frankly, you sound at times like you are missing parts of your brain.
Like you push easy parts of an argument but ignore minutia.
I have no desire to spoonfed an unwilling person.
Liberals who blame Facebook for trump and continue to use it are cuck bitches
When who resorts to saying "we?"
Is there seldom an occasion where "we" don't have an accurate grasp on reality?
What do you think is puff about the link? Like I said, it was just the first link on a long list. One from a far-left website that you are supposed to agree with 99% of the time.
I was intelligent enough to know that Hillary didn’t run a child sex ring out of the back of a pizza parlor, but I didn’t care enough that it was there was a bogus ad on Facebook about it either.
Are there examples on both sides of selective faux outrage? Sure. Conservatives here have a complex with acknowledging this truism on your end ***shrugs shoulders***
When you have to use the word as a crutch in writing, it’s an unimpressive sign of a lack of originality and independent thought, and you know it. ***shrugs shoulders***
Ads with her name and Pizzagate were on Facebook. Don’t be stupid.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ro...ws/anatomy-of-a-fake-news-scandal-125877/amp/
Some of you are hiding behind the conservative argument regarding social media. The criticism isn't limited to our politics, social media concerns are doing terrible things around the world that deserves your critism.
I thought you were against puff pieces. This is exactly what we're talking about here. Rolling Stones using a third-party source so it can sell bulshit and not sued for liable or defamation. There's no accountability.
So again, Pizzagate targeted Podesta and other people close to Hillary. Not that Hilary ran anything.
Last edited:
Social media platforms at a certain market penetration point do become monopolistic in nature simply do to momentum. Look at Google+. When someone as large as Google can't penetrate the marketplace then there is a monopoly.
In this case, yes, Twitter is a public utility and should be regulated as such. If it isn't, then neither should the industry in which I work. We should be allowed to show preference to certain products - especially the products we own. There are many other utilities and modalities that facilitate transport. Yet Twitter is special.
Either it is a public utility or we simply deregulate all public utilities.
In this case, yes, Twitter is a public utility and should be regulated as such. If it isn't, then neither should the industry in which I work. We should be allowed to show preference to certain products - especially the products we own. There are many other utilities and modalities that facilitate transport. Yet Twitter is special.
Either it is a public utility or we simply deregulate all public utilities.
The funny thing to me is socialists/leftists who think they have something they can point at and shout 'hypocrite' because Constitutionalists are in a bind between free market deregulation and protecting free speech and information abridgment via unelected and unregulated corporate monopolies who realistically control the internet and currently are not subject to Constitutional protections. It's not a bind. It's not hypocrisy. It's also not always going to be people they think are conservatives who's speech gets suppressed. Louis Farrakhan for example, should have every right to say anything he wants to say on social media without being censored or deplatformed. It's not all about Alex Jones, but even if it was, so what?
When did liberals stop believing in free speech?
When did liberals stop believing in free speech?
