that's pretty hollow to claim you understand the era you didn't experience.
But keep on believing in that notion I guess.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
But keep on believing in that notion I guess.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,688
That's the one that did it for me. It still haunts me.
With Facebook & Twitter vs. other platforms (TV, etc.) - it's like Public Access channel. "free" speech in that it's free to do, not being paid or paying for it. It's not a "you have to provide service to paying customers". Although, It's becoming a public platform via a private company. While I think that they should censor it as they see fit (let the users decide to stay or go), I'd like it better if they didn't censor it at all. But, I don't think they should be forced either way.
I'd rather not see it regulated and let the consumer decide. But, when it comes to big platforms like that, it can be a insight into the majority thinking. Take away the speech of one side, and it looks like the majority supports a view when in reality it's just showing you what they want you to see...
Moderate within reason. It's gone too far, IMO.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
Because you stated that it was a business's right to not offer service when quite clearly two very high courts disagreed with you, and the Supreme Court has not made a decision that disagrees with them.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
I don't think it is right for a business to refuse service...
As I have said before, censoring content is not refusing service. Censoring content on a free, opt-in website, is not the same thing as a bakery refusing to sell you something. The first is done to protect the company from lawsuits and it's viewers from being subjected to beyond distasteful trash, the second is discrimination. Keep on equating them though.
Wow, you are an over-educated idiot if you think that I person who is almost 60 years old can't grasp what life was like for people 16 years prior to their birth.
Not that we don't have writings and memoirs in great abundance written by those that did live that life. These are our parents who have more than a few stories, people who raised us with their values. That time is not ancient history to everyone you fool.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
We will agree to disagree.
There are United States District Court for the District of Columbia indictments against TEN_GOP saying they're from Tennessee for Twitter activity. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Or people like Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin when not obfuscated.
You don't think there would ever be an indictment for Gab activity?
Publicly-traded corporations are not left wing. They aren't going to buy back stock, become co-ops, and let low-level employees own a share of their IP, facilities, machinery in some cases, etc.
They can ban union discussions in retail stores (or an office) and immediately terminate employees without being right wing, either. That is separate from being non-discriminatory on basis of race, religion, etc.
Last edited:
????
Are you conflating what people do on a certain platform vs the person?
Even if you are, TEN_GOP is on twitter. Where are the charges against twitter?
Kind of a BS thing that some russian is being accused of doing. Lying about your location on the internet is now a federal crime?
Laughable.Wait, let me run something past you. Hypothetical
You and I both work together. You ask me if I would be interested in joining a volunteer group to work with youth at your Church.
I say no, I don't say why.
I don't like you. I have seen you do, and say some things at work, that make me not like you. I think you are a person of poor integrity.
I also own a small dry cleaner shop, my wife opens in the morning and I take over in the late afternoon, and close at night.
You come in and need a jacket pressed, and I refuse you service.
I know that this is not illegal discrimination according to the law.
I have the right to turn you away for any reason other than those expressly deemed illegal. Yes, it is discrimination, but not all discrimination is illegal, and even a business owner has rights under the law.
I do not have to do business with everyone that asks, and I don't have to associate with everyone who asks.
While you probably could, i would maintain it's a stupid business decision. You offer a service to the public, people come in all the time to your dry cleaning business. They aren't asking for anything out of the ordinary and you don't have a good reason to turn away business. Money is money and as long as it's not a customer that you have a bad experience with previously, why would you purposely cause issues with your business? Turning people away just because will cause them to complain, tell others about your unprofessional behavior and cause problems that can affect your future business. It's very short sighted. All it takes is a few bad reviews on yelp or word of mouth for that to happen.
This is what i don't like about the scenario. You're making decisions based on your feelings which almost always means you're acting in an unprofessional manner while operating your own business. It's just going to get worse from there.
MyNameIsAlex
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Messages
- 313
Sometimes it's more profitable to lose a few sales, see, segregation, jim crow, etc
Did you not understand what I was saying about the other guy? "I think you are a person of poor integrity." You may not pay, you are the kind of person who is more trouble then they are worth. You'll mess up your clean shirt and blame me for it in front of my other customers, and frankly, It's my business and my decisions, so I give a damn what you think about them. You don't have to live with the outcome.
The question was never about such choices and their impact as a "good business decision". The discussion and my post is about what is, or should be legal/illegal.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
Yeah, I am pretty sure this is a legal type of 'discrimination'. And I don't really see much problem with it.
In the case of the previous examples that led us to this discussion, the baker refusing to serve a gay couple, I think is wrong. One is a justified concern about a specific person, the other is just hate/ignorance/predjudice against a class or group of people, and that is rightly illegal.
My 2¢
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
And the other could be they believe doing that to be morally wrong and would cause them mental angst to do so.
Driving someone out of business by harassment is very different from driving someone out of business by boycott. One is downright illegal and exactly what gangs do, the other is the reasonable thing to do. There are a lot on the left that get away with acting like gangs that the media does not apply the same level of scrutiny that they do to the right. See it all the time in Berkeley.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
Then said person should not be in business dealing with the public.
Thinking something is morally wrong, doesn't mean it is. Being superstitious, thinking the earth is flat, thinking that there dinosaurs walking the earth 5,000 years ago... you can believe all you want, doesn't make it true. Discrimination based on religious 'beliefs' has no place in modern society.
If the baker went out of business, very likely due to boycott. I can tell you that I wouldn't spend my money there.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,752
While I would agree that religion is a cancer in humanity that needs to die... you don't get to define what other people's morals are. Emotional trauma has been successfully sued for far less. Violation of deeply rooted religious beliefs or any other moral standard for that matter...
I disagree. I think the free market should be allowed to handle this. If the owner is willing to take on the burden of reduced sales from not just the refusal, but from those who hear about it and choose to no longer do business with him/her, then they should be able to. If this eventually leads them to go out of business, or even rescind and apologize to try to get back clientele, then the free market has spoken. If there is no impact to their bottom line, then it shows that no one actually cared, and half of the internet outrage was just for show.
These are not government funded entities, they should be able to run their businesses as they see fit. I actually disagree with the baker's decision, but come on... it's a friggin cake.... go get one somewhere else. Their refusal to sell a cake did not cause any actual harm. People need to GTF over themselves and realise that sometimes life isn't fair, but that doesnt mean you have been "emotionally damaged"
Last edited:
TrashPanda
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2
I disagree on the grounds that Facebook, having made themselves a public forum for social media covering the globe for profit cannot infringe on constitutionally protected speech and therefore must adhere to First amendment protections for political speech in public because they have become a proxy for government censorship as stewards of the public forum they created and profit from. Much as colleges and university, receiving government funds (Facebook benefits from government tax exemptions, discounts, and web use since DARPANET was tax-payer funded) cannot infringe on free political speech either.
If they don't want that, they can make Facebook a subscription-fee-based private network that pays for itself without tax breaks from the public.Most public and private companies are exempt because they don't offer a tax-payer-funded public forum ostensibly open to all but covertly censored and whose internal policies increasing (every day) are being discovered to be allow the illegal sharing of customer data.
Last edited:
Every single one of those things you listed were when people discriminated against a particular group for whatever reason. I'm suggesting not to do that and serve everyone as long as they have money.
People are literally falling over themselves saying buisnesses have the right to deny service to others for any number of reasons. This has lead to segregation, jim crow laws, ect ect ect.
I think a person is of poor integrity and having experience of a person having poor integrity are two different things. You might see a black man coming in that's poorly dressed and just wants service or something you're selling. you can easily say, ehhh.. i THINK he's of poor integrity, or even take it a step further. I think he's going to steal in my store, i want him out, i have the ability to do this because I THINK (no factual basis for thinking that like past experience) it's going to be a problem. That's where your logic will lead you to.
MyNameIsAlex
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Messages
- 313
I know but you were like 'oh man why would I turn down a sale' but imagine if you could do it in some failing dive bar 'youre black, gtfo' , get on the news, then become the new hip spot for skinheads? you get it.
There are all kinds of scummy, shady, grey, etc ways to make money and ALL of them are being employed.
Lol, i'm saying the business reasons to do it is very very slim. No one should want to, i'm not questioning the oddball cases. Your scenario is super odd ball. A failing business goes, yeah, i want to make a name for myself WITH THE LOCAL SKINHEADS. This... well i won't say it's never gone through someone's head, but they gotta be on some sort of massive cocaine binge to be that far gone to have this line of thought.
Catering to a particular group instead of catering to everyone limits customers and limits income. This is especially true in the case of a bar/dry cleaners/typical service industry or typical product industry. Supermarkets are not in the business of catering to moms with suvs for example, it makes no sense.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
Pretty sure that is what happened... free market took care of it. Though I will be the first to admit that I do not hang out in "Floridian Baker" circles..
And they generally do.
There has to be anti-discrimination laws, otherwise we would still have racist cunts refusing service to blacks or whoever else. Doing this violates someone's (the discriminated against person) constitutional rights to life, liberty, and happiness. Being forced to sell a cake to a black or a gay doesn't harm the sellers right to life liberty, and happiness, but ensures it for the buyer.
Lol what...
The first amendment doesn't say anything about your right to say anything in a public, private, or whatever else forum, except to say that the government will make no law to "abridge" it. Facebook != the government. Instagram != the government. You have to opt-in to use Facebook, and they do not have to let you say whatever you want because of the First Amendment.
Read it again:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Where does it say a business cannot censor their platform/newspaper/forum as they see fit???
It doesn't.
Instagram/Facebook et all, are not government entities, or even taxpayer funded like a college campus.
Last edited:
thank you
Although my 2¢ isn't worth more than your 2¢, (except to me), I disagree with your characterization of the baker thing. You see it as "just hate/ignorance/predjudice" and I see it as how they honestly feel in light of their religious beliefs. Now if you have information that says the baker isn't really all that religious at all and he's using that as an excuse then maybe you have something. But as long as people's religious beliefs are recognized as important, by the constitution, then I think those honestly held beliefs have to be considered with no less care, than a couple's beliefs in same sex marriage. And in the same vein, if it starts looking like the couple selected the baker specifically hoping that a disagreement and refusal would emerge, that would have an impact as well.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
The constitution doesn't recognize religious beliefs as 'important', only that the Government cannot infringe on your religious beliefs. As soon as your beliefs start infringing on others, that's a problem (applies to the example we are using).
Your religious freedom stops at the tip of your nose. Pushing your beliefs on anyone else infringes on their religious freedom.
Religion also cannot be used as an excuse to discriminate.
You are trying to put the Baker's "Religious beliefs" above all others... doing that violates everyone elses' religious beliefs who do not align with his/yours. Enforcing one religion over another violates the constitution. Because the protection for these beliefs are equal for everyone, The Baker and the Gay couple are free to have opposing religious views, this is what the constitution protects. It does not protect discrimination based on differences in those beliefs.
I gave a specific example that, although fictitious, was specific. No reason to run of the rails with other possibilities as a means to discount the specific case. I said I new the person, worked with him, had reason not to like and trust him.
Your "..might see a black man..." is clearly a case of illegal discrimination. Why would you pose a case involving illegal discrimination in order to argue against something that is not illegal?
I'll say it again, "No shirt, No Shoes, No Service". This is not illegal. This is the right of the business owner, who does have rights under the law. Just because someone starts a business it doesn't mean that they lose all their rights.
Because with the no shirt, no shoes, no service the rules are plain, out in the open and applied universally.
Your example was poor. You work with the guy, you don't have a good impression of him from work. There are no details as to why you believe this, it's just stated as is. He invited you to some volunteer thing which shows he wanted to get to know you better outside of work, you shoot him down. It's not as off he owes you lunch money or some shit like he won't pay you for services rendered. Then you apply your dislike of the person outside of your work to a side business of dry cleaning and refuse service.
At what point are you applying universal rules such as no shirt, no shoes no service to this individual? You're clearly biased with your prior dealings to him for an unknown reason that you haven't gotten into. this "I have seen you do, and say some things at work, that make me not like you" does not mean this person wouldn't pay for dry cleaning.
Did me saying that a poorly dressed black person might steal? ok, change that to white if it's too difficult to comprehend. A guy comes into your shop looking like a bum, no race or color mentioned. You refuse service because you arbitrarily don't like him. Kind of a shit thing to do without knowing anything about them and or having any past history with them.
Because "I have seen you do, and say some things at work, that make me not like you. I think you are a person of poor integrity."
Alright fine, it's not specific enough for you.
You would rather give my fictitious example the benefit of the doubt instead of extending your imagination to my meaning..... meaning, I have good reasons for turning him away.
Alright, he's broken security rules on several occasions, not enough to get fired or lose his security access ....... and he took 50 cents from the donut fund. Furthermore, he's a pain in the ass to deal with.
The question is not whether or not my example is good enough for you to accept. Again, it's already established that as a business owner, I can deny service to anyone I wish as long as in doing so, I do not violate the law regarding discrimination on race, age, and gender. You can claim it's a bad business decision but it's not your business, you don't have to deal with the chump, it's not your decision to make. You only have to make your own decisions and you are not responsible for someone else's.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
This is actually false. The baker did NOT refuse to serve a gay couple. He only refused their particular request for a wedding cake. He offered any other cake they would like. He also offered to give them the names of other bakes who would accept their request. So what exactly is wrong about that? He wasn't rude to the gay couple, quite the contrary. The gay couple wanted to force him to make the cake exactly as they requested. On top of that his time is limited and the demand for his services is high. He can only make so many cakes per week to begin with. So is it right to force him to make that cake specifically and refuse someone else a cake? Who gets to make that decision?
Please stop with the comparisons to the Baker, because it is really not applicable here.
GoodBoy
lcpiper
EDIT: Apparently tagging isn't working properly for me.
Fixed.
EDIT: To be clear, the baker is providing a material service with limited capabilities. Social Media is providing a public forum with almost unlimited capacity. The fact that the forum they are providing is public and is also being used to support public officials with support from the platforms themselves is part of what is driving this current move.
Last edited:
An example, whether accurately based or not, remains only an example. Even if Goodboy and myself are mistaken about it, if we are mistaken together than the example remains viable.
So please stop correcting me about things that are immaterial to the discussion
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
An example, whether accurately based or not, remains only an example. Even if Goodboy and myself are mistaken about it, if we are mistaken together than the example remains viable.
So please stop correcting me about things that are immaterial to the discussion
So apples are red, therefore this act is good. According to you, it applies. Because it is an example.
As for things that are immaterial to the discussion, how is correcting a false correlation on the issue, immaterial to the discussion? After all you were making a correlation, not just an example. Trying to get the discussion on track is immaterial? That also makes no sense.
Because it's not the correlation you are referring too that is material to the discussion.
Look, let's back up since you want in on this one and I'll ask that you pick up from my original comments where A: I assert that we should not want the government getting into the habit of determining what any business can or can't say, or censure.
This is based on a few givens, 1#, that censuring one viewpoint supports those opposed to it, 2#, that the shoe can go on the other foot, and 3#, that somehow the government frequently does more harm than good because of how they go about "fixing problems".
And following this, my post that discrimination is not always illegal, and therefore, just because a company is being discriminating, that this is not a bad thing. That businesses and business owners have rights just as individuals do.
It's my position along these lines that fueled the discussion and brought us to where we are now.
It seems to me, that people are too tied up in what the text of the constitution says about free speech. Perhaps they forgot why free speech and freedom of religion was implemented in the first place?
The goal of any free speech, it the exchange and evaluation of ideas:
If we cannot talk about problems, how can we solve them. We believe it is more important to solve societys problems, than it is to protect those who made mistakes or cover it up. E.g. the earth orbits around the sun debate. It seems smarter to debate whether the earth rotates around the sun or not. Rather than having the church kill all that disagrees with them, because they KNOW they are right. God said so! Hence freedom of religion to allow people to disagree with the pious.
The point with all of these, is not that companies don't have rights. Its that, sometimes those rights are in opposition to the progress of society as a whole. For instance, companies are allowed to grow, buy, compete. But there are natural monopolies, or monopolies that exist because someone was smart enough to buy up all the rights. For instance Standard Oil, or Bell. Surely someone could set up their own phone company. People just couldn't call Bells customers. So, where did you want to be a customer again?
This is why we have antistrust laws. To prevent companies to be detrimental to society.
I see the same thing here. Facebook is a natural monopoly. You can join other social networks, but noone has the same amount of users. And when it comes to political discussion, thats where it happens. Its where Obama won his precidency and where Trump allegedly won his precidency as well. Now Facebook (and other companies) have decided that they alone know the truth. That the reason the left looses election after election, is not that they call the voters deplorable, but fake news, meaning information or arguments comming from the right. They alone know the truth now, and some of them are indeed pious about it. So much so, that twitter, instragram, paypal, facebook... can agree to shut down people on the right ... for reasons...
With antitrust laws we prevented large companies to completely dominate a business and set their own prices, as they would have too much control over society. Similarly, it seems to be time to confront the big tech companies about their influence. After all, we don't want the companies to run the country? They make 1984 look like a fairytale. It cant be long before they implement a social score, where if you score too low, say the wrong things, you will be excluded from using their services. They allready do that to some extent by shadowbanning people. I'm one of them. China might be more free than the west soon.
The goal of any free speech, it the exchange and evaluation of ideas:
If we cannot talk about problems, how can we solve them. We believe it is more important to solve societys problems, than it is to protect those who made mistakes or cover it up. E.g. the earth orbits around the sun debate. It seems smarter to debate whether the earth rotates around the sun or not. Rather than having the church kill all that disagrees with them, because they KNOW they are right. God said so! Hence freedom of religion to allow people to disagree with the pious.
The point with all of these, is not that companies don't have rights. Its that, sometimes those rights are in opposition to the progress of society as a whole. For instance, companies are allowed to grow, buy, compete. But there are natural monopolies, or monopolies that exist because someone was smart enough to buy up all the rights. For instance Standard Oil, or Bell. Surely someone could set up their own phone company. People just couldn't call Bells customers. So, where did you want to be a customer again?
This is why we have antistrust laws. To prevent companies to be detrimental to society.
I see the same thing here. Facebook is a natural monopoly. You can join other social networks, but noone has the same amount of users. And when it comes to political discussion, thats where it happens. Its where Obama won his precidency and where Trump allegedly won his precidency as well. Now Facebook (and other companies) have decided that they alone know the truth. That the reason the left looses election after election, is not that they call the voters deplorable, but fake news, meaning information or arguments comming from the right. They alone know the truth now, and some of them are indeed pious about it. So much so, that twitter, instragram, paypal, facebook... can agree to shut down people on the right ... for reasons...
With antitrust laws we prevented large companies to completely dominate a business and set their own prices, as they would have too much control over society. Similarly, it seems to be time to confront the big tech companies about their influence. After all, we don't want the companies to run the country? They make 1984 look like a fairytale. It cant be long before they implement a social score, where if you score too low, say the wrong things, you will be excluded from using their services. They allready do that to some extent by shadowbanning people. I'm one of them. China might be more free than the west soon.
Seems like someone is pitching the ring to Galadrial.
So let me line this out for you.
First, we pass a law that the government has the power to censure. I know, you are saying that's not what this law is, except that it is. By allowing the Government the power to control who can and can't censure, you invest the government with that power. Once the government assumes a power they are loath to let go of it.
I know, you disagree, but it's correct. Think it through, the Government, by telling the big social media outfits that they can't censure, have in fact told the smaller ones that they can censure and what's more. They aren't just assuming the power of censure, the government is deciding who can and can't censure. Where does this go? What genie will we let out of the bottle?
Forget left and right, or who controls what for a moment and think about what you are going to set free. If the 1st Amendment prevents the government from inhibiting free speech, then how can the government be allowed to control who can and can't inhibit free speech?
At the moment it's a hands off issue, but if Florida is allowed to pass this law we'll have to depend on the Supreme Court to correct it. Will they do it for the right or the left, or not at all?
If the big tech giants have too much influence then anti-trust laws should be enough to correct the problem.
I am not entirely sure I follow your argument. The government already censures who can censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins.
As I see it, the government is not allowed to censure. The church is not allowed to censure. Why should facebook? If they dont want political speech, they could remove it all. Thats not what they do. I am looking forward to the isps starting to censure your internet traffic...
I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with this without using words I shouldn't.
1. I highly, highly doubt you'd see businesses choosing their clientele based on race. It makes exactly zero sense to do so and will hurt only the business itself. I really don't know where you live that you think there are piles of racist business owners just waiting for the day to choose their customers by race, but it must be an extremely odd place.
2. No, it would not violate their life, liberty, nor happiness. Patronizing establishments not run by racist fucks (all 7 of them) just seems the sensible thing to do for anyone.
3. Force. Pay attention to your words. FORCE! Force is what denies others of life, liberty, and/or happiness but you're willing to employ it on everyone using the boogeyman of racism.
4. Don't like discrimination? Then you should be fighting against the numerous discriminatory practices, policies, and programs used by our (Federal and state) gov't., education institutions, and businesses today. (assuming you're an American) You can begin with affirmative action and every single 'diversity' program that exists.
Your eyes are closed.
Last edited:
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
It wasn't but what, 60 years ago that that is EXACTLY what was happening. The only reason is still doesn't happen today is due to anti-discrimination laws.
Being discriminated against most definitely violates someones' liberty.
Agreed.
Well, 'forced' wasn't the best way to word that. No one can force the baker to do that. But his refusal based on discrimination is still illegal. He can refuse, but there will be consequences. Or he can just choose not to be in that business. Which is what happened from my understanding.
Never said there were not other types of discrimination. That doesn't really have anything to do with these examples and how they are being used to make points about the Original Post. I can argue against discrimination in making these points all I want, doesn't mean I have to go off on tangents about all of the other discrimination in the world...
I assure you they are not. You are getting sidetracked from the topic.
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,745
This is the mistake that the guy who thinks this needs to be a law, and half of the posters in the thread are making. THERE IS NO WIDESPREAD CENSORING even happening on Facebook. I see right wing bullshit in my feed nearly every day. WHERE IS ALL OF THIS HEAVY-HANDED CENSORING??!?! No-where, judging from what I see in my feed...
So because a companies values are left-leaning, they MUST be anti-right, because 'reasons'... This is guilty before being proven innocent... Let's follow this supposed censorship down a logical path: Let's assume that there are X number of right-wing stories that get censored on Facebook, and Y number of left-wing stories that get censored on Facebook, and that X is greater than Y. Hence the Floridian GOP guy getting his panties in a bunch, decides "there oughta be a law!"
Why is X greater than Y?? Maybe it's because (demonstrably) the right-wing 'news' has a higher chance of being Fiction? Or being spun in ways that are meant to incite violence? Nothing I have seen leads me to believe that there is rampant censoring. Why isn't my damn feed more cleaned up if there's so much censoring that a law is needed to fix it?? Bullshit.
There could be an argument for this. And not just Tech companies. The only reason Tech Companies are in the spotlight is because the right-wing isn't being allowed to use them to lie to the public in the way that the right-wing wishes they could... What about Pharmaceutical companies? What about healthcare companies? Insurance companies? Shouldn't single out one over the other.
In 1984 the government told the population what they could think. Pretty sure that is worse. Only place something like that happens is the middle-east forcing religious views on their populations. A business deciding NOT to show something isn't exactly controlling someone's' thoughts. Users have their 'views', and no one can force them to believe otherwise. At most, if a Media platform aligns to one side, then you see more of that content. If someone decides that "these left-wing ideas are not that bad.." and start agreeing, the person is still making their own choice. The platform can be argued to have influence, but they cannot think for you. So it's not making 1984 "look like a fairytale".
Facebook is cleaning up the fake-news bullshit, and good on them for doing so. Only people complaining are those who might lose influence or power due to that cleanup. Florida Congressman, looking at you.
Edit:
This is what the GOP is so worried about. People getting factual information, and not the fake or out-of-context BS they are always peddling. They might actually get voted out of office, if people saw the truth. Hence, a law must be needed! Crooks... They continue to stay in power by controlling the narrative... And if Facebook has wised up to their bs, and is deleting their fake narrative?!? Temper tantrum ensues... Just look at the gerrymandering they've done to districts... ensures that even with a left-leaning majority population, that the GOP still has more representatives than Democrats get. Corruption. It's everywhere, but from what I can see is more prevalent and pervasive in the right-wing.
Last edited: