Facebook suspends Trump until 2023

[jamil]

We all know someone like this in the real. The safety barrier offered by a key board only emboldens these unhappy people to the point they start to get off on these actions. 95% of these trolls whither when confronted FTF.

In my early Mod times there were a couple of members with multiple shills on Ingo and they would bounce from account to account sticking and stabbing at members from different angles. You ban one and get the same one in another guise.
Buddy showed me how he tracks these stooges (yes I said it and will say it FTF) around the web. They bounce forum to forum stirring and at every opportunity. It must become a sexual thing with them. You know, moms basement, dark damp safe corner, empty Pizza boxes and uber food sacks. Sitting in stained tighty whiteys.......The glow of the screen in the dim light.

Yeah they suck.

I thought they ate cheetos.

 

[Brad69]

You mean immunity under sec 230?

But if facebook blocks free exchange of ideas would they not lose protection?

IMO the law is outdated and needs reform. I am not a legal beagle most of my law experience is from 70’s TV.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You mean immunity under sec 230?

But if facebook blocks free exchange of ideas would they not lose protection?

IMO the law is outdated and needs reform. I am not a legal beagle most of my law experience is from 70’s TV.

Without changing the law? Who knows. Vegas and the horse tracks have been more predictable than the courts.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, it's not Facebook, but...

They want to ban people, but when the platform gets banned... it's a "right".

 

[BugI02]

But I assume it’s ok to get banned from here, right? That doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it doesn't. It is actually a chance for you to step up and be the gander on the restrictions you approve of for Trump

Bon appetit

 

[BugI02]

I have no problem with ending those protections, but simply because they have those protections is no reason to implement back door restrictions on the freedom of association of private business. For all the people that talk about ills of socialism/communism, it’s odd that they would freely support govt imposing the same restriction governmental entities are subject to, to private ones.
This NOT a First Anendment issue; at least not how the BoRs is written. “Shall make No law...” isn’t open to interpretation in the same way we apply it the 2nd Amendment; and it should apply both ways. Just because is applied incorrectly one way, doesn’t mean we should support it being applied incorrectly the other way.

Somehow I think if we were discussing the 'freedom of association of private business' to not do business with BLM, or PoC in general, you would not be so accommodating

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, it doesn't. It is actually a chance for you to step up and be the gander on the restrictions you approve of for Trump

Bon appetit

He won't be doing anything here again, ever.

 

[kickbacked]

Was Trump really a member on facebook? I know he was a big tweeter and it was actually him on twitter, not just some employee tweeting promotional stuff for him. Facebook went from a platform for college kids to a platform for boomers to yell political crap at each other, share stupid images with inspirational quotes and peddling pyramid scheme products. I cant wait for the day facebook goes the way of myspace.

 

[BugI02]

Was Trump really a member on facebook? I know he was a big tweeter and it was actually him on twitter, not just some employee tweeting promotional stuff for him. Facebook went from a platform for college kids to a platform for boomers to yell political crap at each other, share stupid images with inspirational quotes and peddling pyramid scheme products. I cant wait for the day facebook goes the way of myspace.

D'accord!

I can't wait for the day computers go back to being tools instead of some kind of glass teat for the weak minded to live out their fantasies on

 

[JettaKnight]

OK lets think about this for a minute. This sight is nothing like the book of faces. It is privately owned with a well defined set of rules so different premise.
You will get banned only if you cross one of those well defined lines in this privately owned forum. Not exactly apples to apples I guess.

Edit.....OK I know who you are now and for the life of me (sound familiar) I will not let trollish behavior wreck these threads that you are in. Just settle down and lets have a discussion.

OK - serious question, because I'm ignorant.

Both INGO and FB are private companies (but FB is publicly traded), doesn't the law apply equally?

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK - serious question, because I'm ignorant.

Both INGO and FB are private companies (but FB is publicly traded), doesn't the law apply equally?

INGO rules in applicable cases are designed to prevent the question from being raised. FB, by contrast, wants protection for allowing sewage that INGO does not allow, but also wants to curate content for political reasons in such a way that it does in fact serve as a publisher of material by virtue of creating content but still wants to disavow that standard denying itself to be a publisher but rather a distributor of 3rd party content.

INGO would have to let MAIG, the Brady Campaign, and the mommies that need diddled all say whatever they want here and take a hands off approach to content to be eligible for those protections. FB, Twitter, et alia, are trying to have it both ways.

 

[churchmouse]

OK - serious question, because I'm ignorant.

Both INGO and FB are private companies (but FB is publicly traded), doesn't the law apply equally?

OK not to be rude or anything but no there is no similarity's at all. FB is multi-level publicly traded deal so they are subject to a whole other level of regulations than we are. Read the thread. They steal and trade your info and work it from every angle. They have had their feet held to the fire in the congress and promised to be fair in how they ran the site. Not true. They are not fair and un-biased. Not even close.

I will not ban you for expressing your opinion if you do it in a civil manner. Regardless of your opinion. Civility is the key.
1...get snarky.......draws attention.
2...get angry and call names, yeah you make the list.
3...When asked to step back and take a deep breath......and you continue to get that last word in......Oh yeah you are for sure gonna get some attention.

FB is nothing like that. I have 4 7 day and 2 30 day set offs on my record for merely stating facts. Some Karen or a Karen with a package reports me because they were offended and bam.
Thats not the way it works here no matter what our latest shooter says.

 

[churchmouse]

INGO rules in applicable cases are designed to prevent the question from being raised. FB, by contrast, wants protection for allowing sewage that INGO does not allow, but also wants to curate content for political reasons in such a way that it does in fact serve as a publisher of material by virtue of creating content but still wants to disavow that standard denying itself to be a publisher but rather a distributor of 3rd party content.

INGO would have to let MAIG, the Brady Campaign, and the mommies that need diddled all say whatever they want here and take a hands off approach to content to be eligible for those protections. FB, Twitter, et alia, are trying to have it both ways.

Have you actually seen some of those mommies......Oh hell to the no.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Have you actually seen some of those mommies......Oh hell to the no.

I wasn't volunteering, just observing that they apparently need some attention else they wouldn't be so difficult.

 

[churchmouse]

I wasn't volunteering, just observing that they apparently need some attention else they wouldn't be so difficult.

And from what I see it aint happening any time soon short of a 5th of cheap vodka and a hand full of pills.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And from what I see it aint happening any time soon short of a 5th of cheap vodka and a hand full of pills.

I still can't get over the original one from Zionsville being a trophy wife. I would think someone with the money for one of those could have done much better.

 

[churchmouse]

I still can't get over the original one from Zionsville being a trophy wife. I would think someone with the money for one of those could have done much better.

Yeah buddy.

 

[BigRed]

Please I love stories.

@Kutnupe14 can give the long version.

Bring coffee.


Cliff's Notes:

Trump is bad and is perceived as a threat to Liberty and the Constitution. A vote will not be cast for Trump.

So, instead of casting a vote for a candidate with a platform consistent with the limitations placed upon the central state in the Constitution, a vote is cast for a candidate with the stated objective of infringing upon Liberty and disregarding the Constitution.

 

[Meecer841]

Until they reevaluate later on.

 

[foszoe]

He's the floater.

A baby Ruth?