The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
You are NOT Facebook's customer -- You're their product. Their advertisers are their customer. They "sell" you to their advertisers.chamberc wrote:[the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform.
I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?chamberc wrote:Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.ScottDLS wrote:This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.chamberc wrote:Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."
They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.C-dub wrote:I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?chamberc wrote:Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.ScottDLS wrote:This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.chamberc wrote:Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."
They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.
sjfcontrol wrote:You are NOT Facebook's customer -- You're their product. Their advertisers are their customer. They "sell" you to their advertisers.chamberc wrote:[the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform.
This was kind of my point. Regardless of who is the customer, they are telling the "users" that they are providing a platform for discussion and social sharing. The don't have to, they can make up arbitrary rules, they can be in the tank for the commie Democrats like the rest of the media. It's not a Constitutional/legal free speech issue, but it's a "tolerance" (favorite lib word) and transparency issue. As a "target" of their media you have an expectation that they will deal with you honestly. Facebook doesn't; they're leftist, statist, freedom hating, anti-Christian, anti-Israel hypocrites and we ought to call them out when they are. We can't put them in jail, but we can make fools of them in other social media...C-dub wrote:I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?chamberc wrote:Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.ScottDLS wrote:This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.chamberc wrote:Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."
They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.
Well the internet is really nothing but a bunch of mostly privately owned "sites", "applications", tools, etc. connected together by (mostly) privately owned infrastructure. Absent wiretap laws and utility regulation the phone company could tell you what you could write in your e-mail over their privately owned wires...but they shouldn't. Facebook, and eBAY, and DMN can refuse to let you use their classifieds for selling guns, just as they could refuse to print leftist propaganda, but they DON'T. A publicly open business can tell me I can't carry a concealed gun on their property or wear a (concealed) thong, or go "commando". Neither is really any of their business, as neither really affects anyone else on the property. So they can do it...Yes.... And we can say they are full of bovine excrement, which they are.mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?
Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.chamberc wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.C-dub wrote:I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?chamberc wrote:Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.ScottDLS wrote:This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.chamberc wrote:Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."
They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.
The problem as I see it is that AFAIK, no one is actually selling firearms on FB. They are merely agreeing to the conditions and completing the transaction somewhere else. This is a legal activity. There's very likely far more illegal and or immoral activities that are being done the same way utilizing FB that they won't do anything about.mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or login to this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?
That instructor was not fired for, nor arrested for "violation of free speech". There is no such charge. An employer may terminate an employee for behavior they deem damaging to the organization.C-dub wrote:Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.chamberc wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.C-dub wrote:I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?chamberc wrote:Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.ScottDLS wrote:This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.chamberc wrote:Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."
They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.