Social Black Pigeon Speaks Banned from Youtube

JonesBones said:
Facebook is a dictatorship and most shareholders want him gone. He set up a dual class structure so he can never be outvoted, there is talk of this being made illegal in the near future. Facebook is toast. Everyone from Trump to Warren to Canada to Europe wants their heads.

Pelosi refused to even take Zuck's call.






Click to expand...


...ok?
 
Also:

The American Civil Liberties Union condemns Facebook's censorship, cautioning that "every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence."
 
JonesBones said:
Facebook is a dictatorship and most shareholders want him gone. He set up a dual class structure so he can never be outvoted, there is talk of this being made illegal in the near future. Facebook is toast. Everyone from Trump to Warren to Canada to Europe wants their heads.

Pelosi refused to even take Zuck's call.






Click to expand...

Can't cuck the Zuck. Zuck just said fuck you to 67% of the shareholders and they couldn't do shit about it.
 
TUFNewb said:
I guess wall street didn't get the message. FB is up today and not far off its ATH.
Click to expand...

It's all time high is in the 210s and it is in the 170s now. It also didn't make up yesterday's losses on the news.
 
Higus said:
...ok?
Click to expand...

Ok what? It isn't accountable to shareholders and these politicians are mad at them. What don't you understand? What FB will try to do is have the government be in charge of their regulation which would only be good for FB and widen their moat, but people like Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, and politicians from a bunch of other countries are going after them and these people actually know tech and finance, it will not be like the shit show at the last hearings with old bumpkins not even understanding the basic business model.
 
JonesBones said:
It's all time high is in the 210s and it is in the 170s now. It also didn't make up yesterday's losses on the news.
Click to expand...

Closer to 52 wk high than low. Emails are priced in now, and people are buying FB today, not selling. Far from toast.
 
Gregolian said:
My contention though is, at what point does a private entity get so big that they basically are the only player in town?

You can be all Clint Eastwood "get off my lawn" all you want but what if your lawn is a international in size and covers everything? (Just a hypothetical essentially.)
Click to expand...
The internet is a pretty big lawn. I get this objection if they could block other businesses by limiting bandwidth or access to infrastructure, but if not it's a business decision and they aren't infringing on anyone's rights.
 
TUFNewb said:
Closer to 52 wk high than low. Emails are priced in now, and people are buying FB today, not selling. Far from toast.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that ad dollars are still rolling in. It is a well run company and all the bad news is largely priced in. I have been saying it is undervalued forever but now I am pissed. lol.
 
panamaican said:
No, they've never operated under the guise of being a neutral independent platform all these years to receive the aforementioned protections. No one has to claim independence to get a copyright or a patent.
Click to expand...
Actually they have invoked section 230 in various lawsuits. Are you denying they benefited from this government protection?
panamaican said:
Simply typing SJW doesn't elevate dumb arguments into good ones. Although I'm sure you don't see the irony in calling me a SJW while you're arguing that a private company should operate in a way that provides "social justice" to those you're advocating for. Why would you...that would require you to have a strong grasp of the elements in play.
Click to expand...
Don't get rustled because I called you out being an SJW. Anyone that has read any of your posts can see it. The censorship of anything deemed "hate speech" (used to be just racism, but now includes immigration, abortions, pro-nouns, etc the list goes on) is what SJWs are in support of. They have led the charge in this effort. But I guess you don't realize that you're are in that category. Why would you...that would require you to have a strong grasp of the elements in play.
 
Gregolian said:
Wrong, you see that "Share this Page" option at the bottom with Twitter's logo and the Facebook Recommended button? Yeah, this site is connected to both.
Click to expand...

Am I prohibited from using this site without a Facebook acct? Does Facebook determine what sort of speech is allowed on this site? Could this site continue to operate if they removed the affiliate links?
 
I guess ts agrees that all bakeries should be baking gay cakes too.
 
Mr Holmes said:
Allowing a few mega corporations control the flow of communications unchallenged sounds a lot better. <YeahOKJen>
Click to expand...

They don't control it. There are no legal or physical barriers preventing competition.
 
JamesRussler said:
I’m gonna miss BPS. He basically had the right ideas. He stayed away from from really controversial stuff though, so it’s weird they would go after him. I’m surprised they haven’t snuffed Vince James, Black Pilled, Red Ice, Nick Fuentes, Jesse Lee Peterson, ramzpaul, James Allsup, or AmRen TBH. If they do, that’s probably it for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's going to be a real shame when you have to pay Jordan Peterson a monthly fee to listen to your favorite professional dog whistlers.
 
JonesBones said:
Ok what? It isn't accountable to shareholders and these politicians are mad at them. What don't you understand? What FB will try to do is have the government be in charge of their regulation which would only be good for FB and widen their moat, but people like Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, and politicians from a bunch of other countries are going after them and these people actually know tech and finance, it will not be like the shit show at the last hearings with old bumpkins not even understanding the basic business model.
Click to expand...
There is no reason why people *must* use facebook as a platform to express their opinions. If people don't like how the company is ran, they can (and should) stop using it or switch to/create new platforms. If shareholders aren't happy, they should divest. Full Stop. You don't have those same options if you aren't happy with the government.

Consider that Facebook/Youtube has considered their options and they think that this is a good decision. Either the forces of the market behind this move will be validated by shareholders or they will need to be reconsidered. Either way, its a market problem that will eventually fix itself and not a free speech issue.
 
Higus said:
He's the one saying a privately owned platform must host content it doesn't want to at their cost even if it its not under the scope of legal free speech protections, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?
Click to expand...


And they want the government to get involved and intervene. My how the tables have turned.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,807
Messages
55,518,204
Members
174,807
Latest member
Mapichtli

Share this page

Back
Top