Social Crowder Sues Facebook

[Day Drinking]

I think you're focusing too much on who is filing the lawsuit and not whether it has any merit. It's likely going to take a bunch loudmouths and lawsuits to affect any change for Facebook.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and without reading anything about it guess the result.

Facebook terms of service covered this and he has no case, under the contract he agreed to.

 

[blaseblah]

Actually, I believe the same about you...disappointment.

this trend we are seeing here...from the immense power that certain social media platforms yield is cause for concern.

(just for the record, I completely against the required oaths you speak of above)

check this video out




tell me what you think.

Internet censorship is not new, it's been around since the beginning. It's largely been highlighted with conservatives recently because that side has gone in hard on conspiracy theories and had a leader who violated these sites TOS over and over again. But what these social media companies are doing isn't new. Here on sherdog if I make a thread it can get arbitrarily sent to the wasteland or buried by merging with another thread. I don't see a distinction between that and what Twitter does, in fact it's much worse on sherdog. So my question is what exactly are you suggesting be done about this? To what degree should these sites be forced to platform anyone's speech and should it apply to the entire internet?

 

[Falsedawn]

Hmmm sort of like when the NFL players were taking a knee during the National Anthem, and you had a President on Twitter and calling owners privately suggesting they should fire players for kneeing during the National Anthem because it's something he needs and it lifts him politically?

For some strange reason, I didn't see the people on the right on here talking about "Free Speech" when it was the President attempting to thwart individuals free speech.

In fact, they argued me up and down about it when I brought it up. I still remember how stupid that was, which makes it even better now that they're crying.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Internet censorship is not new, it's been around since the beginning. It's largely been highlighted with conservatives recently because that side has gone in hard on conspiracy theories and had a leader who violated these sites TOS over and over again. But what these social media companies are doing isn't new. Here on sherdog if I make a thread it can get arbitrarily sent to the wasteland or buried by merging with another thread. I don't see a distinction between that and what Twitter does, in fact it's much worse on sherdog. So my question is what exactly are you suggesting be done about this? To what degree should these sites be forced to platform anyone's speech and should it apply to the entire internet?

I agree with the overall theme of what youre saying.

I believe the only flaw in your reasoning is that there's a pretty big distinction between Sherdog and platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

Twitter and Facebook are immensely popular and have 100s of millions of members...it's also an effective to way to campaign, adverstise...to "get the word out."

to answer your last couple questions...I do not know. I'm still pondering about that.

 

[chardog]

crowder use to post on sherdog before he became really big, might have deleted his account, and lurking maybe?

 

[MaxMMA]

In fact, they argued me up and down about it when I brought it up. I still remember how stupid that was, which makes it even better now that they're crying.

So then you can agree that using the "it's a private business" argument is not a very good excuse for shit tier, commie level behavior?

 

[Falsedawn]

So then you can agree that using the "it's a private business" argument is not a very good excuse for shit tier, commie level behavior?

Why are you so insistent to abridge the first amendment rights of these organizations?

The only shit tier behavior I'm seeing is from mooks like you who don't seem to understand the constitution.

 

[MaxMMA]

Why are you so insistent to abridge the first amendment rights of these organizations?

The only shit tier behavior I'm seeing is from mooks like you who don't seem to understand the constitution.

So you were ok when owners were theatening to release players from their contracts if they kneeled?

It's their legal right to do so, but that still doesn't mean they aren't anti freedom hypocrites. They are, just like your model of ethical (possibly self destructive?) business practices, twitter.

 

[Falsedawn]

So you were ok when owners were theatening to release players from their contracts if they kneeled?

It's their legal right to do so, but that still doesn't mean they aren't anti freedom hypocrites. They are, just like your model of ethical (possibly self destructive?) business practices, twitter.

So what you're saying is despite your insistence that what they're doing is wrong (because it affects you), you acknowledge that they're well within their constitutional rights and in fact it is you who is attempting to abridge those (again, because it affects you).

Glad we got past that, most people would try and insult my intelligence with a tardgument about publishers or some shit.

And just to prove a point.

The NFL demanding they stop is not.

The President doing so absolutely is.

But you knew that.

 

[grimballer]

Never thought I would ever root for Facebook.

is this suppose to be a surprise?

you always root for greater of 2 evils...

 

[HOLA]

crowder use to post on sherdog before he became really big, might have deleted his account, and lurking maybe?

He's still here. Hasn't posted in years though. @StevenCrowder

 

[blaseblah]

I agree with the overall theme of what youre saying.

I believe the only flaw in your reasoning is that there's a pretty big distinction between Sherdog and platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

Twitter and Facebook are immensely popular and have 100s of millions of members...it's also an effective to way to campaign, adverstise...to "get the word out."

to answer your last couple questions...I do not know. I'm still pondering about that.

They are much more popular, but the same principle applies in that they are websites where users go to communicate with each other. Should there be a separate set of rules for massive platforms? People have been talking about changing Section 230 but that would affect the entire internet, not just Facebook and Twitter.

 

[PhitePhan]

not gonna lie, I had no idea who this guy was. Or, more accurately, I thought he was Dave Rubin. My point is these people are terrible and need to go away and get real jobs

lol, you don’t know who he is, but he’s “terrible and needs to go away.”

 

[cincymma79]

So then you can agree that using the "it's a private business" argument is not a very good excuse for shit tier, commie level behavior?

Same argument holds. Did the nfl have rules against the protests? If not they can't do anything. People are free to not watch though. They are also free to complain about it. Facebook has to show where they violated the terms.

 

[Officer Rick]

Same argument holds. Did the nfl have rules against the protests? If not they can't do anything. People are free to not watch though. They are also free to complain about it. Facebook has to show where they violated the terms.

thats a false equivalence

 

[cincymma79]

thats a false equivalence

No it isn't. It just crushes your stupid comparison, because it's stupid.

 

[Officer Rick]

No it isn't. It just crushes your stupid comparison, because it's stupid.

what comparison? this is my first post in this thread genius. stop eating paint chips

 

[Last Falconry]

lol, you don’t know who he is, but he’s “terrible and needs to go away.”

well, I'm not intimately acquainted with his "work" but I do know he's the dipshit sat at the table with the "change my mind" sign on it

So yes, he sucks. Thanks for your interest, captain semantics

 

[cincymma79]

what comparison? this is my first post in this thread genius. stop eating paint chips

Here's the way convos work. I write something rebutting what someone else says, you say that's not the same as that. You are now arguing for that person. So yes, you and him are arguing the same point.

 

[Officer Rick]

Here's the way convos work. I write something rebutting what someone else says, you say that's not the same as that. You are now arguing for that person. So yes, you and him are arguing the same point.

what? maybe in your delusional head it does....... you made a false equivalence and i called you out on THAT point.. jesus either get some reading comprehension or go back to school