TOO FAR: Facebook just banned a conservative with NO explanation whatsoever!

Earlier today we reported on Facebook banning Alex Jones from Instagram, which they own. They’d already banned Jones from Facebook in the fall of last year.

Well now Facebook has banned Paul Joseph Watson without even an explanation:

I believe Paul Watson Jones has worked with Infowars in the past, so that may have something to do with Facebook’s rationale.



But even so, well known conservatives are vouching for him, suggesting he’s not a crazy loon or conspiracy theorist by any stretch. And they are saying this is flat out censorship:

Facebook wants us to believe that they are a neutral public forum and they want the protections that come with such a designation. Yet they are clearly censoring certain people they disagree with, justifying it by suggesting they are hate groups.

Pretty soon, all of us will be thrown into that category for one reason or another. It might be our unflinching stance against homosexuality or abortion that gets us thrown off these platforms. Or it might be because we are Christian. Who knows.

The trend is certainly headed the wrong direction with this.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

183 thoughts on “TOO FAR: Facebook just banned a conservative with NO explanation whatsoever!

  1. In a recent congressional hearing Facebook and Google were told that IF they are now being “editorial” with their content then they stand to loose their immunity from being SUED. They were told they should only be shutting down “incitement to violence” and IF they are doing more than that…………….look out……….here come the LAW SUITS!!! Here is a link to what was said about this in that hearing…. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4791932/free-speech-internet

  2. The invention of social media lead directly to the extension of bullying past high school.

    That’s really what all of this is: viewpoint-based bullying to punish anyone who doesn’t conform.

      1. @dr-strangelove He got stuffed in his locker after they took his lunch money. Poor little snowflake hasn’t ever gotten over it.

  3. Side tangent, but if he’s a regular conservative why does Glenn Beck feel the need to say he’s sure they don’t agree on much? That just struck me as odd.

    1. PJW has been associated witg Alex Jones in the past. Truth is, I trust PJW more than Glenn Beck.

    2. Because Glenn Beck knows he is the only one right on most issues… sadly, only he knows that. Everyone else is oblivious to his superior knowledge and intellect. It must be a lonely island.

  4. I have no idea who he is so I can’t vouch for him. I will say, however, that I believe it was a crock to ban Alex Jones under the umbrella of hate speech because he isn’t a hateful man. He’s just anti-government with conspiracy theories so the category they put him in is a joke. I assume this guy is yet another one put in that category to excuse the ban.

    If it doesn’t align with PC or the left it’s hate speech. We all know this.

  5. Facebook= Log in, look at new photos of my grandchildren that my kids have posted. Log out. Otherwise I wouldn’t waste a second on their site.

    1. You have an account and log in for 1 second, you support Zuckerberg and Facebook.
      And so do your kids. Have them send your grandchildren pic’s to you in the email, mail or text.
      If it’s free, YOU are the product

  6. Zuckerberg LIED his head off to Ted and every other member of Congress at the hearing when he said Facebook is a platform for EVERYONE to speak and share their views and opinions.

  7. Let’s see if they ban Joe Rogan… who just had Alex Jones on recently (and that podcast got monstrous views, as well as advertised on FB, I believe) … Joe is a lefty libertarian but he is no fan of these tactics and being one of the biggest dogs in the podcast/YouTube world, and even openly challenged @Jack if Twitter twice recently … that This could be an Epic showdown!!!

  8. Why doesn’t some wealthy Conservative start their own facebook-like endeavor. There’s no shortage of rich Conservatives. Seriously.

    1. Honestly most of them are old men who know nothing about creating a social media platform that people would flock to. They can tell you about the futures market all day, but their social mediaa accounts are run by underlings. Minds.com and gab.com are already two alternatives. Yeah gab has a lot of anti-semites, you just have to ignore them.

  9. Make no mistake about it – We are living in dangerous times.

    Leftism is an ideology “ism” so deviant, intolerant, inherently seditious, evil, and violent, a virulent strain that is the very essence of fascism, a cancer on truth, civil society, freedom and liberty, when indoctrinated – blinds people to reality truth.

    Time has come for action, the breaking point of radical leftwing fascist intolerance censorship is here, and must end, and end now !

    25 April 2018
    Sen Ted Cruz: Use Antitrust Laws to Break ‘Massive Power’ of Tech Lords who ‘Subvert Our Democratic Process’
    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/25/exclusive-ted-cruz-use-antitrust-laws-to-break-massive-power-of-tech-lords-to-subvert-our-democratic-process/

    10 April 2019
    Ted Cruz Proposes Remedies for Tech Censorship: Regulate, Antitrust, Anti-Fraud
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-proposes-remedies-for-tech-censorship-regulate-antitrust-anti-fraud/

    quote
    Sen. Cruz held a hearing on big tech censorship and proposed three dynamic solutions to the Silicon Valley’s censorship practices, contending that the big tech companies have more power than Standard Oil or the old AT&T telephone monopoly.

    Cruz three solutions include:

    1. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    2. Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
    3. Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.

    “No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the administration or both” Cruz said.

    Radical Leftist Silicon Valley of the Democrats Big Tech Masters of the Universe Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, Shadow Bans-Code Censors Conservatives, Republicans – Patriotic Americans of all ethnicity, races, creeds, color.. Manipulates and Alters Political Content, Collects (steals) Private Data of billions of people around the world to use against us, who aids Communist China in their dictatorship control of their own people, aiding China to steal, giving them US Intellectual Property which is used to benefit China’s Military effort to surpass America’s Military technological superiority and might, thus have literally become monopolistic entities, and worse- a US National Security danger.

  10. Unless congress and Trump get off their ass and do something, banks will be next. They’re already trying to de-person people they determine “anti-semetic” or “white supremacist” by bullying banks to drop people who they determine fall under this desceiption.
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-boys-leaders-personal-bank-account/

    They actually used the China model of “social credit” that their govt. uses to un-person people who don’t go along quietly.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

    1. Banks have already begun. They have cut ties with businesses involved in the gun industry. Dumped credit lines, etc.

      1. Yeah that’s what the proud boys story showed. Fortunately, Wells Fargo and another bank I can’t remember told Shannon Watts to f-off.

  11. I don’t know what to say except starve the beast. The problem is no one wants to get off of these sites. I know plenty of people who will complain about how they do this to people, but they stay on and even get their news and info there. I understand a site like this one or The Blaze or whatever using these social media “platforms” for outreach, but individuals just won’t get off of them for whatever their reason(s). What happens when they do start banning people like Glenn Beck or Mark Levin or Breitbart or Twitchy or The Blaze? Idk, but I stay away from them myself. I rarely ever use Youtube, and I have never created a channel on it so I can’t comment or anything, and I really don’t care or want to.

  12. This is SO utterly outrageous! If you think this is bad, they also just booted one of my friends out for thirty days for saying this below. My friend is a huge Ted Cruz supporter and a rock solid Constitutional Conservative and patriot. My friend’s posting describes the healthcare option that Ted wants for our veterans. It seems that Zuckerberg despises our veterans, but he loves Muslims and illegal invaders. SO disgusting!!! Something is VERY wrong with Zuckerberg!

    “President Trump signed legislation yesterday that will dramatically expand a program at the Department of Veteran Affairs that lets patients seek care at private doctors if they want to bypass the troubled VA system.”

  13. Leave Facebook. Leave Twitter. Join GAB (gab.com) You may not like the nuts that are there but you can mute them. You will have total freedom of speech there, though. If you stay on Facebook and Twitter you are contributing to their tyranny.

    1. I have muted a lot a lot of people commenting on gab. But you can mute the crazies (and never hear from them again) — and I do. There’s an Ace of Spades group and other conservatives creating a lively conversation. It is my main social media outlet.

  14. FYI, Facebook did give a reason. They claimed the ban was for hate speech. They also banned Louis Farrakhan for the same.

    1. Farrakhan has spewed hate speech for years unnoticed by Facebook? They are banning him now only to give the impression for fairness.
      Maybe hate speech ought to have a realistic definition so they can’t hide behind vague interpretations.

    2. Hate speech, like hate crimes, is another flawed manufactured concept created by the left. The very nature of what constitutes as “hate” is subjective and open to interpretation. More often than not it’s anything that they disagree with or that offends their sensibilities.

  15. Just tried to log in to RedState again. They banned me for thanking John McCain for saving the ACA when he passed away.
    Still banned. Whoever runs that site is the same as the facebook mods

    1. I never could figure out how to have an acct to comment there. I think I inquired about it some years ago and crickets. Don’t really care though.

      1. @squirrelly I applied to comment there a couple times, never heard back. There’s a way to comment by going through your Disqus account, but I never went to all of the trouble.

    2. Exactly. I’ve been banned by RedState for a long time because I dared to disagree with one of the writers there. RedState has always been a creepy little cult.

    1. @ryan-o I kicked myself off of FB years ago. I found it mostly to be a gossipy waste of time.

  16. We know Facebook is owned by liberals. It’s a private site. That dictator Zuckerberg is actually within his rights to do this.

    What I can’t believe is that there aren’t tech-savvy conservatives that can build a site just as good if not better. Then the problem would be to blast people who talk big like Matt Walsh from his home on the established liberal site and get him and other conservatives to come over to the new site. My guess is that they’d want to maintain a presence on Facebook because of the traffic on the site, and that would doom any effort on the part of conservatives. The rank and file stay with what they know. All their friends are there. Getting people to do something out of principles they espouse is next to impossible anymore. Folks are far too interested in staying on Zuckerberg’s site, cursing the darkness, rather than lighting a candle.

    1. It boils down to how they are classified. If they are a platform, they shouldn’t be banning anyone. If they are a publisher, than they can do what they like, but they do not get the government protection afforded to platforms.

      Right now, they say they are a platform and they act like a publisher.

      1. I’m not sure you’re right: http://https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/what-does-it-mean-to-ban-alex-jones/566960/

        This place needs to fix it’s wonderful new system so it’s at least as good as it’s actually great old system. I hit the “link” option, and it wouldn’t post anything but, “I’m not sure you’re right.” Scoop, et al, need to learn that you don’t fix what isn’t broke, and you sure as thunder don’t break it once it’s working smoothly.

  17. It’s time to finally determine if Facebook is a platform or a publisher. If they are a platform, they should not ban anyone, if they are a publisher then they do not get to hide under the protections a platform would have.

  18. Facebook is garbage and I’m proud to say I’m not a member or subscribe. Darkness cannot tolerate the light… so that’s why Facebook is doing this. I hope they get exposed for this.

  19. This reminds me of 2010, 2011 when conservative groups were getting the run-around from the IRS, on purpose as we found out later.

  20. No company should be able to claim “I am a private company and can do what I want” but also claim “I am a neutral public forum so I have special protections”. These “neutral public forums” where in today’s society freedom of speech is practiced by practically everyone should be FORCED to adhere to the first amendment and held accountable upon violating that, or no longer receive protections afforded them as a neutral public forum.

  21. Ban me!
    Let’s get down to brass tacks here.

    It’s not our political ideology they despise, it’s our Heavenly Father.

    To them, I declare they can ban me until Kingdom Come, because He will, then they will suffer for their insufferable hatred of Truth.

    1. Yea, but not until the next life.

      They can whip, beat, torture, and enslave me – and they’ll suffer for it in the next life. Still kinda sucks for this one though.

  22. In a recent congressional hearing Facebook and Google were told that IF they are now being “editorial” with their content then they stand to loose their immunity from being SUED. They were told they should only be shutting down “incitement to violence” and IF they are doing more than that…………….look out……….here come the LAW SUITS!!! Here is a link to what was said about this in that hearing…. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4791932/free-speech-internet

  23. I read a comment on buzzfeednews.com about PJW. PJW claimed that George Soros is behind the caravans of illegal aliens coming to our country. The commenter blamed the recent synagogue shooting on PJW’s “antisemitism” towards Soros.

  24. If a restauranteur cannot deny service to someone for whatever reasons he may have, how can Facebook ban folks who they don’t agree with politically? Isn’t this discrimination in black and white? (no pun intended

  25. It’s time to finally determine if Facebook is a platform or a publisher. If they are a platform, they should not ban anyone, if they are a publisher then they do not get to hide under the protections a platform would have.

  26. We know Facebook is owned by liberals. It’s a private site. That dictator Zuckerberg is actually within his rights to do this.

    What I can’t believe is that there aren’t tech-savvy conservatives that can build a site just as good if not better. Then the problem would be to blast people who talk big like Matt Walsh from his home on the established liberal site and get him and other conservatives to come over to the new site. My guess is that they’d want to maintain a presence on Facebook because of the traffic on the site, and that would doom any effort on the part of conservatives. The rank and file stay with what they know. All their friends are there. Getting people to do something out of principles they espouse is next to impossible anymore. Folks are far too interested in staying on Zuckerberg’s site, cursing the darkness, rather than lighting a candle.

    1. It boils down to how they are classified. If they are a platform, they shouldn’t be banning anyone. If they are a publisher, than they can do what they like, but they do not get the government protection afforded to platforms.

      Right now, they say they are a platform and they act like a publisher.

      1. I’m not sure you’re right: http://https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/what-does-it-mean-to-ban-alex-jones/566960/

        This place needs to fix it’s wonderful new system so it’s at least as good as it’s actually great old system. I hit the “link” option, and it wouldn’t post anything but, “I’m not sure you’re right.” Scoop, et al, need to learn that you don’t fix what isn’t broke, and you sure as thunder don’t break it once it’s working smoothly.

  27. I read a comment on buzzfeednews.com about PJW. PJW claimed that George Soros is behind the caravans of illegal aliens coming to our country. The commenter blamed the recent synagogue shooting on PJW’s “antisemitism” towards Soros.

  28. If a restauranteur cannot deny service to someone for whatever reasons he may have, how can Facebook ban folks who they don’t agree with politically? Isn’t this discrimination in black and white? (no pun intended

  29. Unless congress and Trump get off their ass and do something, banks will be next. They’re already trying to de-person people they determine “anti-semetic” or “white supremacist” by bullying banks to drop people who they determine fall under this desceiption.
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-boys-leaders-personal-bank-account/

    They actually used the China model of “social credit” that their govt. uses to un-person people who don’t go along quietly.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

    1. Banks have already begun. They have cut ties with businesses involved in the gun industry. Dumped credit lines, etc.

      1. Yeah that’s what the proud boys story showed. Fortunately, Wells Fargo and another bank I can’t remember told Shannon Watts to f-off.

  30. “Facebook wants us to believe that they are a neutral public forum …”

    But of course, everyone knows that it is not, and this is why no conservative should even be using the platform in the first place. There is no excuse for any thinking person to support Facebook.

  31. They banned Farrakhan to appear unbiased but in truth Farrakhan and several others on the Left should have been banned a long time ago according to their rules.
    The rules Facebook makes are supposed to be a gentleman’s contract allowing you to use their service until you violate the mutually agreed upon terms. Unfortunately, they are liars and are not the gentlemen they want everyone to believe they are.

  32. If you think it is bad now, wait until the election season gets into full swing next year. Mass bannings will happen along with outright yellow journalism from the #FakeNewsMedia where lies will be stated as fact and retractions will not occur until months later.

  33. “Facebook wants us to believe that they are a neutral public forum …”

    But of course, everyone knows that it is not, and this is why no conservative should even be using the platform in the first place. There is no excuse for any thinking person to support Facebook.

    1. @ryan-o I kicked myself off of FB years ago. I found it mostly to be a gossipy waste of time.

  34. FYI, Facebook did give a reason. They claimed the ban was for hate speech. They also banned Louis Farrakhan for the same.

    1. Farrakhan has spewed hate speech for years unnoticed by Facebook? They are banning him now only to give the impression for fairness.
      Maybe hate speech ought to have a realistic definition so they can’t hide behind vague interpretations.

    2. Hate speech, like hate crimes, is another flawed manufactured concept created by the left. The very nature of what constitutes as “hate” is subjective and open to interpretation. More often than not it’s anything that they disagree with or that offends their sensibilities.

  35. Just tried to log in to RedState again. They banned me for thanking John McCain for saving the ACA when he passed away.
    Still banned. Whoever runs that site is the same as the facebook mods

    1. I never could figure out how to have an acct to comment there. I think I inquired about it some years ago and crickets. Don’t really care though.

      1. @squirrelly I applied to comment there a couple times, never heard back. There’s a way to comment by going through your Disqus account, but I never went to all of the trouble.

    2. Exactly. I’ve been banned by RedState for a long time because I dared to disagree with one of the writers there. RedState has always been a creepy little cult.

  36. I don’t know what to say except starve the beast. The problem is no one wants to get off of these sites. I know plenty of people who will complain about how they do this to people, but they stay on and even get their news and info there. I understand a site like this one or The Blaze or whatever using these social media “platforms” for outreach, but individuals just won’t get off of them for whatever their reason(s). What happens when they do start banning people like Glenn Beck or Mark Levin or Breitbart or Twitchy or The Blaze? Idk, but I stay away from them myself. I rarely ever use Youtube, and I have never created a channel on it so I can’t comment or anything, and I really don’t care or want to.

  37. Leave Facebook. Leave Twitter. Join GAB (gab.com) You may not like the nuts that are there but you can mute them. You will have total freedom of speech there, though. If you stay on Facebook and Twitter you are contributing to their tyranny.

    1. I have muted a lot a lot of people commenting on gab. But you can mute the crazies (and never hear from them again) — and I do. There’s an Ace of Spades group and other conservatives creating a lively conversation. It is my main social media outlet.

  38. Zuckerberg LIED his head off to Ted and every other member of Congress at the hearing when he said Facebook is a platform for EVERYONE to speak and share their views and opinions.

  39. This is SO utterly outrageous! If you think this is bad, they also just booted one of my friends out for thirty days for saying this below. My friend is a huge Ted Cruz supporter and a rock solid Constitutional Conservative and patriot. My friend’s posting describes the healthcare option that Ted wants for our veterans. It seems that Zuckerberg despises our veterans, but he loves Muslims and illegal invaders. SO disgusting!!! Something is VERY wrong with Zuckerberg!

    “President Trump signed legislation yesterday that will dramatically expand a program at the Department of Veteran Affairs that lets patients seek care at private doctors if they want to bypass the troubled VA system.”

  40. Why doesn’t some wealthy Conservative start their own facebook-like endeavor. There’s no shortage of rich Conservatives. Seriously.

    1. Honestly most of them are old men who know nothing about creating a social media platform that people would flock to. They can tell you about the futures market all day, but their social mediaa accounts are run by underlings. Minds.com and gab.com are already two alternatives. Yeah gab has a lot of anti-semites, you just have to ignore them.

  41. Let’s see if they ban Joe Rogan… who just had Alex Jones on recently (and that podcast got monstrous views, as well as advertised on FB, I believe) … Joe is a lefty libertarian but he is no fan of these tactics and being one of the biggest dogs in the podcast/YouTube world, and even openly challenged @Jack if Twitter twice recently … that This could be an Epic showdown!!!

  42. Make no mistake about it – We are living in dangerous times.

    Leftism is an ideology “ism” so deviant, intolerant, inherently seditious, evil, and violent, a virulent strain that is the very essence of fascism, a cancer on truth, civil society, freedom and liberty, when indoctrinated – blinds people to reality truth.

    Time has come for action, the breaking point of radical leftwing fascist intolerance censorship is here, and must end, and end now !

    25 April 2018
    Sen Ted Cruz: Use Antitrust Laws to Break ‘Massive Power’ of Tech Lords who ‘Subvert Our Democratic Process’
    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/25/exclusive-ted-cruz-use-antitrust-laws-to-break-massive-power-of-tech-lords-to-subvert-our-democratic-process/

    10 April 2019
    Ted Cruz Proposes Remedies for Tech Censorship: Regulate, Antitrust, Anti-Fraud
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-proposes-remedies-for-tech-censorship-regulate-antitrust-anti-fraud/

    quote
    Sen. Cruz held a hearing on big tech censorship and proposed three dynamic solutions to the Silicon Valley’s censorship practices, contending that the big tech companies have more power than Standard Oil or the old AT&T telephone monopoly.

    Cruz three solutions include:

    1. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    2. Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
    3. Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.

    “No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the administration or both” Cruz said.

    Radical Leftist Silicon Valley of the Democrats Big Tech Masters of the Universe Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc, Shadow Bans-Code Censors Conservatives, Republicans – Patriotic Americans of all ethnicity, races, creeds, color.. Manipulates and Alters Political Content, Collects (steals) Private Data of billions of people around the world to use against us, who aids Communist China in their dictatorship control of their own people, aiding China to steal, giving them US Intellectual Property which is used to benefit China’s Military effort to surpass America’s Military technological superiority and might, thus have literally become monopolistic entities, and worse- a US National Security danger.

  43. Side tangent, but if he’s a regular conservative why does Glenn Beck feel the need to say he’s sure they don’t agree on much? That just struck me as odd.

    1. PJW has been associated witg Alex Jones in the past. Truth is, I trust PJW more than Glenn Beck.

    2. Because Glenn Beck knows he is the only one right on most issues… sadly, only he knows that. Everyone else is oblivious to his superior knowledge and intellect. It must be a lonely island.

  44. Facebook= Log in, look at new photos of my grandchildren that my kids have posted. Log out. Otherwise I wouldn’t waste a second on their site.

    1. You have an account and log in for 1 second, you support Zuckerberg and Facebook.
      And so do your kids. Have them send your grandchildren pic’s to you in the email, mail or text.
      If it’s free, YOU are the product

  45. I have no idea who he is so I can’t vouch for him. I will say, however, that I believe it was a crock to ban Alex Jones under the umbrella of hate speech because he isn’t a hateful man. He’s just anti-government with conspiracy theories so the category they put him in is a joke. I assume this guy is yet another one put in that category to excuse the ban.

    If it doesn’t align with PC or the left it’s hate speech. We all know this.

  46. The invention of social media lead directly to the extension of bullying past high school.

    That’s really what all of this is: viewpoint-based bullying to punish anyone who doesn’t conform.

    1. @hubman Are you suggesting that Zuckerberg got stuffed into a locker in HS?

      1. @dr-strangelove He got stuffed in his locker after they took his lunch money. Poor little snowflake hasn’t ever gotten over it.

  47. The Left and their social media platforms have become the very horrors that they claim to be afraid of. It will be a very special day when they look at the carnage they have wrought and realize that the monster staring back at them in the mirror is their own reflection.

    1. It’s because leftists are intellectually fragile and it shows in their incessant efforts to control speech. They really don’t care if the monster stares back one day, hell they may think the ramifications won’t even impact them in their lifetime.

    2. @philliesthoughts Leftists like them think that they will have a seat at the table, but if they studied their history, they’d realize that despots like Stalin know how dangerous they are and get rid of them.

  48. O/T A young mom was giving her 5 year old little boy his nightly bath. While she was busy washing his hair, he was happily playing with his testicles and asked “Mommy, are these my brains?” Her reply, “Not yet baby, not yet.”

  49. Do you remember the days before these huge social media giants and the community that we had in smaller websites?

    Kinda like what we have here at TRS.

    1. I remember when the entire Internet was small enough that it felt like a small community. Back then there was the quiet worry that if the wrong part of the government or the wrong business found out about the Internet, they’d get it shut down, so one of the earliest Internet memes was “Imminent death of the net predicted”.

      Then AOL let loose its hordes on the poor ‘net and things have never been the same since.

    2. I don’t because I didn’t start really using the internet regularly like this until 2012. My husband used to comment to me because I had the cell acct that qas grandfathered in under unlimited data, and I rarely ever used the internet. How times have changed. I do remember when I first heard of FB and who I heard about it from. It was late 2006 and my then 16 year old sister-in-law.

  50. To our biggest troll…
    Private company yada, yada, yada.

    Platform or publisher. Can not take advantage of both. Put up or shut up.

    1. he’s a blathering fool, see his post below …knows nothing and just keeps typing

  51. He shouldn’t have been banned, but we all know Facebook hates conservatives. It’s a useless site that people post everything about their personal life to get some ‘likes’… People should delete their accounts, but then how would everyone else know what they’re having for dinner?

    1. @MST3K I always found it ironic that the people who were screaming loudest about privacy just posted details of their last bowel movement.

  52. No company should be able to claim “I am a private company and can do what I want” but also claim “I am a neutral public forum so I have special protections”. These “neutral public forums” where in today’s society freedom of speech is practiced by practically everyone should be FORCED to adhere to the first amendment and held accountable upon violating that, or no longer receive protections afforded them as a neutral public forum.

  53. Facebook is garbage and I’m proud to say I’m not a member or subscribe. Darkness cannot tolerate the light… so that’s why Facebook is doing this. I hope they get exposed for this.

  54. This reminds me of 2010, 2011 when conservative groups were getting the run-around from the IRS, on purpose as we found out later.

  55. Ban me!
    Let’s get down to brass tacks here.

    It’s not our political ideology they despise, it’s our Heavenly Father.

    To them, I declare they can ban me until Kingdom Come, because He will, then they will suffer for their insufferable hatred of Truth.

    1. Yea, but not until the next life.

      They can whip, beat, torture, and enslave me – and they’ll suffer for it in the next life. Still kinda sucks for this one though.

  56. this is flat out censorship

    So what if it is? Not very nice – but it’s not like he can’t go make his voice heard elsewhere.

    If I write a book and S&S chooses not to publish it, have they censored me? Yea, technically – but I can still go to HarperCollins and have them publish it. Maybe all the publishers refuse. Maybe I’m a sh**ty writer. Am I really “censored?” No. Nobody’s saying I can’t write – just that they’re not going to publish it.

    Let’s go even farther. Suppose I self-publish, but bookstores refuse to stock it. Censorship? I self-publish and hand it out for free, and people throw it in the trash. Censorship?

    The thing a lot of people confuse about freedom of speech, is that the freedom of speech doesn’t include a vehicle TO speak. I can speak my mind, but nobody owes me a stage, y’know?

    1. You are missing the point. They are receiving protections via the Communications Decency Act because they have claimed to be a public forum, but instead they are censoring political speech. This is not exactly the same thing as a publisher who choose what to publish or not publish. If they want to be a publisher, they shouldn’t then get the same protections.

      https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

      1. See below. Facebook isn’t a publisher, it’s a means to self-publish. That puts the accountability of the publishing on the author. Just like Xerox isn’t on the hook for being the means by which I self-publish a libelous text.

        You don’t have a right to Xerox machine to produce whatever you want, so why would you think you have a right to Facebook? And if the Xerox store won’t let you make copies of your publication, they’re not censoring you. So why would it be censorship when Facebook does the same?

    2. I can speak my mind, but nobody owes me a stage, y’know?

      That doesn’t mean you have to like it, or accept it.

    3. S&S is a publisher. As such, they are exposed to lawsuits for printing things that are libelous or inaccurate and damaging.

      FB claims to be a neutral platform with an affirmative defense against similar lawsuits because they don’t control what is written. By banning certain groups, they are controlling what is written, but are still claiming protection from lawsuits.

      There is another important difference. In your scenario, both S&S and HC have comparable access to the marketplace. To equate the situations, S&S would own the distribution network and have ~90% of the market share of bookstores. Even if HC “published” the book, there is no access without a distribution network or retail outlets.

      In this case, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and especially Google/YouTube dominate the market. This is not a free market, it’s an oligopoly.

      Particularly insidious is the way Google/YouTube uses “restricted” categorization to block content. Some businesses, hotels, ISPs, and hotspots use “restricted mode” and their users have no idea their searches and view of the world is being heavily censored. The service is on or off. There is no granularity by categories like “violence,” “pornography,” etc. and Google is silent on their policy and process for marking content as “restricted.”

      For example, just days ago, anybody connected via a network using “restricted mode” would not have seen any of the footage of Venezuelan government vehicles running down crowds of vehicles. A few months ago, they would not have seen Senator Ben Sasse’s comments on the Born Alive Act. The users would never know they were being censored.

      Social media is the modern “public square,” good or bad, it’s a fact. By tightly controlling access along ideological lines, the actions of these oligarchs pose a grave threat to open debate and free elections – the very importance of “freedom of speech.”

      I am not advocating a government takeover and I agree, as private entities, they can do what they want. Given so many people use social media as their primary source for “authoritative” information, the challenge is finding a way to address the huge imbalance in what these users have access to and the warped worldview they are presented.

      1. @Txgrunner Well said. They shouldn’t be able to enjoy the protection of not being considered a publisher while acting like one. The last thing that we need is another government agency to regulate the internet, but that’s probably what will eventually happen. And these days, who trusts them to get it right?

      2. FB claims to be a neutral platform with an affirmative defense against similar lawsuits because they don’t control what is written. By banning certain groups, they are controlling what is written, but are still claiming protection from lawsuits.

        Well without that protection, how would that lawsuit go exactly? S&S publishes something defamatory, they sue S&S. But Facebook doesn’t really publish anything. They allow other people the means to publish. Holding Facebook accountable for what other people create with their tools is like saying we should be able to sue Xerox for having allowed someone to make copies of their libelous texts. And that don’t make no sense.

        Facebook simply controls content. No different than if a copy shop kicked me out because I was using their machines to print out pornography.

        In this case, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and especially Google/YouTube dominate the market. This is not a free market, it’s an oligopoly.

        They dominate the market because the consumers refuse to go without the product. For all the whining the right-wing does about it, they could instantly deliver a blow to these guys by simply walking away.

        And what does it cost the consumer to walk away? What does he sacrifice? Absolutely nothing.

        Social media is the modern “public square,” good or bad, it’s a fact.

        I don’t buy that in the slightest. Social media as a concept? Maybe. But social media as “I am entitled to Facebook on my terms”? Hell the F no. That progressive nonsense can go right in the trash.

        1. By controlling some content, they are accepting some liability for all content published on their site. I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, but I think the distinction between FB and a copy shop is pretty obvious. Unless you have them to make the copies, they never look at what you’re copying. Frequently, even when you do pay them to do the copying on the big, fast machines, they don’t look at the work, which is why Kinko’s and other copy shops had to put up warnings/block copying of copyrighted material — they were getting sued — they were publishing and infringing on the copyrights when students/professors had them copy articles and parts of books.

          As to the oligopoly, now you’re saying you don’t like the facts. I don’t either, but it doesn’t change the facts.

          One of the aspects of social media is people go where there are other people. Competitors, like UGEtube, gunstreamer, full30, and pornhub have limited success for many reasons, but I’d argue the biggest reason are they lack critical mass of a following and they are niche platforms (if you have gun or porn in the title, or exclusively cater to firearms community, not many teenyboppers and grandmothers will visit). Those points are interrelated, bu distinct. People go where people are, and that’s just a reality we have to accept.

          Yes, users could walk away, but they don’t. …nor will they. …and, if just conservatives walk away, we’ve only made the situation far worse by unilaterally disarming, ceding the territory, and self-imposing our exile to the fringe of society.

          I’m not sure you understood what I meant by ‘public square.’ In the last century, we progressed through a series of mediums, newspapers, radio, newsreels, TV news, and cable news. The broadcast media was regulated, but the danger of a “one-paper” town was always well recognized. Countless movies and books are premised on the villain or conspiracy controlling the newspapers and later other media channels.

          News junkies like most of the folks on this site are an anomaly. More and more people get their news through cultural channels — off handed references embedded within cultural/entertainment programming, and social media. I call it the “public square” as a reference to archaic process that hasn’t really existed for over 200 years. I just mean competitive, open access to information and opinion. I am describing a threat — like the one paper town or the stories from books and movies — where a small cabal controls information to the masses.

          As I wrote, I don’t favor any government top down “solution.” However, I also recognize the net effect of a small number of oligarchs controlling information flow is a very serious threat to a democratic republic. I was about to write “open society,” but when information is controlled by such a small group, the society is not open by definition.

          Given this is where people are (no matter how much we may wish it weren’t so), our failure to offer our ideas — either by walking away or by being banned — is tantamount to our surrender.

          1. Yes, users could walk away, but they don’t. …nor will they. …and, if just conservatives walk away, we’ve only made the situation far worse by unilaterally disarming, ceding the territory, and self-imposing our exile to the fringe of society.

            Lord, we have got to get over that mindset.

            Simple question: Do you have a right to Facebook?

            1. We’re talking (writing past) one another. You’re arguing what should be or you wish were the case. I’m writing about what is and how we need to address the threat presented.

              To clearly answer your question, No. There is no “right to facebook.” Nothing, in anything I wrote, suggested otherwise.

              That doesn’t change the facts on the ground: without access to those who get their information from social media, the dominant worldview will shift dramatically to the left. We’re not losing the contest of ideas, we’re being blocked from the playing field. That makes it awfully difficult to win.

              1. There is no threat presented! Facebook is not a threat to free speech! You can still speak your mind and make your voice heard in all manner of shapes and forms. Why are you so hellbent on making Facebook your vehicle for doing so?

                Hey, social/political activist groups are trying to force this company to do something against their will! Position A) Well, people should be free do what they want and the company should have the provide them the means if they provide similar services. Position B) WHAT? How dare you force that company to act against its values and provide something against their will!

                Question: Am I talking about Facebook or Hobby Lobby? Let me here you say it, Tex – “Hey Facebook, bake the cake!”

                without access to those who get their information from social media, the dominant worldview will shift dramatically to the left.

                Then you’d better find a new way to get people information, hadn’t you.

                I’ve got a group of people I need to get to Albuquerque. But the bus won’t drive us there. They only drive to Hollywood. Well guess what bro, you’d better start looking for something OTHER than that bus to get your group from A to B. There’s plenty of ways to get to Albuquerque. You don’t HAVE to take the bus.

                We’re not losing the contest of ideas, we’re being blocked from the playing field. That makes it awfully difficult to win.

                Oh for f**ks sake, there’s that word again. “Win.” WIN WHAT?! We’re not being blocked from the playing field, we’re being blocked from A playing field – a playing field you readily admit we don’t have a right to be on in the first place!

                There’s hundreds of playing fields! Hell, you can landscape your backyard and make your OWN playing field. Why are you people so obsessed with playing on this – and only this – playing field when they’ve made it painfully clear that they don’t want you there.

                1. Did you even read what I wrote?

                  The threat is a cadre of radicals controlling the information and thereby warping the worldview of a large group of people. That is a threat to an open society. That is a threat to a democratic republic and to representative government. That’s a very consistent dominant belief throughout US history.

                  I never wrote FB is the threat. I wrote the situation is threatening. Further, if you bothered to read what I wrote, you’d know I never advocated forcing FB to do anything. In fact, I wrote in my first comment, “I am not advocating a government takeover and I agree, as private entities, they can do what they want.”

                  So, rather than knocking down straw-men arguments I never made, maybe address the fact social media shares many of the characteristics of an oligopoly and the associated risks that come with oligopolies.

                  You completely ignored what I wrote about market share and where the people get their news. This isn’t “Field of Dreams,” just building something doesn’t mean anybody will show up. Nobody cares about the field per se, they care about the audience.

                  As I’ve written countless times, I oppose a government solution, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem like you want to pretend. You seem to so obsessed with being right, you’re willing to have have your proverbial throat slashed to prove it.

                  I readily agreed in my first comment you were right, there is no “right to FB” and, as private entities, they can do what they want with their resources. Okay, get past that…celebrate your intellectual victory later. Right now, there is a very real threat (yes, I wrote ‘threat’) that a sizable portion of the populace are getting their information from a jaundiced source and it will lead to a very warped worldview.

                  Now, before you go ballistic, please go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you skimmed and inferred.

                  Perhaps this escaped your attention, but there is a contest of ideas. There has been as far back as recorded history (and probably before), and there is now. Some of these ideas are foolish, some good, and some downright dangerous. I think all ideas should be brought out in the light of day so people can evaluate them in the open, but that’s not my point in this paragraph. My point is that failure to “win,” (that is failure to convince a majority of those voting in a representative government), means the bad, evil, or foolish ideas prevail. When those ideas prevail — whether promoting abortion, confiscating guns, or seizing capital and implementing a socialist state — people tend to die. A lot of people die. They don’t die of old age, they’re murdered. So, this contest you appear to think isn’t real has very real consequences.

                2. The threat is a cadre of radicals controlling the information and thereby warping the worldview of a large group of people.

                  There are places to get information other than Facebook, Tex. I have been getting information for decades and I have never once logged onto Facebook in my life. Not ever. They don’t control jack squat.

                  Now, you’re right – plenty of people use social media as their sole means of information. But that’s not a problem with social media, Tex – it’s a problem with people. And THAT’S what you need to remedy.

                  maybe address the fact social media shares many of the characteristics of an oligopoly and the associated risks that come with oligopolies.

                  But it’s not an oligopoly that anyone is beholden to. This isn’t Ma Bell. There are literally millions of sources of information in the world, all of them freely and independently operating how they see fit – and people are free to use any of them at any time.

                  Your gripe is that they all CHOOSE to use Facebook, but you don’t like how Facebook works. But again, that’s not a problem with Facebook – that’s a problem with people.

                  but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem like you want to pretend.

                  I’m not pretending. There ISN’T a problem. I’ll come right out and say it. There is not a problem with Facebook (in this particular context).

                  Now, that doesn’t mean there’s not a problem with people – but if you’re upset at Facebook over that, then you’ve misdiagnosed.

                  Right now, there is a very real threat (yes, I wrote ‘threat’) that a sizable portion of the populace are getting their information from a jaundiced source and it will lead to a very warped worldview.

                  Suppose the majority of the population got the majority of their information from the grocery store tabloid racks (which, frankly, isn’t far off from reality).

                  So what.

                  So we have a population of ignorant morons who are loving the relationship between Justin Beiber and Bigfoot. And who head to the polls to vote for Human/Sasquatch marriages.

                  Now, is that a problem caused by tabloids? Or is that a problem caused by human stupidity? And how do you solve it? By putting anti-capitalist pressure on tabloids to not be tabloids? Or by addressing the human stupidity?

                  My point is that failure to “win,” (that is failure to convince a majority of those voting in a representative government), means the bad, evil, or foolish ideas prevail.

                  And who’s to blame for that?

                  It’s not Facebook, Tex.

                  A lot of people die. They don’t die of old age, they’re murdered. So, this contest you appear to think isn’t real has very real consequences.

                  They get what they ask for.

                  One of the hardest parts of freedom, Tex, is putting up with the freedom of others to be stupid and suicidal. You can’t save them from themselves. You can’t control them. You can only control yourself.

                  They’ll have to learn the hard way.

                3. If you aren’t going to read what I write, there is little point in continuing this conversation.

                  You keep trying to put words in my mouth when you build your straw men, but I never made those argument no matter how impressively you obliterate them.

                  I described a situation. I wrote the situation presented a threat because of the reality that many people are getting their information from sources that are curating what those people can see. Everything else you inferred or created in your own mind.

                  You don’t see any long-term consequences from such mis-information, fine, that’s your opinion. You can’t understand the nuance between describing an unhealthy situation versus laying blame at a specific entity, then I think you missed your calling, you should definitely go to law school or become a “journalist.”

                4. I wrote the situation presented a threat because of the reality that many people are getting their information from sources that are curating what those people can see.

                  Who is at fault for that?

                  You don’t see any long-term consequences from such mis-information, fine, that’s your opinion.

                  Oh, I see the long-term consequences. And I think we deserve them.

                5. Why do we, through our government, extend liability protections against libel suits to forums and platforms?

                6. That’s rich. You’ve been changing the subject going back several posts.

                  If you recall, in your first post and my response, we were discussing liability protections. Besides, it might just be I have a point in asking you this that relates to our latest exchange.

                  Further, you’ve asked me several direct questions, all of which I answered until your last post. Now I’m asking you a question, which you haven’t answered.

                7. You’re talking about liability protections because you seem to think that Facebook is doing something wrong. It’s not. It’s being a dick, but it’s not depriving anyone’s rights.

                  You then pivot to the notion that this is somehow putting the nation in grand peril because they’re controlling the information that most people rely on as their sole source. This is not a problem with Facebook. This is a problem with Americans.

                8. You still failed to answer the question. Why do we extend liability protections to social media?

                  More straw men arguments: I never wrote FB was depriving people of their rights. I wrote the opposite. If you read what I wrote, you’d know that.

                  Responsibility or “blame” is separate from whether the threat exists. If a building is burning down, whether it was caused by an accident, poor planning, or arson, the fact the building is burning still poses a threat to the occupants.

    4. Points to the bigger problem – why is there still no major conservative alternative to Facebook?

      1. Because people on the right think they’re entitled to their fair share of Facebook.

        Which is demented, and anti-conservative to begin with.

  57. The Left and their social media platforms have become the very horrors that they claim to be afraid of. It will be a very special day when they look at the carnage they have wrought and realize that the monster staring back at them in the mirror is their own reflection.

    1. It’s because leftists are intellectually fragile and it shows in their incessant efforts to control speech. They really don’t care if the monster stares back one day, hell they may think the ramifications won’t even impact them in their lifetime.

  58. O/T A young mom was giving her 5 year old little boy his nightly bath. While she was busy washing his hair, he was happily playing with his testicles and asked “Mommy, are these my brains?” Her reply, “Not yet baby, not yet.”

  59. Do you remember the days before these huge social media giants and the community that we had in smaller websites?

    Kinda like what we have here at TRS.

    1. I remember when the entire Internet was small enough that it felt like a small community. Back then there was the quiet worry that if the wrong part of the government or the wrong business found out about the Internet, they’d get it shut down, so one of the earliest Internet memes was “Imminent death of the net predicted”.

      Then AOL let loose its hordes on the poor ‘net and things have never been the same since.

  60. To our biggest troll…
    Private company yada, yada, yada.

    Platform or publisher. Can not take advantage of both. Put up or shut up.

    1. he’s a blathering fool, see his post below …knows nothing and just keeps typing

  61. He shouldn’t have been banned, but we all know Facebook hates conservatives. It’s a useless site that people post everything about their personal life to get some ‘likes’… People should delete their accounts, but then how would everyone else know what they’re having for dinner?

  62. this is flat out censorship

    So what if it is? Not very nice – but it’s not like he can’t go make his voice heard elsewhere.

    If I write a book and S&S chooses not to publish it, have they censored me? Yea, technically – but I can still go to HarperCollins and have them publish it. Maybe all the publishers refuse. Maybe I’m a sh**ty writer. Am I really “censored?” No. Nobody’s saying I can’t write – just that they’re not going to publish it.

    Let’s go even farther. Suppose I self-publish, but bookstores refuse to stock it. Censorship? I self-publish and hand it out for free, and people throw it in the trash. Censorship?

    The thing a lot of people confuse about freedom of speech, is that the freedom of speech doesn’t include a vehicle TO speak. I can speak my mind, but nobody owes me a stage, y’know?

    1. Points to the bigger problem – why is there still no major conservative alternative to Facebook?

      1. Because people on the right think they’re entitled to their fair share of Facebook.

        Which is demented, and anti-conservative to begin with.

    2. S&S is a publisher. As such, they are exposed to lawsuits for printing things that are libelous or inaccurate and damaging.

      FB claims to be a neutral platform with an affirmative defense against similar lawsuits because they don’t control what is written. By banning certain groups, they are controlling what is written, but are still claiming protection from lawsuits.

      There is another important difference. In your scenario, both S&S and HC have comparable access to the marketplace. To equate the situations, S&S would own the distribution network and have ~90% of the market share of bookstores. Even if HC “published” the book, there is no access without a distribution network or retail outlets.

      In this case, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and especially Google/YouTube dominate the market. This is not a free market, it’s an oligopoly.

      Particularly insidious is the way Google/YouTube uses “restricted” categorization to block content. Some businesses, hotels, ISPs, and hotspots use “restricted mode” and their users have no idea their searches and view of the world is being heavily censored. The service is on or off. There is no granularity by categories like “violence,” “pornography,” etc. and Google is silent on their policy and process for marking content as “restricted.”

      For example, just days ago, anybody connected via a network using “restricted mode” would not have seen any of the footage of Venezuelan government vehicles running down crowds of vehicles. A few months ago, they would not have seen Senator Ben Sasse’s comments on the Born Alive Act. The users would never know they were being censored.

      Social media is the modern “public square,” good or bad, it’s a fact. By tightly controlling access along ideological lines, the actions of these oligarchs pose a grave threat to open debate and free elections – the very importance of “freedom of speech.”

      I am not advocating a government takeover and I agree, as private entities, they can do what they want. Given so many people use social media as their primary source for “authoritative” information, the challenge is finding a way to address the huge imbalance in what these users have access to and the warped worldview they are presented.

      1. FB claims to be a neutral platform with an affirmative defense against similar lawsuits because they don’t control what is written. By banning certain groups, they are controlling what is written, but are still claiming protection from lawsuits.

        Well without that protection, how would that lawsuit go exactly? S&S publishes something defamatory, they sue S&S. But Facebook doesn’t really publish anything. They allow other people the means to publish. Holding Facebook accountable for what other people create with their tools is like saying we should be able to sue Xerox for having allowed someone to make copies of their libelous texts. And that don’t make no sense.

        Facebook simply controls content. No different than if a copy shop kicked me out because I was using their machines to print out pornography.

        In this case, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and especially Google/YouTube dominate the market. This is not a free market, it’s an oligopoly.

        They dominate the market because the consumers refuse to go without the product. For all the whining the right-wing does about it, they could instantly deliver a blow to these guys by simply walking away.

        And what does it cost the consumer to walk away? What does he sacrifice? Absolutely nothing.

        Social media is the modern “public square,” good or bad, it’s a fact.

        I don’t buy that in the slightest. Social media as a concept? Maybe. But social media as “I am entitled to Facebook on my terms”? Hell the F no. That progressive nonsense can go right in the trash.

        1. By controlling some content, they are accepting some liability for all content published on their site. I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, but I think the distinction between FB and a copy shop is pretty obvious. Unless you have them to make the copies, they never look at what you’re copying. Frequently, even when you do pay them to do the copying on the big, fast machines, they don’t look at the work, which is why Kinko’s and other copy shops had to put up warnings/block copying of copyrighted material — they were getting sued — they were publishing and infringing on the copyrights when students/professors had them copy articles and parts of books.

          As to the oligopoly, now you’re saying you don’t like the facts. I don’t either, but it doesn’t change the facts.

          One of the aspects of social media is people go where there are other people. Competitors, like UGEtube, gunstreamer, full30, and pornhub have limited success for many reasons, but I’d argue the biggest reason are they lack critical mass of a following and they are niche platforms (if you have gun or porn in the title, or exclusively cater to firearms community, not many teenyboppers and grandmothers will visit). Those points are interrelated, bu distinct. People go where people are, and that’s just a reality we have to accept.

          Yes, users could walk away, but they don’t. …nor will they. …and, if just conservatives walk away, we’ve only made the situation far worse by unilaterally disarming, ceding the territory, and self-imposing our exile to the fringe of society.

          I’m not sure you understood what I meant by ‘public square.’ In the last century, we progressed through a series of mediums, newspapers, radio, newsreels, TV news, and cable news. The broadcast media was regulated, but the danger of a “one-paper” town was always well recognized. Countless movies and books are premised on the villain or conspiracy controlling the newspapers and later other media channels.

          News junkies like most of the folks on this site are an anomaly. More and more people get their news through cultural channels — off handed references embedded within cultural/entertainment programming, and social media. I call it the “public square” as a reference to archaic process that hasn’t really existed for over 200 years. I just mean competitive, open access to information and opinion. I am describing a threat — like the one paper town or the stories from books and movies — where a small cabal controls information to the masses.

          As I wrote, I don’t favor any government top down “solution.” However, I also recognize the net effect of a small number of oligarchs controlling information flow is a very serious threat to a democratic republic. I was about to write “open society,” but when information is controlled by such a small group, the society is not open by definition.

          Given this is where people are (no matter how much we may wish it weren’t so), our failure to offer our ideas — either by walking away or by being banned — is tantamount to our surrender.

    3. You are missing the point. They are receiving protections via the Communications Decency Act because they have claimed to be a public forum, but instead they are censoring political speech. This is not exactly the same thing as a publisher who choose what to publish or not publish. If they want to be a publisher, they shouldn’t then get the same protections.

      https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

      1. See below. Facebook isn’t a publisher, it’s a means to self-publish. That puts the accountability of the publishing on the author. Just like Xerox isn’t on the hook for being the means by which I self-publish a libelous text.

        You don’t have a right to Xerox machine to produce whatever you want, so why would you think you have a right to Facebook? And if the Xerox store won’t let you make copies of your publication, they’re not censoring you. So why would it be censorship when Facebook does the same?

    4. I can speak my mind, but nobody owes me a stage, y’know?

      That doesn’t mean you have to like it, or accept it.

Comments are closed.