Conquer Club

https://youtu.be/16_38stCfaU

from Mark Dice: non player characters banned for election influence, veterans business shut down. 6 mins.

This was the line?

Talking head that loves to hear himself.

Pretty scary that he thinks it's wrong for Facebook to ban people who deliberately use it to spread lies.

"If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

"Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid."

John Wayne

I thought it crossed the line when it started giving people cancer:

Social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of serious health problems by reducing levels of face-to-face contact, a doctor claims.

This could increase the risk of problems as serious as cancer

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... ancer.html

Aside from selling everyone's data, they're also being sued for misleading the advertisers they are selling it to. This may come as a shock to everyone, but Facebook is bad and has been bad.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... dvertisers

armati wrote:"If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

In the US, the right to free speech is protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution. The federal government is not allowed, except with certain narrow/broad exemptions, to infringe upon the right to free speech. Facebook is a private company. Facebook is not the government. Facebook is under no obligation to uphold freedom of speech. The government is still not infringing on anybody's right to free speech. Facebook is allowed to do what it wants to keep people from stopping checking it and keeping users sending their data to the mines. If you don't like that, feel free to stop checking facebook. The right to Facebook is not in the Constitution.

People do seem to think facebook as a private organization can do what it wants, fair enuff. A valid point.
Personally I used it at the beginning for a game they had, when it changed I stopped using it and havnt ever since.
Aside from the point of course.

So your point and others agree with you that a private institution should be able to do as it wants, even when it seems to run against the values an entire nation is supposed to stand for.(that right?)

If facebook as a private institution can do what it wants, does the same apply for others? like the federal reserve for example?
How about the media?

Its all connected imo.

Remember omission counts,..... people believe as they are told,..... my point is that facebook is an iceberg tip.

But maybe your right, i disagree, facebook has had an overwhelming affect on our society.

Dont forget u tube,twitter,media..they are all directing people seemingly in the same direction, and we have been lied to for a very long time....maybe people require direction tho.

Hey look at that, armati made a good point.

The whole 'as long as the government behaves then everyone else can do what they want' line doesn't really hold any water. You wouldn't say that in relation to theft or murder, would you? Protecting freedom of speech means ensuring people have equal opportunity to express themselves and be heard, not giving some people the freedom to ramble to themselves in the park while others are allowed to share their thoughts with millions of people on Facebook.

mrswdk wrote:Hey look at that, armati made a good point.

The whole 'as long as the government behaves then everyone else can do what they want' line doesn't really hold any water. ]You wouldn't say that in relation to theft or murder, would you?

No, because murder and theft are different than being blocked from spreading slander over the internet. I'll admit I didn't sit through a youtube video but most of the stuff people get banned from Twitter and FB is for either literally being part of foreign intelligence services trying to influence elections or saying stuff you would walk the hell away from if somebody said it on the street.

mrswdk wrote:Protecting freedom of speech means ensuring people have equal opportunity to express themselves and be heard, not giving some people the freedom to ramble to themselves in the park while others are allowed to share their thoughts with millions of people on Facebook.

There has never been an equal right to be heard. Part of the problem is that Facebook creates an echo chamber for people to be able to ignore outside voices, something that for all its flaws is not the way most reputable news orgs work. The unequal thing was that guy who walked into a pizza parlor because everything on his feed told him that it was where the secret Hillary pedophile ring was being run from. If Facebook had shown him equal representation of people saying "no, there's no secret pedophile ring being run out of a Maryland pizza parlor," maybe he doesn't do that.

spurgistan wrote:In the US, the right to free speech is protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution. The federal government is not allowed, except with certain narrow/broad exemptions, to infringe upon the right to free speech. Facebook is a private company. Facebook is not the government. Facebook is under no obligation to uphold freedom of speech. The government is still not infringing on anybody's right to free speech. Facebook is allowed to do what it wants to keep people from stopping checking it and keeping users sending their data to the mines. If you don't like that, feel free to stop checking facebook. The right to Facebook is not in the Constitution.

You make a very good point about the limitations of the First Amendment (prior to the adoption of the "incorporation Doctrine" it also didn't apply at the state level either and some of the founding fathers used that to great effect to silence the opposition). A lot of the problems concerns the question of whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. Editing content makes it a publisher and thus makes it liable for its content. Specifically whether or not you can invoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The more Facebook insists on making editorial decisions on content the more it enters into the realm of publisher and it becomes harder to push the wording of Section 230.

So while Facebook has a right to restrict speech on their site, it in turn has an obligation when doing so. And that, in a nutshell is why forum moderators are despised and hated throughout the entire known universe.

tzor wrote:

spurgistan wrote:In the US, the right to free speech is protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution. The federal government is not allowed, except with certain narrow/broad exemptions, to infringe upon the right to free speech. Facebook is a private company. Facebook is not the government. Facebook is under no obligation to uphold freedom of speech. The government is still not infringing on anybody's right to free speech. Facebook is allowed to do what it wants to keep people from stopping checking it and keeping users sending their data to the mines. If you don't like that, feel free to stop checking facebook. The right to Facebook is not in the Constitution.

You make a very good point about the limitations of the First Amendment (prior to the adoption of the "incorporation Doctrine" it also didn't apply at the state level either and some of the founding fathers used that to great effect to silence the opposition). A lot of the problems concerns the question of whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. Editing content makes it a publisher and thus makes it liable for its content. Specifically whether or not you can invoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The more Facebook insists on making editorial decisions on content the more it enters into the realm of publisher and it becomes harder to push the wording of Section 230.

So while Facebook has a right to restrict speech on their site, it in turn has an obligation when doing so. And that, in a nutshell is why forum moderators are despised and hated throughout the entire known universe.

Right, most of the interesting developments here are to what extent Facebook is responsible for censoring content that incites ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, for instance. Which, no matter how pro-China you may be, Facebook has a legal and ethical responsibility as a corporation to keep their website from contributing to the Rohingya from being persecuted and killed. Keeping people from persecuting gays and minorities seems like natural "mission creep."

Is it true that Soros has invested in fb and PayPal?

spurgistan wrote:

armati wrote:"If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

In the US, the right to free speech is protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution. The federal government is not allowed, except with certain narrow/broad exemptions, to infringe upon the right to free speech. Facebook is a private company. Facebook is not the government. Facebook is under no obligation to uphold freedom of speech. The government is still not infringing on anybody's right to free speech. Facebook is allowed to do what it wants to keep people from stopping checking it and keeping users sending their data to the mines. If you don't like that, feel free to stop checking facebook. The right to Facebook is not in the Constitution.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins the Supreme Court found that the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights guarantees the right of people to engage in acts of free speech in places regularly accessible to the public, even if those places are private property.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74

Facebook is a corporation whose controlling mind - which regulates the information stored on its servers - is located in Menlo Park, California and is subject to the laws of California.

spurgistan wrote:Which, no matter how pro-China you may be, Facebook has a legal and ethical responsibility as a corporation to keep their website from contributing to the Rohingya from being persecuted and killed ...

... by the Burmese government, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi. When will Facebook ban Aung's legitimizers and enablers? The people who spent three decades screaming that she should be put in charge of the Burmese government?

spurgistan wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Hey look at that, armati made a good point.

The whole 'as long as the government behaves then everyone else can do what they want' line doesn't really hold any water. You wouldn't say that in relation to theft or murder, would you?

No, because murder and theft are different than spreading slander over the internet.

We were talking about whether or not a government should intervene when an influential corporation stops people saying things they have a legal right to say.

The comparison you are looking for is murder, theft and censoring people's speech.

I'm not really sure what the 'pro-China' swipe in one of your other posts was all about. There is no country in the world that lets people just say anything and everything they please. Not even the US.

Citibank and Bank of America has refused to do business with pro second amendment companies unless they stop selling high capacity magazines. when a bank can do that then what else can they refuse to do business. when financial institutions start to refuse business with legit people over political reasons we are already fucked. Facebook will be social credit score and Bank will cut off access to finances.

Ever hear of the s.w.f.t. system? Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication

Thats what Trump and the U.S. use to threaten nations with. They call it "sanctions"

So "when financial institutions start to refuse business with legit people over political reasons we are already fucked" yes, we are.

And we have been for quite some time.

This is one of the reasons banking is not taught in schools.

The americans have been and do use the swft system as a weapon, which is one reason why the U.S. dollar is losing the world reserve currency.

Im sure lots of people here will think thats conspiracy alien lizard russian propaganda nazi stuff, but for anyone that does figure it out, will own hard assets to protect themselves and families.

oops, not swft...s.w.i.f.t.

What if you believe it is going to come to pass and hard assets won't help?

Do you think you can eat a hard asset?

What will you get in exchange for your houses, cars, silver or gold when they devalue it and it becomes worthless.

saxitoxin wrote:

Wow I guess Nancy and Aung go to the same plastic surgeon... they could be twins

Can you eat digital currency? paper currency?

There is such a thing as intrinsic value, like a car that gets you from point a-b, thats intrinsic value or a house when the roof dont leak.
So, worthless? no.

Price and value are different, thats one way to riches, knowing the dif, when the price is below value its a buy, price above value is a sell.

There are lots of hard assets, like farmland,fishboats,oil wells,guns, all have value.

Gold for example has been a currency for over 5000 years, I dont see that changing any time soon.

Its normal for the world reserve currency to change, so it will happen, its happening now.
Slow at first, but eventually, fast.

The american dollar became the wrc in 1944 with the breton woods agreement 2018 is 74 years, everything on schedule.

Before the dollar was the british pound, before the brits was Spain, Netherlands prior to Spain.

Nations are dropping the dollar now, it takes awhile for all the currency to get back to the home country.
The consequences of all the dollars returning? REALLY HIGH inflation.

Which is why ya want hard assets. They have intrinsic value. Thats opposed to a currency that nobody is using anymore.

Every paper currency in the history of the world that was not backed by gold went to its intrinsic value.........zero.


Maybe it will be different with digits.

The americans are using the swift system as a weapon, so nations are dropping the dollar.

You don't own a house. If you think you do, stop paying taxes and see how long you get to keep it.

Gold is not a currency right now. How much gold would you trade for food tomorrow?

If you tried to take gold to a grocery store do you believe you would get a fair market value for it. I don't, if you want to get what the gold is worth you need to know what it's worth and go to a trusted place to exchange it for a functioning currency.

Digital currency wil get people food in the future. As long as gold has some value to a person with digital currency they might exchange food for it at a lower value because they won't be doing that as a favor.

If you sell it for digital currency after they crash all the paper currencies you may be disappointed in the value. Eventually gold wil be worthless, it's value was due to it not corroding, in the end it's just metal. Those that are going to devalue all the paper currencies will devalue gold to make the digital currency the only way to purchase anything. "And that no man might buy or sell..."