Madison320
Member

I didn't watch the debate but I saw a clip where harris strung together about 5 blatant lies and the moderators never even questioned her about them. I think after the dust has settled the main takeaway of the debate is going to be the blatant bias of the media, not any actual content of the debate. And that's probably going to help trump.

I never watch any of the "in-between" stuff. There's too much politics inserted into everything. I usually use commercials and pregame and halftime to do stuff around the house. You can get a lot done that way.

Jan 6 was pretty violent and I was one of the few here to say it was wrong, but the BLM protests were orders of magnitude worse. I was living in the suburbs of nashville and we had curfews on several nights! WTF? I think a couple dozen people were killed nationwide. And the victims were innocent private citizens at their homes and businesses. Jan 6 was stupid but at least they were targeting a government building and not going after private citizens.

My "theory" is that the interest payments on the debt is the mathematical brick wall. Interest payments over the last 12 months is over 900 billion and consumes over 18% of our tax revenue (according to the debt clock). It just flew past military spending. We're getting close to a debt death spiral where we have to print to pay the interest, which drives up rates, which drives up the interest payments, which causes us to have to print even more leading to hyperinflation. I'm guessing about 40% is the point of no return but I have no historical data to back that up.

Just quit using it.

I agree. That's how it's supposed to work. Just quit using facebook. Don't use the government to "get even" with facebook.

That's not even close to my position. I'm saying that the government was forcing social media to censor and that's government regulation and censorship. The fix is for the government to stop forcing social media to censor. What I'm against is for the government to force companies to "not censor". In other words I'm against using the government to force companies to change their content EITHER WAY. This reminds me of the civil rights act. What the civil rights act should've done is just stop the government from forcing companies to hire whites only. Instead they went wrong in the opposite direction and started forcing companies to hire minorities. I'm against the use of the government initiating force either way.

If you remove child porn, would that also make you a publisher? The whole immunity thing seems messed up to me. I'm still not seeing the crime by Zuckerberg. For one thing I don't think it's a crime when the government forces you at gunpoint to commit a crime. That seems like self-defense. An even it you feel that the person being forced at gunpoint is just as guilty, I still don't see how Zuckerberg deprived any of his customers of life, limb or property.

You're right, I've never been on facebook or any social media platforms. But I don't see the crime. Isn't it free to join facebook? Plus I find it odd that it seems like mostly anarchists want the government to regulate social media. Seems oxymoronic to me.

So here's all 4 bullet points, can you give an example of one which is fraudulent? And how are you being harmed? Fraud requires that you are being deprived of your property in some way. Those bullet points all look like generic nothingness to me. "1:Provide a personalized experience for you: Your experience on Facebook is unlike anyone else's: from the posts, stories, events, ads, and other content you see in Facebook News Feed or our video platform to the Facebook Pages you follow and other features you might use, such as Facebook Marketplace, and search. For example, we use data about the connections you make, the choices and settings you select, and what you share and do on and off our Products - to personalize your experience. 2:Connect you with people and organizations you care about: We help you find and connect with people, groups, businesses, organizations, and others that matter to you across the Meta Products you use. We use data to make suggestions for you and others - for example, groups to join, events to attend, Facebook Pages to follow or send a message to, shows to watch, and people you may want to become friends with. Stronger ties make for better communities, and we believe our services are most useful when people are connected to people, groups, and organizations they care about. 3:Empower you to express yourself and communicate about what matters to you: There are many ways to express yourself on Facebook to communicate with friends, family, and others about what matters to you - for example, sharing status updates, photos, videos, and stories across the Meta Products (consistent with your settings), sending messages or making voice or video calls to a friend or several people, creating events or groups, or adding content to your profile as well as showing you insights on how others engage with your content. We have also developed, and continue to explore, new ways for people to use technology, such as augmented reality and 360 video to create and share more expressive and engaging content on Meta Products.

That would make almost everybody a criminal wouldn't it? For example the govt makes businesses collect sales tax, are the business owners guilty of theft? I'm sure there's a million examples of that. I still don't even see where the crime is with Zuckerberg. Would it be a crime if he decided, on his own, to only let democrats on his site?

Can you be a little more specific? How is Zuckerberg committing fraud? Geez, I feel like I'm debating Kamala Harris.

So, more basically, if the government orders you to violate someone else's right, and you do it, you've committed a crime?

As long as you agree that it's wrong to prosecute Zuckerberg, that he didn't commit a crime in the libertarian sense, then it's irrelevant to me how you feel about him getting prosecuted. I'm only concerned with the logical argument of what whether an action is an actual crime.

Yeah, I totally agree. That reminds me of the idiotic argument the left makes about having a public "option" for health insurance. They say "but I thought you were for competition?". It really pisses me off when they make that stupid argument. It's hardly fair competition when one "business" gets their income by stealing from everyone else including their competition.

Yeah, you're right, I think I got that one wrong. At first I was about to say that it would only be censorship if the government prevented other "facebooks" but if the govt only let registered democrats post content, yeah, that would be censorship. I tend to think of censorship when the govt directly bans something, but in that case you'd be stealing money from the taxpayers but only allowing certain ones to participate so I'd say that is censorship also, in a roundabout way.

I agree. My issue is there are two main groups. The people that see the media bias and want the govt to punish the media and the people that deny there's any media biased at all. I'm in the tiny minority that recognizes the media bias but doesn't want to use government force against them. At least I have good company, like Ron Paul for example. Good question. I would say a fully funded govt contractor IS the government. So the question is "is it a crime for the government to have it's own version of Facebook"? I would say no, the only violation of rights I see is using taxpayer dollars but that's the case with all of govt.

No he did not violate anyone's rights. Zuckerberg is not obligated to post your speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the use of government force against private individuals. You want the government to force Zuckerberg to post stuff he doesn't want to post. That the opposite of the intention of the 1st amendment.

I agree. My point is that Trump is just as wrong for going after Zuckerberg.

Where did I imply that? For the record I'm talking about the 1st amendment where the government is not allowed to censor. Private citizens should be allowed to say whatever they want except under very limited situations like defamation where you actually cause harm. Trump is threatening it, Biden/Harris are doing it.

Can you be more specific on what law Zuckerberg broke? Whose rights did Zuckerberg violate?

Those are some pretty subjective standards, don't you think?

What is my definition for censorship?

I actually don't think Trump is going to do any censoring, but he's still wrong for saying it. Part of the purpose of this thread is to see who actually believes in free speech here. There's a lot of hatred of Zuckerberg and people are willing to make exceptions to "punish" people they don't like.

Trump is threatening censorship. Biden/Harris are actively engaging in it.

So you're ok if "bad" owners get locked up like Musk and Zuckeberg but you're not ok if "good" ones are locked up like Durov and Pavlovski? Don't you see the problem with that?

You're missing the point. Musk and Zuckerberg run private businesses and they should both be allowed to control their website's content any way they want. Government is the problem not private business. Zuckerberg can't force me to do anything. It seems like a lot of anarchists get this confused and that doesn't make sense to me.

Good plan. Just the government decide who can have access to the internet. What could possibly go wrong?

What about telegram or rumble? Would you care if they got locked up?