Tucker: Big tech has launched an attack on your rights

[nikcers]

I do not doubt that one bit based on what I went through. Tell you what, they had the absolute $#@! scared out of me for a couple years there. I think they finally realized I was going to stand my ground and force them to really do something or they needed to just just back off.

The weird thing is I think they thought I was a spy, they kept testing me to see if I knew any other languages besides english. I had some weirdo follow me on a phone speaking Ukrainian one day and the next a fake Russian sounding person stops breaks his english and starts speaking Russian. It was just obvious they were saying key phrases and seeing how i would react

[nikcers]

At the very least, it's conflating two entirely different things.

not enitrely unless you think that this isn't censorship, just because they didn't censor me because I refused to shut up doesn't mean it is a different thing.

[ATruepatriot]

The weird thing is I think they thought I was a spy, they kept testing me to see if I knew any other languages besides english. I had some weirdo follow me on a phone speaking Ukrainian one day and the next a fake Russian sounding person stops breaks his english and starts speaking Russian. It was just obvious they were saying key phrases and seeing how i would react

They used my fingerprint card to try and say they had these from crime scenes and Etc. And they had my past paramilitary records they tried to use against me to intimidate me. It was all a scare tactic and it worked for awhile.

[r3volution 3.0]

The government was droning people based on their social media metadata when Obama was president it was more reliable than goverment surveillance. The worst is people believe everything that is put on there. Just in the last year there was a missle alert that went out on twitter and people were crawling in the gutter in Hawaii. The social media control us, and we have already seen from their leaked memos that they plan on doing worse.

A) That's not so much an argument against FB giving data to the NSA as an argument against FB being able to collect it in the first place (since, to my point, whether they willingly give it to the NSA or not, the NSA can get it). That may not matter for the purpose of your argument, but I just wanted to point that out.

B) If you're argument is that FB should be ...abolished by act of Congress? ...because it collects information, which the NSA can potentially use to harass people, why stop with FB? How about businesses that sell goods, or charities that receive donations, or churches which people attend, or any other kind of organization which collects information about people? Should those be outlawed/regulated as well?

C) The bottom line is that the problem is government harassing you with the aid of the information you give the social media companies, not the social media companies to whom you voluntarily give information (or not, if you choose not to do so).

I don't use fakebook, no one does, they use you.

Hundreds of millions of people voluntarily use FB because they enjoy the services they offer, at no cost, except a loss of privacy about which most people don't care. You don't like the trade-off (access to their services in exchange for them collecting data about you to sell to advertisers), but many, many people do. You, or the state which you want to do your dirty, unlibertarian work, have no right to interfere in that consenting capitalist act, as it were.

The facebook censored Rand Paul when he put all campaign money into social media and was censored.

Censorship does not belong in the same sentence with private enterprise. It isn't censorship when I decline to invite my neighbor to give a speech at my BBQ. It isn't censorship when FB declines to give someone or other (even someone you like) access to their platform. Now, on the other hand, if you're saying FB violated their contract with Rand (didn't show his ads after he paid for them...? Your statement isn't clear...), that's another matter, and they should be liable to Rand in court for breach of contract in the normal way; this does not require any additional regulation.

People get all of their news off that website and its being used to control our elections.

Yes, let us have the federal government decide which information the voters should see; what could go wrong?

...that said, it really doesn't matter; facebook, FDR on the radio, Soviet state television - boobus gonna boob.

In the meantime, let us, i.e. we very few people who actually like liberty, not positively lobby for less of it.

[nikcers]

A) That's not so much an argument against FB giving data to the NSA as an argument against FB being able to collect it in the first place (since, to my point, whether they willingly give it to the NSA or not, the NSA can get it). That may not matter for the purpose of your argument, but I just wanted to point that out.

B) If you're argument is that FB should be ...abolished by act of Congress? ...because it collects information, which the NSA can potentially use to harass people, why stop with FB? How about businesses that sell goods, or charities that receive donations, or churches which people attend, or any other kind of organization which collects information about people? Should those be outlawed/regulated as well?

C) The bottom line is that the problem is government harassing you with the aid of the information you give the social media companies, not the social media companies to whom you voluntarily give information (or not, if you choose not to do so).



Hundreds of millions of people voluntarily use FB because they enjoy the services they offer, at no cost, except a loss of privacy about which most people don't care. You don't like the trade-off (access to their services in exchange for them collecting data about you to sell to advertisers), but many, many people do. You, or the state which you want to do your dirty, unlibertarian work, have no right to interfere in that consenting capitalist act, as it were.



Censorship does not belong in the same sentence with private enterprise. It isn't censorship when I decline to invite my neighbor to give a speech at my BBQ. It isn't censorship when FB declines to give someone or other (even someone you like) access to their platform. Now, on the other hand, if you're saying FB violated their contract with Rand (didn't show his ads after he paid for them...? Your statement isn't clear...), that's another matter, and they should be liable to Rand in court for breach of contract in the normal way; this does not require any additional regulation.



Yes, let us have the federal government decide which information the voters should see; what could go wrong?

...that said, it really doesn't matter; facebook, FDR on the radio, Soviet state television - boobus gonna boob.

In the meantime, let us, i.e. we very few people who actually like liberty, not positively lobby for less of it.

The idea in whole was just too much to debate so you had to slice it up and take things out of context huh? How about this, in one sentence. Do you think that it could be possible that in today's society a group of people in control of enough industries could be able to take people off platforms like Facebook or Youtube, and shut down alternate platforms that compete with them and if they did then do you think that is okay because its the business model consumers are choosing to buy?

[r3volution 3.0]

How about this, in one sentence. Do you think that it could be possible that in today's society a group of people in control of enough industries could be able to take people off platforms like Facebook or Youtube, and shut down alternate platforms that compete with them and if they did then do you think that is okay because its the business model consumers are choosing to buy?

Absent government intervention (and if that's present, that should be the target), no, it's not possible for social media companies to form a cartel.

[nikcers]

Absent government intervention (and if that's present, that should be the target), no, it's not possible for social media companies to form a cartel.

How do you target the government intervention when they control the government?

[Swordsmyth]

How do you target the government intervention when they control the government?

And when they censor your attempts to target the government intervention.

[r3volution 3.0]

How do you target the government intervention when they control the government?

You're in favor of the state taking action against facebook which facebook doesn't want it to take, aren't you?

How will that happen if, as you claim, facebook controls the government?

...same problem, no?

[Swordsmyth]

A popular podcast run by the man who went viral after defending himself against an Antifa member was banned by Facebook with no explanation or opportunity to appeal the decision.
Panman and his cohost, Jason Lo, say their Facebook page “Titans of Liberty” was banned from Facebook without a notification, appeal process, or explanation for its removal last week.
Speaking to Big League Politics, Lo explained that the page was, strangely, removed from Facebook without any of the platform’s usual procedures.
“The page disappeared out of thin air, and it’s just gone,” said Lo. “No warning, no nothing.”


Facebook typically warns users they are infringing on the platform’s community standards several times, temporarily suspending their ability to post in increments ranging from 24 hours to 30 days, and eventually escalate these punishments to the complete removal of a Facebook page.
Rather than following this pattern, Facebook removed the “Titans of Liberty” page with no explanation, and Lo and Panman received no punishment on their personal profiles. Lo told Big League Politics he was given “No reason at all.”

More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/facebo...-rufio-panman/

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Am I supposed to forget how the MSM always had technical difficulties before Ron Paul was about to speak the truth? Or during the primaries when the 1st, 3rd, and 4th place candidates were shown, but not the 2nd, which was Ron? Or how he was more racist than Hitler because of some insensitive AT MOST newsletters older than any of the people voting for him?