Trump threatens Zuckerberg with life in prison

[Madison320]

Well I'm not walking through this and exhaustively documenting the stark difference between what Facebook claims to this very day to provide users and the well documented reality.
https://www.facebook.com/terms.php?p...cpDnh-spM&_rdr

Nothing in the first four bullet points of "The Services We Provide" is remotely close to the truth.
I'm sure everything thereafter about account controls and data harvesting is closer to being accurate. But this is a classic bait-and-switch.

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.


4:Help you discover content, products, and services that may interest you:
We show you personalized ads, offers, and other sponsored or commercial content to help you discover content, products, and services that are offered by the many businesses and organizations that use Facebook and other Meta Products. Section 2 below explains this in more detail."

[fisharmor]

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.

Well then you're the target audience and I'm therefore surprised you apparently have never used facebook before.

ETA: let me be crystal clear here. No. I have better things to do with my time than bring you up to speed on the everything that all social media platforms have been up to for the last decade. Get on FB and join a couple liberty groups and within 24 hours you'll know exactly what is going on.

When a company says "we are going to do X and in return we are going to take Y" and then they never do anything close to X and deliberately obscure how much Y they're taking and what they're doing with it, that company is fraudulently representing what it is doing for consumers.

[CaptUSA]

Would it be a crime if he decided, on his own, to only let democrats on his site?

On his own? No. Unless there was some sort of fraud in doing so. But his company's immunity could (and should) be withdrawn since he can no longer claim that they're just a bulletin board, rather than a publisher. You can't curate the information AND be immune from torts.

[Madison320]

Well then you're the target audience and I'm therefore surprised you apparently have never used facebook before.

ETA: let me be crystal clear here. No. I have better things to do with my time than bring you up to speed on the everything that all social media platforms have been up to for the last decade. Get on FB and join a couple liberty groups and within 24 hours you'll know exactly what is going on.

When a company says "we are going to do X and in return we are going to take Y" and then they never do anything close to X and deliberately obscure how much Y they're taking and what they're doing with it, that company is fraudulently representing what it is doing for consumers.

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.

[Madison320]

On his own? No. Unless there was some sort of fraud in doing so. But his company's immunity could (and should) be withdrawn since he can no longer claim that they're just a bulletin board, rather than a publisher. You can't curate the information AND be immune from torts.

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.

[acptulsa]

Plus I find it odd that it seems like mostly anarchists want the government to regulate social media. Seems oxymoronic to me.

Wait. Just wait.

So, government tells social media what to push and what to censor, and that's not regulation? And then the people, or a court, or maybe some legislature tells social media not to even talk with government about their content, and that is regulation?

[Madison320]

Wait. Just wait.

So, government tells social media what to push and what to censor, and that's not regulation? And then the people, or a court, or maybe some legislature tells social media not to even talk with government about their content, and that is regulation?

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.

[acptulsa]

[Working Poor]

I think it is wrong for governments to censor the press. I think any media should be able to say whatever they want. Any company has a right to say what they want.

The day I realized I was being censored by facebook I closed my account. They are dead to me. They started censoring me years before Trump. RPF is the only social media that does not censor me. People all the time ask me to FB them I say I don't do facebook. There are a lot of people who don't use it. Sometimes I get mad when someone here post a fb link bit I realize that even Ron Paul supporters do FB. I just don't do it.

[Madison320]

I think it is wrong for governments to censor the press. I think any media should be able to say whatever they want. Any company has a right to say what they want.

The day I realized I was being censored by facebook I closed my account. They are dead to me. They started censoring me years before Trump. RPF is the only social media that does not censor me. People all the time ask me to FB them I say I don't do facebook. There are a lot of people who don't use it. Sometimes I get mad when someone here post a fb link bit I realize that even Ron Paul supporters do FB. I just don't do 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.

[fisharmor]

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?

No, it is absolutely not free. That is probably the biggest fraud of all.
The gigantic industry you apparently don't know about which is working tirelessly to protect your personal data is a market response to groups like Facebook and their profit model. You do not pay a subscription fee for Facebook but you do give Facebook valuable data. If you're on a wavelength where you only recognize FRNs as valuable, then there's not much else to say. But if you can recognize that even our busted ass legal system has never only considered cash when calculating enrichment, the rest should fall into place.

1:Provide a personalized experience for you:

Manifestly and routinely false. Larry Sharpe was probably the catalyst for liberty-minded folks fleeing the platform when he was deplatformed right before the 2018 NY Governor election which he was running in. Facebook intentionally hamstrung him and, as is usual for pages like his, gave no specific reason other than generally "breaking the TOS".
Liberty Memes was reinstated on Facebook after being banned for no reason, and routinely asks people who watch their page whether they are getting any exposure at all. Liberty Memes also runs charity drives on FB to buy wheelchair vans for children who need them, and so is watching their numbers intently so they can pressure people to donate, and they're well aware that they're getting throttled and/or suppressed.
It's also commonplace for people starting liberty pages to manually invite people to like their page because liking the page is basically subscribing, and there is literally no other way on FB for users to be made aware that the page even exists, outside of searching for it directly and dealing with another common tactic of putting the page that exactly matches the term you searched for in the 3rd or 4th page of results.
Actively suppressing the content I actually want to see is the 180 degree polar opposite of "personalizing my experience".

2:Connect you with people and organizations you care about:

How how can they purport to do this when they are deplatforming people and organizations I care about? There are tons of users like Carey Wedler, Tom Woods, and Sargon of Akkad who have eschewed the platform entirely due to either reading the tea leaves or having been deplatformed for, again, unstated reasons. And because you're apparently unaware of all of this - there were cases like with Sargon where he got deplatformed from multiple sites within a 24 hour period. There are multiple examples from the past of coordinated deplatforming. It's not just Facebook making these determinations in a vacuum. If you suddenly disappear from multiple sites that have no business relationship with each other, that means the national surveillance apparatus has its hooks deeper in this mess than is generally acknowledged. And that also means Zuckerberg is complicit.

3:Empower you to express yourself and communicate about what matters to you:

Make any comment involving Nazis on Facebook and you'll immediately see how far Zuckerberg is willing to take that. I'd actually respect him if the TOS said "I'm a Jew and I'm not going to tolerate any mention of Nazis at all here". But if you prepend the magic words "Trump is a" when talking about Nazis it suddenly becomes ok.
No jokes, no screenshots from The Producers, no clips from The Blues Brothers are off limits from their ban hammer. And again this isn't stated anywhere - it's just an invisible wall you have to smash your face into in order to realize it's there.
All of the leftist social media outlets operate this way - there are incredibly strict rules for what you can't say, but the way you find them is through 30 day bans. And frankly I refuse to believe you've never seen a video from 2021 or 2022 of people taking about the "commie cough" or the "beer bug" or "the unspecified virus of unknown origin". Those video creators weren't being funny or tongue-in-cheek. They literally couldn't mention Covid or Coronavirus by name because someone smashed their face right into that invisible wall and let everyone else know.

4:Help you discover content, products, and services that may interest you:

Content: this is a direct lie as shown above.
Products: Facebook is pretty infamous for hucking crap that is lower quality than made-for-tv was producing in the 90s. I've seen entire videos of woodworkers buying every piece of $#@! woodworking tool from Facebook ads (which I've seen, because woodworking is like the one thing FB will show me) and about 1 in 10 is mildly useful, 8 of them are on a gradient from useless to counterproductive, and 1 in 10 is "oh my God who thought this was a good idea someone has to have lost a finger from this at this point".

And the real kick in the teeth is everyone who is still on that platform understands today that there is literally no way to use it without a browser extension that cleans up your feed. You can't look at FB on your phone because the extensions don't work and you discover that only 20% of the content you see is welcome and only 10% is stuff you asked for. The rest is cheap Chinese crap for sale, Zionists asking for money, leftist political campaigns, and other ads.
Now, having never experienced it yourself, you're probably going to reply and say "well they disclosed they were going to push ads" but ads isn't the main point. It's just another example of the trend FB and other leftist media sites have adopted of pulling a bait-and-switch of what they actually say in the TOS.

And you know this isn't even getting into the really shady $#@! like how Amazon intentionally deplatformed the entire Parler site like 2 days after Trump got kicked off of Twitter. Parler was getting new accounts hand over fist when that happened and Amazon literally pulled the plug on their site for no reason and looked them dead in the face and said "Go ahead, fight me". It was a direct breach of contract and yet nothing ever happened from it, and nobody is investigating why that was allowed to stand.

[Madison320]

No, it is absolutely not free. That is probably the biggest fraud of all.
The gigantic industry you apparently don't know about which is working tirelessly to protect your personal data is a market response to groups like Facebook and their profit model. You do not pay a subscription fee for Facebook but you do give Facebook valuable data. If you're on a wavelength where you only recognize FRNs as valuable, then there's not much else to say. But if you can recognize that even our busted ass legal system has never only considered cash when calculating enrichment, the rest should fall into place.

Just quit using it.