Facebook Now Suppresses Untrustworthy Sites to Weed out Fake News That most likely means only liberal agendas will be allowed on fakebook. Especially during election years.
Or blue states importing people of their choice and allowing the legal and illegal aliens etc to vote. chelloveck, has the about 6 million or so immigrants since WW2 had any impact on the culture or politics of Australia? Do you think that the present policy of severely limiting illegal immigration of people from Asia is correct or do you foresee a day when "white" people will be as marginalized as the 2 or 3 % of the population of Australia that is native? We have a lot of problems in the US, but other than as a devil's advocate, I would not necessarily use Australia as a symbol of political correctness and moral authority.
I would make it simple no political ads , speech, fundraising and I would make TV the same No more Pac's no lobbying get the money and corruption out period
So.... You would delete the First Amendment Free Speech Rights... for ALL Americans.... Am I getting this right?
lol they just moved all their servers to the USA to avoid the privacy laws in the EU which are more stringent than privacy laws in the USA
Making sure you are: Who you say you are Not dead Voting in your district Not an illegal Not a felon Only vote once Is voter suppression to liberals.
Without even having an FB account or interest, the scheme has struck me as the electronic equivalent of checkout lane fish wrappers. The main difference seems to be that anyone can pose as a reporter and start rumors that sheep will believe. Now, if these "controls" on content are implemented, the 1st is in jeopardy.
We haven't had free speech in a while... we have free market speech.... those who pay the advertising determine what speech we hear... be it political or marketing... just my opinion... YMMV
No, not at all. He didn't say you couldn't say whatever you want, just can't put either side on TV or FB. Not that I agree or disagree, just pointing out that you are being deliberately difficult. There is no easy way to "level the playing field" that everyone will agree with. Regulating this or that does nothing but make people find a way to accomplish the same thing in a more circuitous, round-about way. Regulating/doing away with PACs and lobbying will just force it into another form. As long as there is someone seeking office and someone with an agenda, they will find a way to finance it. The "equal time" rules get bent and broken, if not in fact then certainly in spirit, all the time. When was the last time you heard a Republican get air time on NPR during a campaign that didn't basically start off with "So, why do you want to take food out of the mouths of the elderly?" and go down hill from there. Sure, same amount of time on the radio, but not the same type of coverage at all. But no, he didn't say do away with free speech. Just because someone says it doesn't mean someone else has to air it or repeat it or reprint it. If some major media outlet decided "no more political ads", that's their decision and it's not infringing on or taking away anyone's free speech. And frankly, that broadcaster would probably get so freaking much ad revenue and additional "business" they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Additionally, even if FB's decision ends up making it a liberal only platform, so be it. The First Amendment has nothing to do with private parties and everything to do with the government, and as big as it is, FB isn't the US government and they can't write laws. Congress (does not apply to FaceBook) shall make no law (because FaceBook can't make laws) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and (/or) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Red Italics mine. Nothing in there that would indicate that FB deciding to have zero political ads would be illegal. Nothing in there that would prohibit FB from deciding to become a defacto arm of the Democratic National Committee. Don't throw up spurious, straw man arguments, it detracts from the actual point and discussion (but I think you know that). It also detracts from when you point to the Bill of Rights (as written, including #2) because you know better and are seemingly deliberately "using it wrong". The First Amendment protects nothing directly. What it does is prohibit Congress (Federal only here) from passing laws that would do any of the 5 bullet points above. Nothing about personal interaction, nothing about businesses, nothing about media, nothing about schools and nothing about churches except that we can't put one before another. It's a prohibition that only applies to FedGov from making laws, period.
It's a distinction that is lost on many....especially by some who feel that the media is obliged to provide them with a platform and a megaphone to broadcast whatever nonsense that they are trying to purvey. or put more simply
The good old days was if you said something that someone disagreed with, they would probably ignore you. Say something someone really disagrees with, they tell you their side. Can't be civil, someone is a getting hurt. Then they repeat as necessary until civility is learned. With how things are over the past maybe six or seven decades, we have forgotten all about civility. And I'm afraid a big beating is coming down somewhere...
