TRUMP v ZUCKERBURG
This is the BEST read of the week! Fakebook is screwed! 😂🤣
Link below...👇👇👇👇
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you don’t get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
This is correct.
Section 230 Protects Platform not publishers.
When Trump wins this case, Section 230 is over.
“Merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
SCOTUS Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee.
Can governments dictate to private companies who they can and cannot censor?
The point is that facebook is operating as an agent for the government. Your private company argument is not relevant.
If you can actually prove they are operating as an agent of the government, then you might have a weak argument. But you can’t base a lawsuit on an undemonstrated conspiracy theory.
The second they start curating content and not just being a platform they lose all of their 230 protections. We could have had the same argument about the railroads but we busted those trusts and we are going to bust these ones too.
If Trump’s team can prove US government and big tech colluding with each other, then companies like Facebook aren’t private anymore. For example, it was said in the press conference they have proof of Facebook exchanging their own trade secrets with the government, such as the redacted portions of Fauci emails.
There is cake shop in Portland that says different. Remember they got sued several times for not baking cakes for gay weddings. I think they are a private business.
The Cake Shop is a private business who make their own decisions.
Face Book is a private business colluding with government to spread propaganda.
Not the same.
Yes, and everyone on the right and every honest conservative was out raged by the left trying to force a private industry Who they could and could not serve.
And so they should have been. But now suddenly some people here are in favor of the government imposing it’s political will on private industry because it’s no longer about gays but affects Trump?
Free speech is in the US Constitution. I'm still looking for the part that mentions penis cakes. I get it, we don't want the government telling every private business what they can and can not do. However, the FB platform is really quite public. If Trump violated their so called standards, they have a serious amount of explaining to do as to why they allow so many terrorists groups to still post. This was a political move, not a private business decision over made up rules violations. They colluded with the Democrat Party to remove the voice of a competitor. Remember, there is also a Zuckerberg connection to the election itself.
Yes, free-speech is in the constitution. why don’t you go and read exactly what the constitution has to say about free speech. then please comment here, and be specific, on exactly where it says you can dictate the actions of a private entity, or compel a private entity to give specific individuals a voice.
I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific clause from the constitution, since you referenced it.
No disagreement there, but then go after them for anti-trust and antimonopoly violations.
That is irrelevant to their rights as a private industry in the United States.
If they were launched with government/military funding and take orders from people inside the government, were they ever really private?
Can you prove any of that in court? Can Trump?
Here we go with the new account shills from the Never-Trump GOP and their “muh it’s a private business” argument 🤣
You have zero clue what this lawsuit is about! Your responses in multiple threads proves it.
I know exactly what the lawsuit is about having read it, and it has no basis whatsoever in reality. By the way, please tell me how old my account is and be specific.