It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:13 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 13993
DarkHelmet wrote:
Jones banned himself in a false flag operation. I found evidence of thermite that proves it.

This makes complete internal sense.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 13993
Yeah, I admit that I don't care for the cited reasons for the ban being "hate speech." "Spreading ____" would have been a much more valid and objectively perceptible standard.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1792
schreech wrote:
Dude, you really want to be right here and I don't have any illusion that anyone will change your mind even though reality, the law and common sense are all against you at this point. You are wrong and no amount of false equivalency is going to change that. What I find humorous at this point is watching someone who claims to be conservative (I get that trumpets are RHINO's, at best) argue that the govt should step in and regulate a private business instead of letting the free market manage the content that Facebook chooses, as a private business, to allow. Alas, self professed conservatives only seem to care about deregulation and a free and open marketplace when it doesn't negatively affect the side that they blindly choose to follow. For instance:

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-anti-trump-tax-plan-commercial-wont-be-aired-by-fox-news-but-you-can-still-watch-it-6739407 - fox news has a monopoly on conservative viewership and is the #1 primetime news network, so why aren't you bitching about them not allowing this (and other left leaning commercials) to be aired? Could it be that you are a hypocrite? Fox news is a channel that actually claims to be news, not just a social media company, that refuses to allow the other side any voice but you don't seem to care because, and Im guessing here, your arbitrary use of the word "monopoly" doesn't cover this situation.

I still thinks its hilarious that you continue to act like Facebook fits the criteria of a monopoly (and that alex jones is a conservative - lol). The fact that they are dwarfed by google in ad revenues, people have and use dozens of other choices for social media, people have and use dozens of other options for connecting with their friends, Facebook is a SOCIAL media company which is free to use and, much like television, I can switch to another social media channel any time I choose. Nothing Facebook has done has limited competition, ability to do business and nothing they have done limits anyone's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Again, just because you have chosen to believe something, doesn't make it true.

Clearly this merry-go-round will just keep spinning, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You disagree, that's nice, and it's not that I really want to be right, but that your argument is weak. It does not appear that you comprehend my argument. All you have done is name call and present out of context comparisons. It's subjective either way. You disagree, that's fine.

Fox is a channel on a network which consists of many channels. Apples to oranges. Google has more ad revenue, you point out. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? They are a completely different business. If there is a comparison to be made with Google, it's their Google+ social network, which tried to compete with Facebook and was a total failure. They couldn't get anywhere with it even with their vast resources and having several feet already in the door. Why? Because Facebook is a monopoly. Oh, there are other "social media" sites you point out? Again, apples to oranges. What is your point? This is like saying there are other computer networks beside the internet. Lots of private networks that people can remotely connect to. But only one of them is called the "internet." It is a monopoly. Facebook has ZERO, literally ZERO, competitors. What is there? LinkedIn? That's not a Facebook competitor, it's a jobs website. Twitter? LOL. There is nobody who competes with the type of social interactions and discourse that Facebook caters to.

The answer to the question of whether Facebook is a monopoly or not is subjective. It depends on how influence is defined and measured and likewise how the market is being defined and measured and the extent of their penetration and control over said market. You argue Facebook can never be a monopoly so long as any other website exists. This is a weak argument, one which completely fails to address the question.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7245
Ceeboo wrote:
Ben Shapiro's thoughts on the matter;

“Social-media giants had a choice here. If they wanted Jones gone, they could simply have defined a standard limit on the number of debunked conspiracy theories one could peddle on the site before being banned, or they could have created a standard prohibiting public threats.

Instead, they chose the most politically correct way of booting Jones: They claimed he’d violated undefined standards regarding “hate.”“

Oh, really, Ben?

Who’s going to be deciding what qualifies as a conspiracy theory, and will those verdicts - or the people rendering them - be acceptable to conservatives?

Shapiro replaces a methodology that he claims is defective in order to suggest his own, no-less-defective methodology that will be certain to be ignored and maligned, especially given that the Right has, in general, never once policed itself based on this criteria. Just who will do it, then?

There’s a reason why Shapiro chafes at the use of ‘hate speech’ as a criteria - it’s because it’s a nebulous enough category now to allow himself and his fellows to skirt as close to that edge as can be determined to be permissible at any moment, while pushing that edge bit by bit into ever-more-dangerous territory. And he doesn’t like that anyone will start to set limits by example and call his cohort on to the carpet for testing those limits.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:02 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19998
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
canpakes:

How has the action against Jones brought greater clarity to the definition of hate speech or the location of the boundaries?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
Water Dog wrote:
The answer to the question of whether Facebook is a monopoly or not is subjective. It depends on how influence is defined and measured and likewise how the market is being defined and measured and the extent of their penetration and control over said market. You argue Facebook can never be a monopoly so long as any other website exists. This is a weak argument, one which completely fails to address the question.


Aside from the above, the rest of your post was gibberish as I have no idea what your point is. You downplay competitors to Facebook (Youtube - 1.9 billion active users, instagram - 1billion + active users, google+ - 2.2 billion profiles and 111million active accounts, twitter - 328 million active users, snapchat - 191 million DAILY active users, reddit - 330 million monthly active users, etc. - this is only including US based social media platforms), your understanding of monopolies and what constitutes a monopoly is ignorant and your repeated calls of "apples to oranges" is somewhat laughable considering you were comparing shopping malls in california to Facebook (rotflol!). There are literally hundreds of other up and coming platforms that are not hindered by the popularity of Facebook. You really need to read up a bit on anti trust law. Your warped perception about the influence of Facebook makes you sound both old and way too influenced by Facebook in our own life.

As for the quoted part of your post, you are right, its subjective but its not subjective in a way that makes what you are saying in any way a competent, rational argument. Verizon has penetrated THE ENTIRE US MARKET and controls several aspects of the 4g and cable markets and is the sole provider in some areas. Not a monopoly. I can name hundreds of companies that meet your conveniently narrow criteria for a monopoly that are not considered monopolies (amazon, microsoft, apple, monsanto, Anheuser-Busch, sirius xm, etc). THAT SAID, You can continue to imagine that Facebook fits the definition of a monopoly to try to distract from the fact that you think the govt should step in and force a private business to be a "free speech" platform for any crackpot that can create a FREE account. You are wrong and will continue to be wrong.

Like I said, I don't have any illusion that I am going to change your mind, you seem completely impervious to information that runs counter to what you have chosen to believe. Facebook will not get broken up or treated as a utility no matter how infatuated you are with that fantasy since consumers are not worse off due to their current state. Facebook isn't using their influence to raise or fix prices on anything and they aren't driving out competition - again, read up on anti-trust law. No regulator is going to step in until consumers are negatively affected. So I will just leave you with these:

Image

Image

Image

Image

But, hey, thanks for entertaining me.

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
Kishkumen wrote:
How has the action against Jones brought greater clarity to the definition of hate speech or the location of the boundaries?


didn't Facebook indicate that they considered his speech "hate" speech because it could be linked directly to violent acts committed by his listeners? Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories. And to think, our president turns to him for advice. maga!!!!...

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12247
Location: Your mother's purse
schreech wrote:
Image
Image


Oh, now I get it..when the poster said "why?" (as in why should that be Facebook policy)and then I said "why not?"(as in why should it not be Facebook policy)...your extra chromosome 21 thought (after exhausting value pack of Kleenex and Jergen's).... *why not? hmm, it must be because they have a policy*.

*click here for detailed prophecy of Schreech's next post....and be amazed.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 13993
schreech wrote:
Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's much doubt that what Jones has been peddling can be considered "hate speech" (if anything can) but as far as terms and conditions go, it does seem to me to be a pretty subjective standard wide open to interpretation and subsequent abuse.

I think it's fair to expect companies are going to make some judgment calls, and you're right; they can ban anyone they want. It's just that as a user having to follow their rules, it would be nice to know with fair certainty what the standard is, if you care to use their service.

I hate stupidity and willful ignorance. I say that kind of thing online all the time. Is that hate speech? I'm targeting a specific demographic when I say it (stupid people).

I've never been a fan of the term "hate speech" for the same reason I'm not a fan of the word "atheist." It means too many different things to different people.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
subgenius wrote:
Image


Jesus Christ, your masturbation fantasies involving me are getting pretty specific and really pathetic - the fact that you have the brand of lotion picked out in your head is super creepy but you look like the kind of guy that sits in his basement concocting detailed fantasies about people you are infatuated with.

Im also not at all surprised that the best you can come with in your never-ending parade of humiliation and failure is calling someone re-tarded. For someone as old as you, and you are old, you would think that you could do better than a below average 3rd grader but, hey, its you and you are a barely literate tool with nothing better to do than spend endless amounts of time here indulging you humiliation fetish.

But, hey:

Image

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Last edited by schreech on Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
Some Schmo wrote:
schreech wrote:
Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's much doubt that what Jones has been peddling can be considered "hate speech" (if anything can) but as far as terms and conditions go, it does seem to me to be a pretty subjective standard wide open to interpretation and subsequent abuse.

I think it's fair to expect companies are going to make some judgment calls, and you're right; they can ban anyone they want. It's just that as a user having to follow their rules, it would be nice to know with fair certainty what the standard is, if you care to use their service.

I hate stupidity and willful ignorance. I say that kind of thing online all the time. Is that hate speech? I'm targeting a specific demographic when I say it (stupid people).

I've never been a fan of the term "hate speech" for the same reason I'm not a fan of the word "atheist." It means too many different things to different people.


I don't disagree but here is part of the terms and conditions Facebook employs:

"1. Credible Violence
We aim to prevent potential real-world harm that may be related to content on Facebook. We understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in facetious and non-serious ways. That's why we try to consider the language, context and details in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information like a targeted person's public visibility and vulnerability. We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.

Do not post:
The following threats:

Credible statements of intent to commit violence against any person, groups of people, or place (city or smaller). We assess credibility based upon the information available to us and generally consider statements credible if the following are present:
A target (person, group of people, or place) and
Bounty/demand for payment, or
Mention or image of specific weapon, or
Sales offer or ask to purchase weapon, or
Spelled-out address or named building, or
A target and two or more of the following details (can be two of the same detail):
Location
Timing
Method
Any statement of intent to commit violence against a vulnerable person (identified by name, title, image, or other reference) or vulnerable group, including (but not limited to) heads-of-state, witnesses and confidential informants, activists, and journalists

Calls for violence or statements advocating violence against the following targets (identified by name, title, image, or other reference)

Any vulnerable person or group including (but not limited to) heads of state, national elected officials, witnesses and confidential informants, activists, and journalists
Public individuals, if credible as defined above
Groups of people or unnamed specific person(s), if credible
Places, if credible
Where no target is specified but a symbol representing the target or a visual of weapons is included


Aspirational and conditional statements of violence against

Any vulnerable groups
Public individuals, if credible (unless the individual is convicted of certain crimes or is a member of a dangerous organization)
Vulnerable person(s), if credible
Groups of people or unnamed specific person(s), if credible
Places, if credible


Any content created for the express purpose of outing an individual as a member of a designated and recognizable at-risk group

Instructions on how to make or use weapons if the goal is to injure or kill people as may be evident from:

As evident from language explicitly stating that goal, or
As evident from imagery that shows or simulates the end result (serious injury or death) as part of the instruction
Unless there is clear context that the content is for an alternative purpose (for example, shared as part of recreational self-defense activities, training by a country’s military, commercial video games, or news coverage)

Instructions on how to make or use explosives, unless there is clear context that the content is for a non-violent purpose (for example, clear scientific/educational purpose use or fireworks)

Exposure of vulnerable individuals' identities without their permission

Any content containing statements of intent, calls for action, representation, support or advocation for violence due to the outcome of an election

Misinformation that contributes to imminent violence or physical harm"

There is a lot of info here about their community standards and its not terribly ambiguous but I get your point:

https://www.Facebook.com/communitystandards/violence_criminal_behavior

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 7535
Subgenius,

I completely recognize that you are mocked incessantly and called vile things quite often on this board - Much of which is supported and encouraged by those here who pile on.

But, do you think you could refrain from using Down Syndrome as a personal insult at someone? (This isn't the first time that I have seen you do this). For the people who have this genetic disorder, as well as the many loved ones around them, it is a very challenging and difficult journey to manage, on many levels. Please stop.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
.

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Last edited by schreech on Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 13993
schreech wrote:
There is a lot of info here about their community standards and its not terribly ambiguous but I get your point:

https://www.Facebook.com/communitystandards/violence_criminal_behavior

Yep, I agree that it sounds pretty straightforward on that page, and from what I read there, they had ample cause to ban Jones.

I guess I'd have felt better about the whole thing if they'd just stated which rules in their terms he'd broken without resorting to the phrase "hate speech." The page you link cites "harm" far more than "hate" and I think that approach is on the right track. They didn't need to mention "hate speech" in their statement for why they banned Jones, and now we have a bunch of people whining and crying foul for all the wrong reasons. The phrase taints (for me and my exceptionally delicate sensibilities) what I imagine most reasonable people agree was a very reasonable action to take.

From this perspective, I'm more sympathetic to what honor was saying when this all happened.

_________________
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:32 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am
Posts: 5089
Location: California
Ceeboo wrote:
Subgenius,

I completely recognize that you are mocked incessantly and called vile things quite often on this board - Much of which is supported and encouraged by those here who pile on.

But, do you think you could refrain from using Down Syndrome as a personal insult at someone? (This isn't the first time that I have seen you do this). For the people who have this genetic disorder, as well as the many loved ones around them, it is a very challenging and difficult journey to manage, on many levels. Please stop.

Thanks, Ceeboo! As the father of Down Syndrome daughter myself, I appreciate your support on that, and highly resent subgenius' highly offensive remark.

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Last edited by Gunnar on Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:33 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19998
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
schreech wrote:
didn't Facebook indicate that they considered his speech "hate" speech because it could be linked directly to violent acts committed by his listeners? Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories.


Did they enforce this standard in a timely way, or are they appealing to it long after the offense? I’m just finding it difficult to believe that these companies were responding to a recent, specific even that crossed a clear line, forcing them to expel Jones.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
Kishkumen wrote:
schreech wrote:
didn't Facebook indicate that they considered his speech "hate" speech because it could be linked directly to violent acts committed by his listeners? Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories.


Did they enforce this standard in a timely way, or are they appealing to it long after the offense? I’m just finding it difficult to believe that these companies were responding to a recent, specific even that crossed a clear line, forcing them to expel Jones.


Honestly, I don’t know. I’m guessing there is a clause in there that says they can terminate whenever they want and maybe there was a final straw. It seems like kind of an at will employment situation and they certainly had enough evidence to ban him. That said, maybe their lawyers finally told them that his account was creating a liability situation since he is getting sued. Eh, no se.

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7245
Kishkumen wrote:
canpakes:

How has the action against Jones brought greater clarity to the definition of hate speech or the location of the boundaries?


I don’t think that it has brought any greater clarity to the definition of hate speech. I see their classification of Jones’ output (for lack of a better word) as nebulous. And I think that’s intentional.

What it does do, though, is draw a slightly clearer line in the sand on the location of the boundaries, even if there are no specifics offered. Most rational people can accept that Jones’ output has spurred some folks to commit dangerous, irrational actions arguably motivated by malice or ‘hate’. So, while we can’t formulate a precise cause and effect relationship, specific events can be linked to specific items from Jones’ menu of conspiracies.

It is, in a way, like the ‘bare shoulders’ theory of porn. Probably few folks can define exactly why bare shoulders became considered bad form (at least in the LDS community), and it’s not clear that exposure to bare shoulders leads anyone to commit socially unsavory or dangerous actions, but like so much of what is considered to lay within the realm of ‘porn’, bare shoulders in and of themselves set a boundary of sorts best left uncrossed by community members in general. Thus it becomes a standard by which to render judgment. Same for Apple and Google; they don’t have to define what makes Jones’ rants ‘hate’ speech so much as link it to the possibility of bad outcomes, and their desire to avoid looking complicit in such. And the community will hopefully police itself accordingly, or suffer some degree of shunning.

And where does that leave Shapiro? He has to deal with a nebulous definition of a type of bad behavior. This kind of constraint does not sit well with conservatives. They’re not into nuance or grey zones in general, and when it comes to their own behavior, they seem much happier to have ‘bad’ explicitly spelled out and the rules plainly decided, so that they can know what they can do that gets as close as possible to the boundary while still pointing out that they are not at fault for any consequence because they did not explicitly cross that boundary. For many of them, rules don’t exist to suggest good behavior so much as tell them what they can get away with.

And I’ll stick to my guns on the notion that Shapiro’s criteria example - “how many conspiracy theories offered up”, etc. - is a purposeful diversion and trap because what qualifies as a flagrantly bad example would never be defined by anyone in the conservative realm. They’d leave that to centrists, liberals and rationals, then decry the ‘censorship’ of having to adhere to and suffer from any type of definition, allowing them to rationalize their acceptance and continuation the same behavior while simultaneously being able to play yet another persecution card.

I’m sure that this sounds cynical, and I wish that the everyday experience offered by the world of conservative thought offered something different, but it doesn’t. If you don’t believe me, just spend a few weeks listening to conservative talk radio.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1792
schreech wrote:
Image

Image

Image

Image

Wow, 4 gifs, I guess that means I lost, :rolleyes:

schreech wrote:
You downplay competitors to Facebook (Youtube - 1.9 billion active users, instagram - 1billion + active users, google+ - 2.2 billion profiles and 111million active accounts, twitter - 328 million active users, snapchat - 191 million DAILY active users, reddit - 330 million monthly active users, etc. - this is only including US based social media platforms)


Youtube - not a competitor
Instagram - not a competitor, and, incidentally, owned by Facebook
Google+ - anybody with any google related account is forced to create a "plus" profile by default. I have at least a dozen google+ profiles.
Twitter - not a competitor
Snapchat - not a competitor, nor is its more popular counterpart WhatsApp (which is owned by Facebook)
Reddit - not a competitor

None of these are competitors to Facebook, and half of them aren't even marginally classified as "social media." Reddit is not social media. Snapchat is not social media. Youtube is not social media.

Here's a clue on how you can know if something is a competitor to Facebook or not. If someone uses it simultaneously with Facebook, then it probably isn't a competitor. For example, a person doesn't generally buy phone service from Verizon and T-Mobile at the same time. A person doesn't generally have both an iPhone and a Samsung at the same time. They pick one, or the other. There is a market, and people choose one provider within that space. If someone is active on Facebook, and active on Twitter, and active on Reddit, and YouTube, etc., that's a good indication that these services are not competing with each other.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1792
schreech wrote:
...to try to distract from the fact that you think the govt should step in and force a private business to be a "free speech" platform for any crackpot that can create a FREE account. You are wrong and will continue to be wrong.

You need to take a step back and breath some fresh air, because I have said no such thing. I am speaking to the principle of the situation, nothing more. They are perfectly within their rights to censor whatever the hell they want for whatever reasons they want. In doing so, however, they are walking a tightrope. If they are perceived to wield power over public discourse that serves to abrogate free speech, they will (rightfully) find themselves under regulatory crosshairs. Which has already happened to a preliminary probing extent. We are witnessing the beginnings of these conversations, which will grow over time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 1984 in 2018
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2423
Water Dog wrote:

Youtube - not a competitor
Instagram - not a competitor, and, incidentally, owned by Facebook
Google+ - anybody with any google related account is forced to create a "plus" profile by default. I have at least a dozen google+ profiles.
Twitter - not a competitor
Snapchat - not a competitor, nor is its more popular counterpart WhatsApp (which is owned by Facebook)
Reddit - not a competitor

None of these are competitors to Facebook, and half of them aren't even marginally classified as "social media." Reddit is not social media. Snapchat is not social media. Youtube is not social media.

Here's a clue on how you can know if something is a competitor to Facebook or not. If someone uses it simultaneously with Facebook, then it probably isn't a competitor. For example, a person doesn't generally buy phone service from Verizon and T-Mobile at the same time. A person doesn't generally have both an iPhone and a Samsung at the same time. They pick one, or the other. There is a market, and people choose one provider within that space. If someone is active on Facebook, and active on Twitter, and active on Reddit, and YouTube, etc., that's a good indication that these services are not competing with each other.


At this point, I can only assume you just like being wrong. Like everything you just said above is nonsense and you get so focused on the myopia of the things others post that you completely miss the point - including your own.

I have a Chevy AND an Audi, I guess they aren't competitors. I have whirlpool AND LG appliances, I guess they can't be competitors. I have a mac AND a galaxy tablet, I guess samsung and apple aren't competitors. I use chrome AND firefox so they certainly can't be competitors. I have hulu AND prime video AND netflix, I guess they aren't competitors. I could go on and on here but most people would get the point by now.

Whats even funnier is that I am looking at both my iphone and galaxy (verizon and tmobile) phone right now but, hey, that's not really the point. The point is you just keep making making up completely self serving, convient definitions of things you don't understand to try to support the argument that you are failing to make about Facebook being a monopoly, which, again, is ALSO not the point of this thread.

Your understanding of both market competition and anti-trust laws is so lacking, I don't think there is any reason to respond as you have proven that, like most devout believers, you are not open to having your mind changed and you don't seem to want to actually research the issue. Ill just leave you these:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120314/who-are-facebooks-fb-main-competitors.asp

https://www.marketing91.com/13-facebook-competitors/

https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/

https://www.lifewire.com/top-social-networking-sites-people-are-using-3486554

https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/05/popular-social-media-sites.html

But, hey, keep harping on how Facebook is a monopoly while not understanding what constitutes either a monopoly or a competitor (or even a social media site at this point). Also, feel free to continue to ignore the fact that you, as a self professed "conservative" want the govt to step in and regulate how a private business manages the content they choose to allow on their own site per their own terms and conditions.

At this point, I can only assume you just want to argue and you don't care about looking silly or you really are this naïve and out of touch on this subject.

so, hey:

Image

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group