What do you think of Facebook continuing to ban Trump?

[msc545]

At 9 a. m. on Wednesday, after deliberating the matter for several months, Facebook‘s oversight board announced that it would not be lifting the company’s ban on Donald Trump, and that moratorium on the ex-president’s deranged ravings would remain in place until at least November 2021.

[razelove]

Honestly by silencing him and other conservatives while allowing Antifa and BLM to run riot on their platform and twitter, they're making the best hype that could be made.

Let's be honest, him, and many of those leaning hard right tweeted and posted some retarded things on many platforms. Creating a vacuum where their opinions would be only highlights the totalitarianism we're heading towards if we stick with being woke and "anti-racist".

He's probably clapping harder than anyone else. This means his platform is going to rocket when it takes off. Even if it looks and plays the same as Google+, it's going to blow up if for nothing else curiosity if they show more tolerance than the left has.

I think they're going to be banning themselves and twitter in the US. TikTok was banned for a short time, they're a private company... if things swing the other way in terms of extremism and who is in control, I can very easily see those platforms being regionally banned for infringing on the first amendment though they are private companies. Youtube would be a strange one there, as they attack more through demonetizing rather than banning, especially perma-ban.

Anyway, if they had let him back on, he would have faded into the back-drop from god-king Trump to former president. This is just building the drama for any of his supporters and making him more of a pivot point for those on the right who might see him as far from ideal, but there is a lack of options there.

I'm very curious to see how it plays out, but the best move they could have made would be simply letting him back on and letting him burn himself out. It's not like they lose money one way or the other.

[Riebeck]

I think the left even want out of their own position but they can't since theyre secretly controlled, and this is their way of secretly supporting trump

[razelove]

@Riebeck I'd like to believe you're right with most democrats, and that it's a minority who are pushing their extreme agenda, just as there are few on the right going for totalitarianism under a different name there. They still exist on both sides, power is seductive, and the right has been disappointing on how much they're just bending over and taking it. Like seriously, Ted Cruz is the only guy who consistently has a pair and speaks up? Or my rep from Louisiana Steve Scalise?

I get Texas standing strong, but their corrupt, murderous neighbor (us) is the only other one to say hey, this is fucked up on a regular. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

They continue to ban Trump because he lies almost constantly, and has lied about things, such as the election, and his lies helped lead to an insurrection at our capitol, and he continues to lie about the same. When someone lies about things that help foment an insurrection, that leads to deaths and the postponement of legally accepting an election in congress, that is plenty of reason to keep Trump off Facebook.

[Hidden_P]

I’m in a few minds about it.


Firstly... if it’s because of president (during or trying to be re-elected) it feels a little too little too late. If it’s a political viewpoint.


Secondly, if it’s from a personal point of view (and a personal profile) it’s unfair. He is just a man, an American, a dad, a grandad, a husband so why is he any different from another other person? Why can’t he share updates about his family and friends in a social context? How is he any different from a convicted criminal who’s had sex with kids or animals or their own family and still allowed access?


Thirdly, if it’s a political standpoint Facebook should not be weighing in on someone’s viewpoint.


The difference with trump and the average person is he was president and he sort of changed how people view the president. Regardless if future presidents continue the social media theme he has made social media a part of politics and that it’s noted by politicians as a people’s platform. He embraced everyone’s opinion (whether he took note is another thing) and it’s sad to say he was the opposite wing to the ones who run things.




I don’t support trump, I’m not America, but it feels trump has been singled out as an individual. He isn’t president now so why is he personally being victimised now after presidency for expressing his personal views? Isn’t that what we all do? Isn’t that the point of social media?

[Roxxy99]

It’s hard to blame them. He used social media to spread toxic lies and conspiracy theories. Who wants to be a part of that? In reality, they bent over backwards to accommodate him. He posted things that violated terms of service over his entire presidency. They overlooked it for a long time because he was president, that is until he sparked an insurrection at the Capitol that was based on an obvious lie. He’s earned his ban. For all the Trumpers crying about free speech, the first amendment doesn’t apply to private entities. It’s why people can lose endorsement deals or be fired from their jobs over speech. It’s why Trump can hypocritically call for boycotts of companies when he doesn’t like their speech. Free speech means the government cannot censor you. It doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for what you say.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Boycotts are voluntary. Bans like this are compulsory. How many Tide Pods does it take for you to lose all grasp of distinctions?

[ObscuredBeyond]

If the first amendment doesn't apply to private entities, then the electric company can censor you for having the "wrong" views, per government arbitration. And because it's the company doing it most directly, with the government only having an indirect role, according to your own logic, your views justify them denying you access to electricity that you paid for!

How can you be this stupid? Goebbels would be proud of you.

[Roxxy99]

What I said is a fact. The first amendment does not apply to private entities. It never did, nor was it ever meant to. There is Supreme Court precedent stating such. Look it up and educate yourself a little before foolishly ranting about something you don’t understand. Mark Zuckerberg is not bound by the first amendment. As for your nonsensical analogy, there was probably a time, before they became publicly regulated, that utility companies could deny you service. Private businesses can deny service to anyone, so long as they aren’t discriminating based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A little knowledge goes a long way.

[ObscuredBeyond]

When you make yourself a utility, a public service, and then operate on the behalf of one particular political entity's interests, then you become an unofficial government extension. And in principle, that's fascism. The Stupid Court can arbitrate whatever it wants; but a tail is still not a leg.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Also, when actual medical science is suppressed in order to protect Fauci and Moderna's malfeasence, and is labeled "misinformation" because it's inconvenient, then Facebook is abusing its power to suppress speech in order to be an accomplice to medical malpractice and open conspiracy - all of which is a FELONY under medical code! You are aiding and defending criminals, whether you will admit it to yourself or not.

[msc545]

@ObscuredBeyond What "malfeasance" ?

[ObscuredBeyond]

sonsoflibertymedia.com/.../

First, over 4,000 Europeans murdered. Now... this. Enjoy what you've enabled, NPCs!

[msc545]

@ObscuredBeyond I have no idea what you are referring to.

[JamieLoves]

You’re so full of shit. You’re a baby and have no idea what you’re saying. You’re sickening and a true duche bag

[Roxxy99]

@ObscuredBeyond Sorry but there just is no constitutional basis or legal precedent for what you are saying. You’re out in no man’s land stating what you personally wish were true as fact. Let’s keep this in the realm of reality, shall we? Social media companies, regardless of what you believe their motivations to be, are not unofficial extensions of the government. They in no way represent the US government. They aren’t publicly owned or funded or regulated. You don’t have a leg to stand on here. You’re making this shit up as you go.

[zinox07]

You have strong views

[katiesmuff]

@ObscuredBeyond You are the STUPID and ignorant one here! You picked a piss poor choice to compare with. The electric company although private falls under a public utility framework which prohibits denying things such as electric, gas, water and internet to anyone who pays their bill. The FERC oversees the rates etc charged by them.

[Roxxy99]

@katiesmuff He’s debating from a position of weakness and knows it. He purposely chose an example where he knew being banned wouldn’t be allowed due to public regulation and tried to use that as “proof” that his claims about social media are valid. A 12-year old could see through that argument. The butt hurt is strong in him.

[Bean2thousand]

@katiesmuff @Roxxy99 The reason why Section 203 was amended was because hateful little trolls like you come on websites like this trying to sell your ass or direct hate speech at other users. So, don't be hypocrites. Do the right thing and ban yourselves from GAG.

[CertifiedHandsomity]

Actually, Facebook and Twitter are public companies

[Roxxy99]

@CertifiedHandsomity They are publicly traded companies but privately owned. That does not make them government entities. Sorry.

[ObscuredBeyond]

When you make election campaign materials for Pedo Joe, you become a content developer, not a mere content host. Facebook and Twitter abused their Section 13 protections, and lawfully deserve to lose them. Especially after trying to destroy Parler. That was fascist how they did that.

So it out the Tide Pods. Trump offending you with the truth, doesn't make it false.

"When you cut out a man's tongue, you don't prove him a liar. You're proving you're afraid of what he has to say." - Tyronnne Lannister

If consequences are suppression of the ability to share anywhere anything inconvenient to the criminal cabal now calling itself "government," in a representative system where they don't represent those they govern, and they now try to silence you even off of their platforms, then it's illegal suppression. If they don't allow anyone to defend you or even acknowledge you without penalty, that's fascist suppression.

The (f) law almost supports these companies'actions. But morally, their behavior is reprehensible. And you know it.

[Roxxy99]

... and the nonsense keeps flowing. What campaign materials did Twitter and Facebook create for Biden? I’m sure I’ll get even more nonsense here that requires an incredible stretch in logic. Twitter and Facebook didn’t kill Parler. Amazon, Google, and Apple made the decision not to host them, something they have a right to do as privately owned companies. You of course already know this. No user has a legal or constitutional right to take a free service, offered by a privately owned company and use it as they see fit. You can keep spinning your word salads and claiming things that aren’t true but it doesn’t change that basic reality. I think you may have injected a bit too much disinfectant.

[michelleb17]

This might be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read online. “Spread toxic lies…” that you could never begin to substantiate.
And if you believe Biden received 10 million more votes than Obama got, there’s really nothing anyone can do to help you.

[OlderAndWiser]

I think that Facebook has doomed itself. The arrogance for FB to sit in judgment of itself and - surprise, surprise - pass scrutiny is the epitome of self-righteousness. Since FB has a considerable monopoly, Congress can act to bring it within the purview of antitrust laws and break up its power. Of course, Congress won't do that as log as Democrats control either the House or the Senate.

Leftists may be rejoicing now but that celebration is rather misguided. If your right to express your beliefs in public depends upon the content of what you want to say, it is only a matter of time before the pendulum swings and leftists are getting banned from public venues. . . then they'll be crying "foul."

[msc545]

What forum that really matters would ban leftists?

[OlderAndWiser]

None at the moment, but the sociopolitical landscape could change.

[msc545]

Yes but slowly

[Avicenna]

Lots of leftists were “cancelled” and censored in the former Soviet Union. Just something to think about. You aren’t likely to be in full agreement with what totalitarians do or promulgate.

Facebook doesn’t have an unlimited right to do as it pleases, and if it and other social media continue to function as state media while receiving government protection, the argument that it “can do what it wants because it’s a private company” will be exposed for the specious one it is. Coordinating with members of government and the Democratic Party apparatus means the First Amendment comes into play before we consider its arbitrary role as a publisher and not a common carrier.

[msc545]

@Avicenna This isn't the former Soviet Union, and in fact, Facebook has a right to do whatever it wants with its own property, including banning people. trump (and others) have no inherent legal right to use Facebook.

[OlderAndWiser]

Facebook also has no right to be exempted from anti-trust laws.

[msc545]

Why not? Just about every other large corporation seems to be.

[Avicenna]

People familiar with the current speech climate in some parts of our society say it’s about that bad, plus you shouldn’t be so obtuse as to ignore the point that your view could similarly one day be deemed “deranged” and similarly censored, for example, if you complained about rights violations or corruption.

As to your claim that “Facebook can do whatever it wants”, can they, for example,, ban members of an entire race from using Facebook or say they will only hire members of a specific race? Also, are you familiar with antitrust law?

[msc545]

Just for the sake of argument, the First Amendment doesn't apply to speech that is likely to result in violence, as I understand it at least. So if there is some Constitutional argument or rationale for letting Trump use it, the counter-argument might be that he has a history of speech that has resulted in violence more than once, so there is no obligation to let him do that yet again.

Feel free to skewer me for this. I just woke up sort of.

[OlderAndWiser]

Actually the exemptions from antitrust law are very limited and are theoretically based on public interest. Professional sports are the notable exception. The antitrust laws are what broke up the old Bell Telephone monopoly.

[OlderAndWiser]

So people like Farakahn and Sharpton and Maxine Waters should all be banned, too, but they aren't.

[msc545]

I am waiting for them to go after defense contractors like Boeing and Raytheon.

[msc545]

@Avicenna I am aware that my views could be banned just like any others, and I don't appreciate being called "obtuse", thank you. And yes, I am familiar with Anti-trust laws to some extent as a layperson.

Facebook *could* ban members of an entire race from using Facebook or say they will only hire members of a specific race, except I think they would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws that do not include political beliefs as a protected class.

[Avicenna]

So, it isn’t true that Facebook “can do whatever it wants” after all.

You’re saying Facebook can’t legally ban members of a protected class from using their platform. Are you saying they can ban all straight white males from using their platform? They aren’t members of a protected class.

What is Facebooks market share? Since you claim Facebook can do what it wants if a protected class is not involved, is Facebook allowed to coordinate its decisions on censorship with members of the Biden Administration, federal employees, or members of the Democratic Party?

You’re saying Facebook can ban Trump because you think that violence is likely to result if he’s permitted to use their platform. Beyond the fact that standard doesn’t seem to be applied to anyone else, especially not any leftists, how can you or anyone else conclude violence would result from his exercising his right to engage in political speech? Trump does by control people, after all. You don’t like what he says, but it’s constitutionally protected.

Finally, you claim “Trump has a history of speech that has resulted in violence more than once”. Please enlighten us as to all of these occasions. And please also tell me who should be banned for Antifa/BLM violence.

[msc545]

@Avicenna I think they probably could ban all straight white males although as a practical matter that would not happen.

Facebook is allowed to coordinate with the government and the democratic party, but it would risk possibly being deemed an agent of the government if it did so and thus subject to First Amendment law regarding free speech. Facebook's market share is 60.68%.

I am not saying Facebook can ban Trump because I think that violence is likely to result if he’s permitted to use their platform. I am saying it is at least a hypothetical argument in the event that Facebook was to be deemed a government agent or entity AND Trump sued them for free speech violations (He isn't suing anyone - he hasn't the money and no lawyer will represent him).

Trump indeed has a history of speech that has resulted in violence more than once - after at least some of his rallies, and definitely on Jan 6 at the Capitol. Speech that is likely to or does incite violence is not protected as you undoubtedly know.

I am willing to discuss this but please stop your attempts at political baiting - we are discussing Trump and Facebook, not BLM or Antifa.

[Avicenna]

Facebooks market share around 70%, and it owns Insta, which is another 3-4%. It’s a monopoly.

So you’re saying Facebook, a monopoly, can engage in restraint of trade and discriminate against around 90 million people (straight white males-and more when one includes non-leftist political beliefs), ban them and not hire them. You’re saying they can collude with the government and the Democratic Party to suppress constitutionally-protected speech, and I can only imagine how many campaign-related laws are being broken. That’s a huge civil rights problem and a severe antitrust problem.

If laws permit rampant discrimination against huge swathes of the US population, no one can hide behind those laws to excuse Facebook’s behavior as “legal” any more than “Separate but Equal” or Standard Oil were constitutional (they weren’t). And therein lies the crux of the matter-cheating the censorship and suppression of opposing political views and repression of those who hold them is immoral as well as illegal. So now one should be cheering on Facebook’s actions as a de facto arm of the Democratic Party.

Antifa and BLM are illustrative examples and thus relevant to the discussion.

[Avicenna]

And violence at Trump rallies consisted primarily of his supporters getting attacked by leftists, do that cannot possibly be any justification for violating Trumps First Amendment rights, especially in coordination with his political opponents, and that’s really what this is about-censoring political speech and hindering fundraising. .

That leaves Jan.6th. Trump on That day had every right to urge his supporters to protest peacefully, which so many others have done before. And that’s what he did.

[msc545]

@Avicenna No, the Facebook market share is 69%. Learn to round numbers properly. Your opinion that Facebook is a monopoly is just that - an opinion. Let's let a court decide if that is true - you don't decide personally. Oh yes - how long do anti-trust cases take to resolve? How long did the one against Microsoft take?

What restraint of trade is involved? You also mischaracterized what I said - I actually said that they *could* ban white males but it would never happen. You also, based on your unfounded opinion characterized Facebook as a monopoly - again. I also never said they could or could not collude with the government or democrats or other people you personally dislike.

I warned you before that our discussion would end if you continued with the political baiting - and you continue to do that, e. g., more references to Antifa and BLM along with a weak justification.

So the discussion is ended. Thanks for playing.

[razelove]

@Avicenna An extremist has to believe the sky is green. If they ever looked at a color wheel and saw it for blue, the same blue sky that we're all under, their ideology would collapse. When someone entrenches themselves that deeply, left or right, you won't convince them or open their mind to anything. Reality is what they need it to be to fit their narrative, completely subjective, objectivity has no place in the mind of an extremist. His refusal to believe the political landscape could change, as it was different when the same "demon-king" Trump was in office is a symptom you can see there.

The pendulum swings both ways.

[MzAsh]

I thought he was making his own platform. I can’t wait to join 😈

[goaded]

It's a blog.

[goaded]

It's a blog that doesn't allow comments.

[MzAsh]

How very 2013 tumblr of him.

[SpiderManFan2002]

@goaded Omg a blog that’s so funny😂😂😂

[Bellatris]

@goaded A blog? What century is this guy living in?

[MzAsh]

Hey don’t hate on bloggers. I have one lol. But at least I leave my comments open.

[ladsin]

A nonsensical double standard at beat

[supercutebutt]

Trump should be banned from planet Earth. As a child, he was always fond of the saying, "Boys go to Mars to get more candy bars." Good. Elon Musk can pack Trump's orange ass into a SpaceX rocket and send him there.

Go get your treat, Donny!

[Shellyworld]

Haha lol your message made me laugh “oranges ass”😂😂

[Toast792]

Might want to send him somewhere outside the solar system, instead of somewhere we might actually end up living. 😂

[Syrian_survivor]

Ok idgaf about politics but this was pretty cringe and I didn't get the joke if there was one

[supercutebutt]

@Syrian_survivor Hmmm, everybody else seems to be getting it. Perhaps you are a tad slow?

[SnowyOwl]

Its true that it relieves a burden of being exposed to idiocracy but... At what cost?
If we're not watching out for him, maybe he'll get away with who knows what..
I'm really not into politics tbh, but man the devil works hard... What are we supposed to do about it? Anyone got any ideas?

[msc545]

I have no good ideas, but I suspect that the legal system does.

[Belgie]

Coronary heart disease will take care of it. You didn't actually believe that shit his Doctor said, did you?

[SnowyOwl]

@Belgie ahaha, I guess doctors do serve us after all 😜

[msc545]

Thank you!

[razelove]

@SnowyOwl wait... while cities are burning, and sections of the US have seceded as autonomous zones under the DNC, you're concerned about what Trump is doing in the shadows? That stuff is in broad daylight. I just want to make sure I understand that right going forwards.

[msc545]

@razelove Many people feel that the only way we will be rid of him is when he dies. An ugly sentiment, but he is an ugly guy.

[msc545]

No cities are burning, and there are no "autonomous zones", sorry!

[razelove]

So Antifa, BLM, and the lawsuit for 3 bil over a 19 year old dying from gunshot wounds because emergency services would not enter an autonomous zone are all false?

www.seattletimes.com/.../

Did he make up his son too?

[SnowyOwl]

@razelove im not concerned with anything outside becoming my better self and helping others do the same, so that consequently the world becomes a better place. Why focus on the negative? its just draining, it doesn't move me forward to be angry or depressed... i will support causes i believe in though, by helping out fundraisers and such... that's part of becoming my better self

[Kaneki05]

Not a fan of banning people from social accounts tbh. Like even if they said the most dumbest shit, on their timeline. Key word their timeline. it should be allowed. If people don't want to see that it's not hard to just not follow that person.

It's kinda like when people are banned for cyber bulling. Not saying it's the victim's fault but blocking is a thing. Simply not responding is a thing. Millions of way's to avoid what you don't like on the internet so yeah i am kinda in the camp everyone should be allowed on social media.
just ignore him shrugs.

[LZPanzer]

Trump didn't get banned because he said offensive thing, or dumb shit.
He got banned because he sent a mob of people out. He riled the mob up on Facebook. Told them where to "express" there anger in person. Then told praised them for the violence they committed on Facebook.

You can't block the cyber bully when he sends a mob to your house to beat you up.

[Kaneki05]

@LZPanzer I dislike trump. But he did not once tell people to attack the capital so no.

[Kaneki05]

And even if he did right? Who's the ones who attacked the capital? I didn't see him march in there no? I didn't see him force people go into there? It's like saying Guy told me to shoot someone so i did but that's his fault not mine.

[LZPanzer]

No he did not tell them attack. What he told them was where to go to express their opinion. Before he had excited, drummed up, prodded them (on Facebook) he let the mob do the dirty work.

He set up the dynamite, he unspooled the fuse, he hooked up the detonator. And he handed that detonator to a person furious at whatever was next to that dynamite. He did all the work he just didn't set it off. That was not an unforseen situation, it was planned.

[LZPanzer]

Yeh telling someone one to commit murder is is a crime. Ever hear of a hit job. Mafia does it all the time. The guy who orders the hit is just as guilty as the triggerman.

[Kaneki05]

Like i said, if a person told me to shoot someone it would be my fault if i did not there's. The only case this is an exception really if it is done by force and fear of been killed yourself.

[Kaneki05]

That's highly different that is a person paying someone to kill smh

[LZPanzer]

what you just described is exactly a crime, money doesn't need to be involved.

[Kaneki05]

@LZPanzer actually yes it does. That's why when people get arrested by undercover cops they need to get a hold of the proof of the money first

[LZPanzer]

I believe it's called accessory to murder

[LZPanzer]

Dude read up on the Valentine's day massacre

[LZPanzer]

A bunch of mobsters dressed up as cops. Pretended to bust a ring of rival bootleggers, instead mowed them down with Tommy guns. It was attributed to a mob boss but he wasn't there because he had his goons do the dirty work.

[Kaneki05]

I don't see how a gang paid to do crimes is relevant to your argument if anything that just backs up what i am saying lmao

[LZPanzer]

Trump is the mob boss
Guliani is the lieutenant (trial by combat)
The mob were the footmen at the scene.

[Kaneki05]

K find me proof were he paid them. Then i will agree with you.

[LZPanzer]

The order came from trump. Guliani told them how to do it
The footmen executed it.

[LZPanzer]

Money is not needed

[LZPanzer]

A hit does not require an exchange of money.

[Kaneki05]

Literally is. Otherwise the cops would never need to try and track down money linking back to the mob boss.

[LZPanzer]

Money is just a means of tying the orders back to the leader. Monday is proof of the crime. Not a nessisary component of the crime. Money works 2 n the same way as getting a witness to flip on their boss. It's evidence not a component of the crime.

[Kaneki05]

Good evidence is needed to find out someone is guilty. One can not simply go ah well he told me to shoot her so it's his fault. Then that guy get's done for something he didn't even say... and even if he did, legit she said he said.

[Kaneki05]

Need proof of a crime to enforce a punishment is what i say.

[LZPanzer]

Mob bosses don't use money because it leaves a paper trail (evidence) which can be used in the trial. By not using money they create plausible deniability.

[Kaneki05]

and many mob bosses have been arrested due to that paper-trail and the other way's they conduct there business through a thing called evidence. Not he said, she said.

[LZPanzer]

That is true. Our justice system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. This does not mean no crime was committed, only that they weren't able to prove they were responsible.

This standard does not apply to a private entity like Facebook.

[Kaneki05]

I don't care if facebook have a right to do what they want with there company. I am just not a fan myself of banning someone for no reason but speculation.

[LZPanzer]

Al Capone was convicted and sent to jail for tax evasion. Everyone knew he had ordered countless murders but he was so good at distancing himself from his crimes all they could get him for was taxes

[Kaneki05]

Tbh even known criminals are allowed to use facebook so why they care i have no idea lol

[LZPanzer]

My guess is they don't want to be associated with Trump. They want to keep as good a reputation as possible. Also they are a serious candidate for anti trust laws. They probably don't want to rock the boat as much as possible. Other criminals are just not big enough to cause them worry or notice.

[Kaneki05]

Facebook trying to keep a good rep? Actually i just realized it was a good thing trump was removed, the only people who use facebook unironically are kinda dumb and easy to manipulate. and facebook it's self thinking it has a good rep...
Oh well trump makes his on social media now, i am sure that won't be more on issue as an echo chamber. But honestly i still stand by if idiots want to follow him online they can and should be allowed to.

[LZPanzer]

I don't think even Facebook thinks they have a good reputation. I just think they just want to avoid any unnecessary attention.

His own social media. Yeah if his past businesses are anything to go by it'll be bankrupt by the end of the year. in my opinion it's probably just a scam site designed to squeeze money out of it's users. I bet eventually it'll charge by the character.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

[AmandaYVR]

I yelled out, "Yes!!" and pumped my fist in the air.
19 board members weighed in. It was the right call.

[AmandaYVR]

[Anonymous]

It's the free market - they can set whatever terms and conditions they want and ban people. He broke the T&C's

He is not the President. He has no right to Facebook account.

Leaving aside whether you think he incited an insurrection - it's the free market. Republicans love leaving everything to the free market, when it suits them.

[msc545]

well said!

[Leavesbound]

All corporations get to make up rules on who uses their services and who does not as long as such does not violate discrimination laws. Banning someone based on their violating terms of services is a right all platforms have. Trump can easily create his own website and have people communicate with him that way.

[goaded]

Well, since he's a source of huge amounts of misinformation, it seems perfectly reasonable, apart from the fact that they didn't delete his account altogether.

People who automatically repeated his lies got banned, iirc, although that may have been Twitter, not Facebook. (He's having a go at weaselling himself back on to twitter, but it's not going well for him.)

Cruz's "if it can happen to POTUS, it could happen to anyone" (paraphrased), could equally well be applied to charging the ex-president with tax fraud. It's not a danger to people who don't lie or commit tax fraud.

[jaci-noel]

I think its a good thing, Trump has been known to do some pretty messed up things recently. Regardless of political views he's not a good person

[goaded]

Unfortunately, almost the whole Republican party is willing to lie for him.

[hellionthesagereborn]

What things did he do?

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn do you seriously need to ask?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well yeah, every one keeps saying he is racist but then can't point to anything racist he has done (but we have multiple reasons to say he isn't). They say he lies, but no one can ever point to something that he said that was a lie (hyperbolic sure, but not outright lies that I know of). So yeah, if your going to make claims about some one you should be able to point to some reason for the claim and thus far I've not seen any one say anything that was not provably false.

[DocJones]

What messed up things? Can you actually name some?

[goaded]

@DocJones Well, there's the things he was impeached for, for a start.

[DocJones]

@goaded what was he impeached for?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Yes, what was he impeached for? What criminal charges where brought forth and what was he charged with when they impeached him?

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn You know impeachment doesn't require a criminal act, let alone that it be proven in a court of law.

You also know what he was impeached for, and why he wasn't convicted.

You're also deranged enough to believe Trump never lied.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded So you admit that he didn't do anything wrong and he was only impeached because he opposed democrats? Wow, I never thought I would see the day where you admit you where lying and that democrats grossly abused their power. Hell must have frozen over (or you just didn't realize what you where admitting to because your so indocrinated into your cult that you can't distinguish between your cult preachings and reality).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Also I appreciate that you claim he was impeached for something while claiming he didn't do anything wrong. So which is it, did he do something wrong and if so what? I stated I never heard him lie, I heard him mispeak, I heard him embellish (he loved hyperbolic language), I heard him talk himself up, but I can't recall a time where he stated something that was entirely false and he knew to be entirely false (Biden has, Obama has, but honestly don't recall trump ever saying that and neither do you or you would give a list of things he said that where blatant lies).

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn Not what I said at all.

"I can't recall a time where he stated something that was entirely false and he knew to be entirely false (Biden has, Obama has, but honestly don't recall trump ever saying that and neither do you or you would give a list of things he said that where blatant lies)."
Like I said, you're so deranged you believe Trump never lied. Unless you just think he was too stupid to understand that what he was saying was false?

www.washingtonpost.com/.../
www.washingtonpost.com/.../

[jaci-noel]

@hellionthesagerborn yea I admit he wasn't a super terrible president I just don't like him as a person. He has multiple rape allegations and is extremely sexist he's also racist there's proof of those things. I don't like Biden either tho so

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Right, you just said that you can be impeached without criminal charges which is an admission that no criminal act had been commited and thus the impeachment was entirely politically motivated by democrats to try and oust a sitting president of the opposition party simply because they didn't like that he was in charge and they where not. That is as much of an admission you will ever give because again, you are part of a cult and you are incappable of thinking outside of the box the cult has provided you. How in the hell can a person justify impeachment, which was meant to make it possible to charge a sitting president of a crime, without their ever having been a crime commited? You can't, ergo it was purely for show and to hurt the democrats political opponents (as is everything they have ever done).

[hellionthesagereborn]

The rape allegations are (almost certinaly) false, thats why they went away. I mean they said the same thing about every republican politician or judges and no one has yet to provide ANY evidence of the claims. Meanwhile we know clinton raped, we know that joe biden has credible accusations against him (had them years ago) with not a single person saying anything. The second a republican runs the first thing that happens is suddenly women come out and claim rape (almost as if they where paid, to slander republican oponents who run against democrats). I mean look at Kavanaugh, they claimed he commited rape, gang rape etc. The man had been investigated by the FBI every time he was promoted (standard practice), and they found nothing every time but the second a republican is trying to get a republican judge into the supreme court suddenly rape accusations come out of no where. Did you watch the preceedings? He had to prove his own innocents (much harder to do then to prove guilt) and he did so. He had more evidence that they where lying then they had of him being a criminal (because again, he had had a full investigation into him and they found nothing multiple times before this point). They did the same with clarence thomas because he was republican (and black) and they claimed rape yet no one could provide any evidence of it. Same with multiple other republican politicians and then what happens when the elections are over? They disappear which if he had actually commited the crime, their would be criminal charges (and these women wouldn't have a reason to wait until he is running for office to suddeny decide to come forward).

[hellionthesagereborn]

Now was he egotistical? Sure but so is any one who runs for president (or is a billionaire for that matter). Was he prone to hyperbole? Absolutely, enough where while it worked in his favor some times (getting the media to admit that we fund 72% of NATO despite them not being of value to us) it did also backfire some times. But again that isn't really him being a liar or a bad person and is absolutely not enough to ban him while he is still president from social media. Did he have a weird tendency to either like some one or hate them purely based upon what they said in that moment? Yes. It was odd and weird but again, not evil not even bad just weird.

This is purely political as literal terrorist groups use social media with impunity. These bans only target one demographic by and large, and that is overwhelmingly right leaning people. This should terrify every one, if democrats where being banned from speaking you would be up in arms about it and rightly so, you cannot have a free society where only half of the population is allowed to express an opinion. That just leads to indocrintation propaganda and manipulation (I mean look at people who hate conservatives, how many of them have actually spoken to a conservative? How many of them actually know what conservatives think and believe? None of them because conservatives are not allowed to speak, they are not allowed to be open about their views so no one can really know what they are.).

[hellionthesagereborn]

This is the problem with this, if you fear what others say then your probably not trying to speak the truth. I am open to debate because I believe what I say, so either you will prove me correct or you will show that what i believe is wrong and I can then change that opinion. But if your censoring people none of that can happen and that only benefits people who are trying to control you. This is why despite goaded having lied multiple times, having said awful things, and being completely unable to ever acknowledge being wrong or accept evidence when presented with it (which infuriates me to no end (especially since I have been dealing with him for years) and being generally insufferable, I have never blocked him because if I do that I create an echo chamber and I stop knowing what the other side is thinking and that makes me susceptible to misinformation and manipulation. Thats the real issue here. Not saying you have to like trump or republican politicians (I mean, is it even possible to like politicians?), what I'm saying is banning some one because of opinions (and if you look into it, they are not really controversial) is a terrifying prospect because that is how people manipulate and control you right or left.

[hellionthesagereborn]

If apologize for writing so much, i've never figured out how to be more succinct with my thoughts, its important and I don't want to cut out anything that may be important to the discussion.

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn That part is definitely ok.

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn Do you not understand that you can do something wrong without breaking the law?

I'm reasonably certain that Trump did, in fact, break the law for the first impeachment by demanding a bribe to perform his official duties (all the more so from having heard the Georgia phone call).

The second one was because he caused a violent attack on the Capitol with his lies about the election and his disdain for the rule of law (he lost the election, he brought lawsuits, he lost them, too, so he lost the election). In reasonable times such a massive breach of his oath of office would be ample grounds for impeachment.

If you think there's anything worth responding to in the rest of your messages, perhaps you could edit it down a bit?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Do you know that you not liking some one is not them doing something wrong. No wrong was commited by every one of the "witnesses" all of which also admitted they didn't really witness anything? He did nothing wrong, your tribe just wanted him gone and you decided to go along with it and not look at the facts because it was easier to go along then think critically and risk being attacked by your own tribe.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded As for the second one he did not cause the (completely non violent) "attack" on the capitol (the only two people actually killed (every one else claimed to have died died of stroke or heart disease which has nothing to do with the protest) where the protestors (one was shot through a door by an out of uniform police officer who shot into a crowd without identifying himself, another was trampled, almost certianly due to the panic having a cop shoot into a crowd causes).

I mean if you did any research you would know that the "riot"(unarmed protest (unlike the far left that broke into the capitol building multiple times during the kavanaugh hearing and in multiple other state capitols while violently attacking people (which some how is still labeled "peaceful" and not "insurrection"), took place DURING Trumps speech. If you listend to the speech you would have also known that his words where to peacefully protest and support their politicians. Never once did he call for violence, never once did he say to be violent and in fact discouraged it multiple times. So yeah, you don't think, you just follow orders that your party gives to you because your part of a cult.

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn "completely non violent"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6WPdWKy6k

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Yeah, still waiting for you to refute my statement. Who other then the protestors died? Also I find it fucking hilarious that the same people who called the burning down of 20 plus cities with multiple murders (of innocent people and the active targeting of trump supporters) "peaceful protests" but the one where the only ones who died where the unarmed protestors to be well, perfect evidence of your indoctrination.

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn Which statement? You wrote a couple of thousand words: I didn't read them all.

I find it "fucking hilarious" that you think that any city was burned down, let alone 20 of them.

17-26 million Americans took part in at least one George Floyd protest, that's two to three times the entire population of New York City, where there's a couple of hundred murders a year. How many murders were there over those months of the largest protests in US history? And how many of them were by the right wing?

138 police officers were harmed in one afternoon on Jan 6th, and the protesters were not "unarmed", they came intending and prepared for the violence, and to stop the democratic process.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@goaded Sorry hyperbole, obviously the cities where not burned down, just sections of them.

[goaded]

@hellionthesagereborn Whole sections? Blocks? Or a building or two?

Hyperbole doesn't help when you're trying to hold a reasonable conversation. There were literally thousands of protests across the country involving millions of people at a time.

In Minneapolis, at the centre of the protests where George Floyd was murdered, there were hundreds of businesses that were damaged or destroyed, true. Was there anything like as much damage elsewhere?

www.startribune.com/.../

Do you remember "Umbrella Man", the guy widely regarded as being the first to break windows? He turned out to be a white supremacist.
www.startribune.com/.../
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFvRD7w6DoA

[Anonymous]

Facebook is a common carrier, similar to a utility like an electric company or phone company. What would you do if one of those said you can't have service because of your political beliefs?

[msc545]

Facebook is not a common carrier.

[grahamcracka]

go to MySpace

[msc545]

@grahamcracka what does MySpace have to do withthis?

[Opinion Owner]

2 federal courts of appeal have held it is a common carrier and it's on its way to the Supreme Court which will hold it is (and all top-level social media).

And in any event, how is it not a common carrier? Telegraph was. Radio is. TV is. Those are private companies but still subject to the First Amendment.

[grahamcracka]

@msc545 whoops read it backwards. I agree, facebook isn't a common carrier. it's not a utility. there are other options

[msc545]

Do you have a link to the court decision (s) ?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@msc545 yes it is, at least according to them. That is how they avoid getting sued by the section 230 provision that makes them a common carrier. They don't act like it of course, they violate the law blatantly over and over again, but they argue that they are a common carrier and that is why they are not responsible for any thing that their users do on their site in order to avoid getting sued.

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn Cite the provision (s) of Section 230 that says that Facebook (or anything like Facebook) is a common carrier. You can't because it doesn't exist, and no, Facebook is NOT an ISP.

[hellionthesagereborn]

You can just read section 230 to understand what it means, you don't have to pretend like you need me to explain it to you (already have, you didn't accept it so me explaining this again isn't going to result in you suddenly accepting reality). Why is it that people who are completely indoctrinated are always the first to demand cited evidence when we all know they will never ever accept that evidence? Why pretend to be impartial and act like you can be swayed by facts when we all know you can't? Seems like a waste of time.

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn I read Section 230. It is far from clear that Facebook is a common carrier, and I think a court will need to decide that. It is not definitive although you present it that way.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Then you haven't read it. fedsoc.org/.../the-legal-authority-for-the-fcc-to-regulate-platforms-as-a-common-carrier
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn The first link is an *opinion* by the Federalist Society - not law. The second link is simply a discussion of section 230 that does not reference "common carrier" at all.

[hellionthesagereborn]

See, told you you would never ever accept anything that contradicts your view point. What they stated was not "opinion", what was stated is that the law effectively treats them like a common carrier and bound to the same laws as common carriers. Observation, maybe, opinion, no. The second one is the law so that you could read it and understand what it does, what it limits and what it doesn't and those limitations are effectively the same as common carriers. Your just so desperate to justify political censorship that you don't care what reality says, the cult is all that matters to you (and I told you this would be your response and I was right because cultists don't critically think, they don't think at all they just operate on the same tired dogma over and over again resulting in the same NPC response that all other cultists give).

[msc545]

@hellionthesagereborn no, you are simply wrong, especially when you presume to know my motives.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Not at all, again I provided evidence and you did not, I provided the actual bill, you did not. As for your motives, they are painfully obvious, you can't claim to have unknown motives when you are speaking your motives. Thats like claiming we cannot presume a man is robbing a bank just because he showed up in a mask, with a gun, and is demanding money from the teller. Its a stupid statement to make.

[hellionthesagereborn]

But if you want to play that game, okay, fine. What are your motives? Which party do you align with, did you vote for biden or Trump, do you support democrats or another group, do you agree with what the big tech companies are doing or not? You answer those questions truthfully (and you likely won't answer them at all (maybe if I goad you enough you will but even then you will try to obfuscate things)) and we will find out exactly what your motives are and we can see if I am incorrect about them (I'm not and you know I'm not).

[karaspara]

I’m not a big fan of Trump by any means but this sort of censorship goes against every aspect of free speech I’d better not hear of Facebook having a go at China Russia or anyone else quite frankly

[kingofthellamas]

Facebook is a private company. They do not need to worry about free speech. They are not a platfrom for free speach and do not claim to be one. They, like any other media outlet, can have a bias.

[Twalli]

^Liked

[karaspara]

Why hardly anyone uses it anymore I’d imagine

[Twalli]

Iinstagram, Twitter, an Snapchat are the same. They can restrict whatever they wish.

[karaspara]

They can for sure doesn’t mean they should

[Twalli]

So you should allow words and actions that present a clear and present danger, especially when you van legally prevent it? The first amendment only applies to government censorship.

[karaspara]

You shouldn’t ban someone because you disagree with them ban trump but leave terrorist sympathizers and right wing nut jobs to it don’t think so

[kingofthellamas]

@karaspara. It's much easier to ban one man whose poison infects millions then seek and find random individuals who only a few are listening too.

[Anonymous]

fuck you Facebook your less relevant by the day you look the snitches and the bitch take over that's okay that's why we're all moving over here.

[Anonymous]

There's no way Trump would go back on Twitter or Facebook. He doesn't need to. Hell, you're giving him publicity on this dumb site.

If Trump wants to get a message out, all he has to do is call a press conference at Mar-A-Lago, and every press organization would jump at the chance to go. And because of that, all of his messages will be all over Twitter and Facebook, even though he's banned. LMAO

[andreasderjuengere]

I see it as a funny show.
Neither Zuckerjerk and mates, nor Trump are people to my liking.
(nor is 'twitter')

It irritates me a little that some campus-nerd who had a lucky draw with his business idea can become a (perceived) influential figure within a relatively short time.
It also irritates me that a top politician (as he claims to be) puts so much emphasis on communicating via babble-apps that are actually only tageting social entertainment.

Trump could try ''onlyfans''?
Zuckie could try suicide?

I would not watch THAT, either :)

[rjroy3]

It sets a precedent that isn't good for anyone at the end of the day. Because eventually it will be someone left wing people support. Many right wing will say it's still wrong, but many others will say "fuck you" because you supported it when it was someone you didn't like.

It's a question of having values higher than shutting down voices you disagree with and revenge. Because this will happen again and it only serves to hurt freedom in the future.

[razelove]

I wish more people could zoom out to that view. I'm just reading a lot of tribalism though. Yeah, Fuck him, oh no, we're going to get you back! Sigh, when people don't realize how much they're lubing themselves up for the big weenie. Both sides, for a hollow "victory"

[rjroy3]

@razelove it's because we're animals at the end of the day. This is both a compliment and insult. Too many people can't acknowledge that reality and suffer due to ignorance

[Anonymous]

I approve of it. He's proven to be dangerous to law and order, public safety, and national security. After instigating the terror attack on the capitol, he's a terrorist leader like any other. You'll notice Isis doesn't have a Facebook presence either.

[katiesmuff]

It's a good thing! Couldn't of happened to a nicer guy. With just a little luck he and his entire family with take a boat ride and never be heard from again.

[katiesmuff]

@grega239 With a little luck Sleepy Joe will tax you into the poorhouse which is where any redneck Trump following should be!

[grega239]

No he won't. I'm not a u. s. citizen.
So in your opinion, people who disagree with you politically deserve to starve and be homeless?

[katiesmuff]

@grega239 That is not what I said at all and in no way is what I believe! I think everyone deserves a fair shake and to do well in their life.

[The_Maphio]

He's not the greatest of guys, but banning opinions is something that was common during the fascist regime and would have got you killed during the communist regime.
Which automatically makes the lizardman and the cuck over at Twitter two fascists in their own accord.
Only difference, they don't have the shadow of the resolve that actual fascists had, even if badly addressed.