Facebook suppressing pro-gun posts
this is something which I find reprehensible;;;
What Do You Think? -- j
.
What Do You Think? -- j
.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If we have a problem with it, stop using Facebook (which I can't stand, but do participate in to keep track of my kids).
Who didn't understand Facebook's invasions of privacy, ridiculous content and biases?
.
to failure, if memory serves, so that's the parallel.
and Thanks for the downvote! . I'll see you and
raise you by one. -- j
p.s. I may be mixing in some Cloward and Piven.
.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News.com writes: "Ironically, one of the hottest new books for conservatives is far left-winger Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which was written way back in 1971.
After reading the book, my personal opinion is that Alinsky was a brilliant yet cynical, habitually dishonest, utterly amoral human being with a deep understanding of large swathes of human nature. Was he a good guy? No, not at all. But, is there a lot conservatives can learn from his tactics? Absolutely. Some of it we can apply and some of it we can see how the Left has applied it against us."....
and:
"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders."
advised that the welfare system could be improved
by overloading the early war-on-poverty system, to
allow the lefties to finish the conversion to socicalism
after the fall of the system. . that's the reference. -- j
.
What 'strugatsky' and I are proposing is much different and more in line with AR herself (her taking Social Security), and with Ragnar Danneskjöld. Since the monies that fund the social welfare systems are stolen from us in the first place, then it's fair to take them back when available.
.
If FB won't run gun articles, someone could probably make a chunk of change if they put up their own social network site that encouraged talk about guns.
Now, if we were to use pure free market, we would have to come up with something better and cheaper that espouses our philosophy.
As to yelling 'fire' in a theater, if there's a fire, I hope someone yells it. As to prudence, if it's determined by how others might react to your exercise of your rights, then I'd suggest that's how we've lost so many of our individual rights in today's society.
I said no such thing. Prudence acknowledges exactly what neither of us argues against being the case: that we must recognize others' rights in our decision-making processes. A failure to do so constitutes coercion.
The reason I bring up the movie theatre example is stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoutin.... In this case, what was asserted by Holmes is that no one has the right through expression of their rights to infringe on someone else's. If the speech Facebook was censuring was either profane or dangerous, I would agree that there would be no Constitutionally-protected speech in question and that censure would be appropriate - if not the responsible thing to do. The speech in question, however, directly relates to the expression of another Constitutionally-protected right.
As the Constitution was created to constrain the Federal Government, I don't argue that this is a Constitutional issue whatsoever - which is where rights take precedence. Prudence, however, deals with interactions between private citizens and the responsibilities of one towards another, which is why the ethical question is raised and prudence (rather than rights) becomes the primary focus.
The second they issued stock and became publicly traded, they gave up that right to "do what they want" and voluntarily subjected themselves to every SEC regulation, FCC Regulation, that exists.
Of those as a publicly traded company they answer to EVERY Shareholder who has 401K's that have facebook as a part of the portfolio, which means the OWNERS of Facebook, i.e. Shareholders have every right to DICTATE to facebook execs to NOT suppress things.
Therein is the evil of becoming publicly traded.
I own my own consulting firm. It IS PRIVATE since I answer to nobody but myself and my customers.
I am guessing the quotes were a bit too subtle a point.
I suspect we are actually both on the same page.
I tried to find the reference for it, but that goes back to the 90s unfortunately, all I found was Walmart contributing or being sued by charities.
Oh, wait. Too late. https://apps.facebook.com/registertov...
.
It is reprehensible, but I believe it is their right. It is their right to run their company into the ground. It is also our right to boycott, protest publicly on their site, or disengage completely and if desired create competition. It is a case of caveat emptor.
If they have any business sense and desire to grow as much as possible, then they will have to address this issue the same as they will have to address the liberal bias that has recently been acknowledged and become an issue.
I do not participate on facebook for reasons like this, as well as others.
Respectfully,
O.A.
organization is taking this action ... along with so many
others! . we're going down the tubes. -- j
.
The terms of use probably allow Facebook to do what ever they want with anything posted. That's a legal contract consented to voluntarily. They shouldn't complain.
post on a billboard along the road somewhere. -- j
.
I had a Facebook account, for two days, and deleted it. I still have my pickup, my rural home and all of my guns. Life didn't end, after all.
Similarly, our side could really use a Twitter substitute.