Facebook suspends Trump until 2023

[skydelta34]

Reuters: Facebook suspends former U.S. President Trump's account until 2023.

Facebook suspends Trump until 2023, shifts rules for world leaders

Facebook Inc (FB.O) on Friday suspended former U.S. President Donald Trump until at least January 2023 and announced changes to how it will treat world leaders who break the rules on its site.

www.reuters.com

I'll follow their lead. I have suspended Facebook until 2023 also. I'll reevaluate at that time if I even missed them. Join me in deactivating your account too.

 

[autovon]

Never joined FB, but I have different reasons. Can’t say I disagree with their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[76Too]

Got rid of mine years ago. Never been happier since before FB existed.

 

[Hkindiana]

Never joined FB, but I have different reasons. Can’t say I disagree with their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain for a “quality post”

 

[skydelta34]

Never joined FB, but I have different reasons. Can’t say I disagree with their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's good to know where you stand on free speech.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's good to know where you stand on free speech.

His comment has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Leadeye]

Bouncing the rubble.

 

[NKBJ]

It's kind of nice to be knowing he worries them.
When I figger out why... why then I hope I'll sleep a little easier.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I think it'll get rescinded before the 2024 election cycle starts up.

Trump is now a resident if Florida.
Florida passed the Big Tech Anti Platform law, and was signed on May 24th.
Wonder how much money FB is willing ti fight this?

 

[IndyDave1776]

His comment has nothing to do with free speech.

The hell it doesn't. Those bastards have legal protections contingent on maintaining a free marketplace of ideas, specifically NOT picking and choosing content. If they are going to pick and choose, these protections need to end.

 

[churchmouse]

The hell it doesn't. Those bastards have legal protections contingent on maintaining a free marketplace of ideas, specifically NOT picking and choosing content. If they are going to pick and choose, these protections need to end.

Well now lets think about this for a minute OK.

-1st its Trump.
-2nd one of our locals is apparently not to enamored with the Orange man and possibly left leaning. Need more input on this.
-3rd its Kut for Gods sake.....

 

[Kutnupe14]

The hell it doesn't. Those bastards have legal protections contingent on maintaining a free marketplace of ideas, specifically NOT picking and choosing content. If they are going to pick and choose, these protections need to end.

I have no problem with ending those protections, but simply because they have those protections is no reason to implement back door restrictions on the freedom of association of private business. For all the people that talk about ills of socialism/communism, it’s odd that they would freely support govt imposing the same restriction governmental entities are subject to, to private ones.
This NOT a First Anendment issue; at least not how the BoRs is written. “Shall make No law...” isn’t open to interpretation in the same way we apply it the 2nd Amendment; and it should apply both ways. Just because is applied incorrectly one way, doesn’t mean we should support it being applied incorrectly the other way.

 

[autovon]

It's good to know where you stand on free speech.

But I assume it’s ok to get banned from here, right? That doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have no problem with ending those protections, but simply because they have those protections is no reason to implement back door restrictions on the freedom of association of private business. For all the people that talk about ills of socialism/communism, it’s odd that they would freely support govt imposing the same restriction governmental entities are subject to, to private ones.
This NOT a First Anendment issue; at least not how the BoRs is written. “Shall make No law...” isn’t open to interpretation in the same way we apply it the 2nd Amendment; and it should apply both ways. Just because is applied incorrectly one way, doesn’t mean we should support it being applied incorrectly the other way.

They lobbied for those protections with offering an unrestricted public square being their justification. They reneged. They are on the hook for their own argument.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But I assume it’s ok to get banned from here, right? That doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INGO never received special accommodations from the .gov for allowing unrestricted comment.

 

[churchmouse]

But I assume it’s ok to get banned from here, right? That doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, does it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK lets think about this for a minute. This sight is nothing like the book of faces. It is privately owned with a well defined set of rules so different premise.
You will get banned only if you cross one of those well defined lines in this privately owned forum. Not exactly apples to apples I guess.

Edit.....OK I know who you are now and for the life of me (sound familiar) I will not let trollish behavior wreck these threads that you are in. Just settle down and lets have a discussion.

 

[larcat]

I have no problem with ending those protections, but simply because they have those protections is no reason to implement back door restrictions on the freedom of association of private business. For all the people that talk about ills of socialism/communism, it’s odd that they would freely support govt imposing the same restriction governmental entities are subject to, to private ones.
This NOT a First Anendment issue; at least not how the BoRs is written. “Shall make No law...” isn’t open to interpretation in the same way we apply it the 2nd Amendment; and it should apply both ways. Just because is applied incorrectly one way, doesn’t mean we should support it being applied incorrectly the other way.

It sure isn't a 1st amendment issue.

Our cultural conceptions of free speech overlap with but are much broader than the 1st amendment.

I for one am fine with them banning him. Anything that degrades the power and reach of these companies over our information streams. This paints them pretty brightly for what they are.

Suppose I should say this is in group signalling on Zucc's part.

 

[Tombs]

I have no problem with ending those protections, but simply because they have those protections is no reason to implement back door restrictions on the freedom of association of private business. For all the people that talk about ills of socialism/communism, it’s odd that they would freely support govt imposing the same restriction governmental entities are subject to, to private ones.
This NOT a First Anendment issue; at least not how the BoRs is written. “Shall make No law...” isn’t open to interpretation in the same way we apply it the 2nd Amendment; and it should apply both ways. Just because is applied incorrectly one way, doesn’t mean we should support it being applied incorrectly the other way.

I don't really care about the legalese of all this nonsense.

In the end, these places are where speech and the spread of ideals are most valuable to the common man who doesn't have millions to become the next national news network.

They happened to become big and corner the market, making themselves the public square.
If free speech is to matter anywhere, that is where it matters most.

Government regulation is ultimately why this whole market is a monopoly and highly centralized. It's also why they have the legal powers they have to pull off the nonsense they do with total immunity. Simply demanding free speech be respected by them in exchange for these privileges is not asking too much of a private company.

P.S. Free speech is a concept well outside of the BoRs as well.

 

[autovon]

OK lets think about this for a minute. This sight is nothing like the book of faces. It is privately owned with a well defined set of rules so different premise.
You will get banned only if you cross one of those well defined lines in this privately owned forum. Not exactly apples to apples I guess.

Edit.....OK I know who you are now and for the life of me (sound familiar) I will not let trollish behavior wreck these threads that you are in. Just settle down and lets have a discussion.

Sure, however you wanna spin it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[churchmouse]

Sure, however you wanna spin it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously.
That was not a spin my friend.
And the exact reason for the post.
Keep pushing OK.