Cool now cite it.

Bitchute.com/rèeeeeeeeee

Articles are on front page of ur browser search.
Knock urself out

Right, because "speculations" that do not "carry the weight of the scientific method" mean ban-worthy.

People like you who defend censorship make me sick.

Facebook doesn’t just censor inbred white trash screaming into the void about Shadow People planting chips in your vaccine.

They block any political speech that gets reported. One of my two groups is shut down because tankies can’t stop defending China and the other was shut down because of a John Brown meme.

Facebook is not a leftist organization by any rational definition. It’s motivated entirely by profit and survival. Banning weenies that spread fake news ticks off one of those two boxes for them.

Of course, this means that facebook is now the gatekeeper of information. They get to decide what's "fake news" and whats not, and what people can say or cannot say.

It’s their private platform. Regulating what is posted on it falls under free speech.

Quit trying to censor Facebook’s first amendment rights.

Technically you are right, they do have the right to decide what they want on their website. However, I want to mention one thing: the telephone company (or companies?). They are also a private entity, but they cannot regulate what people say in phones on airwaves that they provide.

Um, not exactly....it's called the FCC.

Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Telephone companies in the US are common carriers and actively sought this legal status. As long as they do not monitor or restrict information sent over phone calls they are not legally responsible for that content. Their service is an A-to-B transfer of information.

Social media sites are content providers. They use algorithms to filter user information, structure it to maximize user screen time and sell user analytics to advertisers to generate a profit.
Their legal status is similar to a website like 4chan. They are not legally responsible for the content posted to their website so long as they make a “reasonable attempt” to remove content that violates laws in the jurisdictions it is viewed or posted in.

You cannot regulate them as a common carrier without removing their ability to remove obscene or illegal material like child pornography. These companies cannot exist as common carriers.

Within established law they are not doing anything wrong, aside from suppressing competition. If you think they need to be regulated differently it would require some pretty extreme legislation of how corporations are allowed to exert control over their own content.

This post was edited by Doggyfood on Aug 25 2021 08:20am