# Facebook’s Rittenhouse Mistake – WSJ



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Facebook should not appoint itself judge, jury and executioner. 



https://klwat.mtdgrafx.com/facebooks-rittenhouse-mistake-wsj/



Will
Facebook
let users share this editorial? We’ll see. The social-media giant seems to have declared Kyle Rittenhouse’s fatal shooting of two people amid riots in Kenosha, Wis., a mass murder. Mr. Rittenhouse’s lawyer says his client was attacked and acted in self-defense, but Facebook has banned any “praise and support” for him on the site, including links to contribute to his legal representation. Searches for his name on the platform also come up empty.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

Good for FB. They should do more to band lies from there site. That includes lies from top government people.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

101pigs said:


> Good for FB. They should ban more lies from there site. That includes lies from top government people.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

101pigs said:


> Good for FB. They should do more to band lies from there site. That includes lies from top government people.


Sorry have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Ban the wingnuttery. Good deal.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLADE said:


> Ban the wingnuttery. Good deal.


Sad little comment that means nothing. This is not about politics.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.


What is a wingnut in your world?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

This is what it is in mine and never known them to spread fear, hate or lies.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.


Didn't you say survival of the fittest last week???


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

no really said:


> This is what it is in mine and never known them to spread fear, hate or lies.


You think he knows what locknuts are?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

TripleD said:


> You think he knows what locknuts are?


Doubtful seems his grasp of hardware is limited.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.











Psychological projection - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




*"Psychological projection* is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) *by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others*.[1] For example, a bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target. It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as *shame dumping* "


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site. 

The link is just another opinion, and proves nothing. The justice system will decide what happened in Rittenhouse's situation.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.
> 
> The link is just another opinion, and proves nothing. The justice system will decide what happened in Rittenhouse's situation.


If it were about a liberal, your head would explode.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The link did not work


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.


They should be investigated, put on a trial by party officials, and then put on trains to the gulag, right Komrad?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The link did not work


The original article is at WSJ.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

TripleD said:


> You think he knows what locknuts are?


Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

boatswain2PA said:


> They should be investigated, put on a trial by party officials, and then put on trains to the gulag, right Komrad?


It appears that those wingnuts are investigating and putting on trial their own leaders; the ones who goaded them and stood in the shadows marveling at their work.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.
> 
> The link is just another opinion, and proves nothing. The justice system will decide what happened in Rittenhouse's situation.


Yes it will. Unlike Facebook who have already tried him in their court. When the WSJ opinion is facebook is wrong in it's attitude and actions, it is time to look deeper.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


Wing nut isn't a violent term though.

If you were to be a contestant on $100,000 pyramid, and the words were ie "antifa" or "BLM"or "Portland protesters", you might not get the money answers you want by giving clues such as "Peaceful reparations" or "mostly peaceful arson."


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebo...direct=amp#click=[URL]https://t.co/LWfbdk4h3E[/URL]

By taking down links to pay Mr. Rittenhouse’s legal fees, the company is interfering with his ability to raise money for his defense in a way other criminal defendants might. The fact that the platform may only be used to declare Mr. Rittenhouse’s guilt, but not his innocence—though lawyers say the self-defense argument is plausible—could prejudice a jury pool in the high-profile case. One of America’s most powerful companies is effectively giving its official imprimatur to Wisconsin prosecutors’ case against a specific defendant.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


So it's a political slur, LOL, I've heard it many times from those with limited vocabularies.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Left handed wingnuts rarely work on anything.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> They should be investigated, put on a trial by party officials, and then put on trains to the gulag, right Komrad?


You would know


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


How a double nut? Miter saws are reversed threads and some weed eaters...


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

no really said:


> So it's a political slur, LOL, I've heard it many times from those with limited vocabularies.


You may be right. Most come from people in Wastington. (Political) However many people of all classes use the phase for different things as you have pointed out. (Nutcase)(WingNut etc.)


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

101pigs said:


> You may be right. Most come from people in Wastington. (Political) However many people of all classes use the phase for different things as you have pointed out. (Nutcase)(WingNut etc.)



Yeah, of course he/she wasn't using a political slur, that would be totally out of character. 🤣


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

no really said:


> Sorry have no idea what you're talking about.


That makes two of you.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> That makes two of you.


LOL, 🤣 🤣 🤣


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Yes it will. Unlike Facebook who have already tried him in their court. When the WSJ opinion is facebook is wrong in it's attitude and actions, it is time to look deeper.


Again, private company and it's their decision what is posted on their site. 

And deeper look than a real life evidence and fact finding trial with the criminal justice system?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, private company and it's their decision what is posted on their site.


Hopefully that changes.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, private company and it's their decision what is posted on their site.
> 
> And deeper look than a real life evidence and fact finding trial with the criminal justice system?


Ignorance...


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.


You mean like you're doing now?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, private company and it's their decision what is posted on their site.
> 
> And deeper look than a real life evidence and fact finding trial with the criminal justice system?


They accused him of being a mass murderer, that is proclaiming themselves judge, jury and executioner.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

doc- said:


> You mean like you're doing now?


He probably wouldn't make it a week in the areas I work in . That does depend on if talks like he post???


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.


And they've always tried to hide behind the first amendment. After all, it's a public, free speech for all platform. Right?
The problem they're starting to run into now is that since they decide what content is allowed on their site, via editing and censoring with obvious bias, they are effectively publishers rather than owners of a free speech platform. This opens up a nasty Pandora's box of possibilities of litigation. Libel, slander, truth in advertising, etc.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Since this site is privately owned it can happen here?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

TripleD said:


> Since this site is privately owned it can happen here?


In theory. However, I question the national societal impact of homesteadingtoday.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.
> 
> The link is just another opinion, and proves nothing. The justice system will decide what happened in Rittenhouse's situation.


I wish. 


I am pretty sure the legal system is going to handle it.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SLADE said:


> Wingnuts should be banned by all media. They should be investigated for spreading fear hate and lies.





boatswain2PA said:


> They should be investigated, put on a trial by party officials, and then put on trains to the gulag, right Komrad?


Sounds like your trying to get slade sent off.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


They actually turn both ways equally. 

That's why they are wingnuts. So they can be removed.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

101pigs said:


> Wing-nut- Slur reffering to extreme political views. Most wingnuts turn to the right.


Yet, you have a few screws loose when they're turned too far to the left.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kinderfeld said:


> And they've always tried to hide behind the first amendment. After all, it's a public, free speech for all platform. Right?
> The problem they're starting to run into now is that since they decide what content is allowed on their site, via editing and censoring with obvious bias, they are effectively publishers rather than owners of a free speech platform. This opens up a nasty Pandora's box of possibilities of litigation. Libel, slander, truth in advertising, etc.
> View attachment 90742


Maybe someday, but right now they are a social platform, and not a publisher. And Facebook currently has full control over the content of their privately owned site.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> Since this site is privately owned it can happen here?


Yes. HT is a social platform that censors what can be said on it's site. One day it too could be considered a publisher using the same basis as the prior poster did for Facebook.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Redlands Okie said:


> Sounds like your trying to get slade sent off.


No, not at all. Just pointing out the brutality of where emotions such as his have led humanity in the past.



Irish Pixie said:


> Yes. HT is a social platform that censors what can be said on it's site. One day it too could be considered a publisher using the same basis as the prior poster did for Facebook.


And if HT ever declares a likely innocent person a mass murderer, then they should be held to the same basis the prior poster did for Facebook.

Imagine if facebook suddenly declared that you had done something terrible. Let's say you have lost a child (my apologies if you have and this hits close to home, I am just creating an analogy here), and FB decides that you killed them. They let people post opinion pieces/memes about you killing your own child, but would not allow others to post any information showing that you were innocent.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

The difference between Facebook and HT beyond subscriber numbers is that Facebook is basically a monopoly. If I don't agree with something HT is doing, I can go to many other sites that supply a similar product. The same is not true of Facebook.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Mish said:


> The difference between Facebook and HT beyond subscriber numbers is that Facebook is basically a monopoly. If I don't agree with something HT is doing, I can go to many other sites that supply a similar product. The same is not true of Facebook.


Their yard, their ball, their rules.
And btw, their "blue check" system is proving to be quite an erratic mess.
How they verify and tag what they consider to be factual/truthful/harmful is beyond fubar.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Their yard, their ball, their rules.
> And btw, their "blue check" system is proving to be quite an erratic mess.
> How they verify and tag what they consider to be factual/truthful/harmful is beyond fubar.


I'm not saying they can't make their own rules, they obviously can, but the fact that they are a monopoly has impacts beyond what a site like HT does. The same is true of Youtube.

As a side note, is it really necessary to tell me what they consider factual? I mean I've somehow made it a few years on this planet without Facebook letting me know what the "truth" is. If you're not smart enough to figure it out on your own, odds are Facebook telling you something you believe/don't believe is true/false isn't going to have an impact, either. People gonna believe what they want to believe, as is evident even on a smaller site like HT.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, private company and it's their decision what is posted on their site.
> 
> And deeper look than a real life evidence and fact finding trial with the criminal justice system?


Sadly, a lot of people get their "facts" from Farcebook and spread the good news to other gullibles.
Facebook seems to be interfering with the election by promoting a leftist agenda and silencing opposition.
But as long as you are cool with it.............


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Mish said:


> As a side note, is it really necessary to tell me what they consider factual?


That is a good point and reinforces the narrative that while the media and elitists browbeat us into the idea that equal is equal, there are some more equal than others, and it seems to be their self appointed duty everyone to see the world according to them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.
> 
> The link is just another opinion, and *proves nothing*.


It proves how biased and manipulative they are.
Making excuses for their actions doesn't change their agenda.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

Wingnut: Anyone with a political opinion that does not agree with mine.

And yes, FB certainly i a right to do what it wants with its content, but that does not mean that what it's doing _*is*_ right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I was interested to see if the reports of whitewashing support for him and removing links to his defense fund on Facebook were accurate. I found many posts that provide links to his defense fund and that support him on Facebook.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Irish Pixie said:


> Facebook is privately owned company, and decides what content is allowed on it's site.
> 
> The link is just another opinion, and proves nothing. The justice system will decide what happened in Rittenhouse's situation.


It's almost as if social media mobs shouldn't play any part in the justice system.

Facebook (and Twitter, and other social media sites) _not _banning content about on-going investigations is exactly how we get vigilantes going on manhunts against suspects that are later cleared of any wrongdoing or attacking their families (who have nothing to do with it) or mobs targeting victims and their families.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I was interested to see if the reports of whitewashing support for him and removing links to his defense fund on Facebook were accurate. *I found many posts* that provide links to his defense fund and that support him on Facebook.


So you *say*.
You don't see the ones already deleted.
Maybe you should tell the WSJ they got the story wrong.








Opinion | Facebook’s Rittenhouse Mistake


The speech blackout for his defense threatens due process.




www.wsj.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Maybe someday, but right now they are a social platform, and not a publisher. And Facebook currently has full control over the content of their privately owned site.


Social media’s power stems in part from its unprecedented exemption from legal rules that govern other communications networks and virtually every other firm or person. For instance, telephone companies cannot kick customers off their platform on the basis of political views, nor can airlines. In contrast, the social media firms have the power—and have used the power—to kick off any user for any reason

Mark Zuckerberg once claimed that “Facebook was just a ‘social utility,’ a neutral platform for people to communicate what they wished.” Facebook is legally accountable to that.

Zuckerberg wrote that broadband providers should not be allowed to “block you from seeing certain content.” Similarly, Twitter’s lobbyists argued that Verizon and Comcast should not be permitted to “block content they don’t like” and/or relegate “certain content to the backwaters of the Internet in second or third-tier status.”

Congress passed Section 230 to promote a free and open internet, Facebook, Twitter, and Google now use it to advocate for an open internet while at the same time justifying their censorship regimes.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google seem to embrace a principle of “an open internet for thee but not for me” when it comes to their own platforms.

This legal protection—not accorded to newspapers or other forums created the internet as we know it. Protection from liability for any false or injurious content their users post has permitted the social media giants to allow the incredibly freewheeling discussions and commentary that we have come to expect from the internet.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

HDRider said:


> This legal protection—not accorded to newspapers or other forums created the internet as we know it. Protection from liability for any false or injurious content their users post has permitted the social media giants to allow the incredibly freewheeling discussions and commentary that we have come to expect from the internet.


They could very well be putting that immunity in jeopardy by curating content in the manner they are. All it takes is one good lawyer (or legal team) to challenge it.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

random said:


> They could very well be putting that immunity in jeopardy by curating content in the manner they are. All it takes is one good lawyer (or legal team) to challenge it.


They are. As I said earlier, given the way they censor and edit content they are acting like publishers. They will eventually be taken to task and held accountable for their content.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

audacity said:


> It's almost as if social media mobs shouldn't play any part in the justice system.
> 
> Facebook (and Twitter, and other social media sites) _not _banning content about on-going investigations is exactly how we get vigilantes going on manhunts against suspects that are later cleared of any wrongdoing or attacking their families (who have nothing to do with it) or mobs targeting victims and their families.


So where does content approval or banning start and stop ? It’s up to the people to decide for them self’s. Part of free speech. I do not need someone else deciding what I should be able to read about. 

Vigilantes problems, mobs targeting people, and the issue of attacking families all have laws to handle the problems. If your really concerned, then put some effort into finding out why all these BLM riots, murders, arson and more has been allowed to go on for months. All of the above problems have been going on with little enforcment to control them. Why has this happened and how does it get changed? Controlling free speech is not the problem. The lack of people enforcing the law seems to be the problem.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

boatswain2PA said:


> No, not at all. Just pointing out the brutality of where emotions such as his have led humanity in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've watched countless things go viral on Facebook that have been nothing more than social media bullying. People's lives have been ruined, jobs have been lost and once it's out there, there is no bringing it back. 

As a mod, I've also watched how people work hard to manipulate rules to silence the opinions of others.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Facebook is no different than HT. It is a platform owned by a company that gets to decide what is on their site. Newspapers and TV channels are the same. You don't have a right to free speech on someone else's dime.

You can read or post whatever you want on millions of other sites unless it is against the law in your country. HT is the perfect example. They can ban or moderate you. Others have left and started their own sites because of that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> I've watched countless things go viral on Facebook that have been nothing more than social media bullying. People's lives have been ruined, jobs have been lost and once it's out there, there is no bringing it back.
> 
> As a mod, I've also watched how people work hard to manipulate rules to silence the opinions of others.


Yep, self appointed arbiters of truth are seldom doing much more than for self.

Silencing others usually indicates a fear of what they are saying.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Facebook is no different than HT. It is a platform owned by a company that gets to decide what is on their site. Newspapers and TV channels are the same. You don't have a right to free speech on someone else's dime.
> 
> You can read or post whatever you want on millions of other sites unless it is against the law in your country. HT is the perfect example. They can ban or moderate you. Others have left and started their own sites because of that.


So in my inquiring mind when can the phone carrier we use do the same? They own it too. Calling or texting. How about the mail? If we have to pay to play would it be different?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TripleD said:


> So in my inquiring mind when can the phone carrier we use do the same? They own it too. Calling or texting. How about the mail? If we have to pay to play would it be different?


I don't believe they moderate private conversations unless they are threatening, so to me it would be the same with phone or texts. Mail the same. It is the messages thare not private that operate under the rules of the site.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I don't believe they moderate private conversations unless they are threatening, so to me it would be the same with phone or texts. Mail the same. It is the messages thare not private that operate under the rules of the site.


FB, TT, and all decide what to publish. That makes them a publisher.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

Redlands Okie said:


> So where does content approval or banning start and stop ? It’s up to the people to decide for them self’s. Part of free speech. I do not need someone else deciding what I should be able to read about.
> 
> Vigilantes problems, mobs targeting people, and the issue of attacking families all have laws to handle the problems. If your really concerned, then put some effort into finding out why all these BLM riots, murders, arson and more has been allowed to go on for months. All of the above problems have been going on with little enforcment to control them. Why has this happened and how does it get changed? Controlling free speech is not the problem. The lack of people enforcing the law seems to be the problem.



Here's the thing about free speech: _There is no such thing as free speech on private platforms._

And while I do agree that lack of enforcement is a major problem, there simply isn't enough manpower to try and control spontaneous vigilantes and mobs, and nobody is willing to foot the bill that's necessary in protecting people targeted by these groups. When they lose their job because they need to go into hiding, whose paying for their lost salaries? Nobody. Can barely even get a police department or city to be willing to pay for a hotel for materially substantiated threats.

A protester has a _right _to protest (presuming valid permits and following local codes).

Some IAmVeryClever meme-lord on Facebook doesn't have a single right to spew conspiracy theories on Facebook if the site decides they can't.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Some IAmVeryClever meme-lord on Facebook doesn't have a single right to spew conspiracy theories on Facebook if the site decides they can't.


You continue to bat 1,000. You are wrong as always.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

TripleD said:


> So in my inquiring mind when can the phone carrier we use do the same? They own it too. Calling or texting. How about the mail? If we have to pay to play would it be different?


"Maybe soon" is the answer about phone carriers. Old-school phone carriers are considered a public utility and are pretty heavily regulated, but a lot of phone services are moving to cellular telecom and VoIP, which makes things a lot less black and white. 

Your ISP most certainly sniffs your traffic, and they can regulate what you do on their platform.

I think a good example of this was torrenting. Several years ago, I was using Cox Cable and had them call me at _4 in the morning_ to discuss "suspicious traffic" from my apartment and threatening to cut off my service. I was torrenting and seeding files without a VPN. They were Linux distros and I had every legal right to distribute them. They can also limit you in ways such as blocking your ability to host your website -- a pretty direct control on free speech.

More on-the-nose, there's this little nugget:








47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material







www.law.cornell.edu





Essentially, it gives ISPs the right to censor material it finds offensive or objectional.

ISPs _regularly _control email with built-in spam filters and blacklists.

Beyond ISPs, email providers can also 100% control your messages. Perfect example of this would be business-supplied email. Your employer can totally dictate what you can do with your [email protected] address -- up to and including blocking you from sending email to outside servers, blocking attachments, and filtering for words. If Google decided to start limiting GMail, they could -- but they likely won't, because that's just bad business.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

audacity said:


> Here's the thing about free speech: _There is no such thing as free speech on private platforms._
> 
> And while I do agree that lack of enforcement is a major problem, there simply isn't enough manpower to try and control spontaneous vigilantes and mobs, and nobody is willing to foot the bill that's necessary in protecting people targeted by these groups. When they lose their job because they need to go into hiding, whose paying for their lost salaries? Nobody. Can barely even get a police department or city to be willing to pay for a hotel for materially substantiated threats.
> 
> ...


Well facebook missed the mark than, Antifa and BLM affiliates seem to have been given a pass. IMHO


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> Well facebook missed the mark than, Antifa and BLM affiliates seem to have been given a pass. IMHO


Columbia University’s Richard Hanania found that over 95 percent of high-profile bans have targeted those on the Right.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> You continue to bat 1,000. You are wrong as always.


Nope, not wrong.

Your understanding of how free speech works involving private entities is flawed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Nope, not wrong.
> 
> Your understanding of how free speech works involving private entities is flawed.


You mix so many scenarios you confuse yourself.

No according to Congress and Section 230. They are either a publisher who regulates content, and are liable for false or slanderous postings, or they are not a publisher and everyone can post anything as long as it is legal, and the forum enjoys immunity from prosecution and lawsuits.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

no really said:


> Well facebook missed the mark than, Antifa and BLM affiliates seem to have been given a pass. IMHO


Not denying that Facebook has done some pretty one-sided filtering in the past.

Personally, I don't appreciate them allowing their platform to be used by Russians to stir up the alt-right and lending credence to the idea that 'Antifa' is actually a real group and not just a boogeyman word used to associate peaceful protests with riots and violence.

But the point is, they get away with it because they're private.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

audacity said:


> Not denying that Facebook has done some pretty one-sided filtering in the past.
> 
> Personally, I don't appreciate them allowing their platform to be used by Russians to stir up the alt-right and lending credence to the idea that 'Antifa' is actually a real group and not just a boogeyman word used to associate peaceful protests with riots and violence.
> 
> But the point is, they get away with it because they're private.


What do you prefer red or green koolaid?


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> You mix so many scenarios you confuse yourself.
> 
> No according to Congress and Section 230. They are either a publisher who regulates content, and are liable for false or slanderous postings, or they are not a publisher and everyone can post anything as long as it is legal, and the forum enjoys immunity from prosecution and lawsuits.


Section 230 is designed to protect forums from being held responsible for the actions of private posters.

Private posters have protection against _prosecution_ when posting whatever legal content they want. However, they are not given a unilateral right to post whatever they want on a given platform in spite of whatever terms of service the platform has.

When you sign up to a forum or a social media site, you enter an agreement with them to follow a EULA or TOS. There is guaranteed to be language in there that basically goes, "Yeah, we are gonna moderate whatever we want." and you clicking 'Ok' is you accepting that agreement.

Otherwise, HT would not be allowed limit topics on their General forum, and wouldn't be allowed to remove our posts when we start calling each other two-faced donkeys.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I thought that was pony faced dog soldiers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

audacity said:


> Section 230 is designed to protect forums from being held responsible for the actions of private posters.
> 
> Private posters have protection against _prosecution_ when posting whatever legal content they want. However, they are not given a unilateral right to post whatever they want on a given platform in spite of whatever terms of service the platform has.
> 
> ...


You are a perfect example of why a person is tested and needs a license to practice medicine, or law.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

no really said:


> I thought that was pony faced dog soldiers.


Or dog faced pony soldiers


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Or dog faced pony soldiers


Sorry typed to fast LOL..


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Pony faced dog soldiers sound way cuter.


----------



## audacity (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> You are a perfect example of why a person is tested and needs a license to practice medicine, or law.


Not sure what medical and legal licensing requirements and Section 230 have to do with one another. Certainly don't need a law degree to be able to understand the full text of that law.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nearly $1 million has been raised for Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse, according to a Christian fundraising site and the teen's lawyers.

A Christian crowdfunding website and Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers say they've raised nearly $1 million for Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund.

A fundraiser on the Christian fundraising platform GiveSendGo says it has raised more than $390,000 for Rittenhouse, while one of the teen's attorneys, Lin Wood, said on Twitter Monday night that more than 11,000 people had donated a total of $605,550 to the #FightBack Foundation, which was launched to bring "lawsuits to stop the lies and smears of the radical left," and provide money for Rittenhouse's defense, according to its website.





Nearly $1 million has been raised for Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse, according to a Christian fundraising site and the teen's lawyers


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If the story of Rittenhouse is at it appears on the videos we have seen, I hope he wins his court case. Then I hope Rittenhouse and his lawyers take those responsible for the situation to the poorhouse. Not just the city, also those involved and their associates. Same as the thugs and their families do when they get a chance to.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

By their own words, FB has already judged him as a "mass murderer", without benefit of a trial. Seems a lawsuit just waiting for a good lawyer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------

