Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

Facebook Co-Founder: ‘It’s Time to Break Up Facebook’

Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Facebook Co-Founder: ‘It’s Time to Break Up Facebook’

 
Old 05-13-2019, 11:01 PM
  #121  
Upstate
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2003
Location: [Quote=WOEII] Is dried brown doodie powders man! [/Quote]
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
As does Yahoo and given that most say they use the "none tracking" DDG (Lol), I dont see why its even a point of contention.
Fact of the matter is this, for the most part technology and technology companies tend to be liberal entities, Microsoft, Apple, Google, FB, Tesla, Amazon ect.
The question is why? Perhaps its because far right conservatives may be too narrow minded in sight to think outside the box and develop new technologies or even see where tech is headed?

I went back and re-read your post again Upstate, its very accurate and I'd suggest those whom dont get it to read it or read it again.
Its funny hearing the same people cry LWNJs or snowflake this or that when you have this multi page thread with exactly that, wanting to see FB and Google broken up because they wont bake them a cake....
It's nice to be able to engage in conversation outside the bounds of ideology. I can agree to disagree and move on with no ill will. I consider myself part of the far right conservative but where we fall on the spectrum is subjective even to our peers. I am certainly not narrow minded and many conservatives do have the business acumen and technical background to make an alternative to facebook. The significant barriers to entry are the tech giants and the collective power they wield. Conservatives too by and large would prefer to be left alone.

All businesses exist to make money. All businesses do what they can to minimize competition and maximize growth both of which drive acquisitions. Someone else also mentioned this (maybe differently) that it is not so much a matter of creating the alternative versus maintaining the alternative. Unless your the Koch brothers private venture funding to build an alternative social media platform will be nearly impossible to find. If you do manage to find private capital and can build something to compete it will be very difficult to sustain further growth in any appreciable way of your platform without additional funding. If you can get an IPO off the ground and cannot maintain your controlling share or maintain growth (like Zuckerberg did) as the conservative CEO your company and platform will be swallowed.

If any categorization of a monopoly exists to break up social media I think it needs to have an economic basis and the revenue model of those companies is advertising. Facebook et. al. can leverage their huge audiences, price fix and engage in behavior we would consider typical of a traditional monopoly. I do not think 1st amendment limitations provide sufficient standing for governmental intervention to force a private entity to censor speech in the interest of preventing a monopoly. Or baking cakes.

I perused the thread and an overwhelming theme I am taking away is conservatives are concerned about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I did not see any desire for using the long arm of the government to silence descent despite the factual occurrence of that behavior by those that control the messaging platforms; Which just happen to also be operated primarily by the left. Maybe I need to read the thread again more carefully.

The concern is strong enough for me personally that I share in Owebo's assessment for the need to discuss the codification of the public square. Newspapers and media can do what they want (within reason) for their messaging and so can social media but when you create a platform that delivers a psychological reinforcement mechanism and control the messaging on that platform a potential exists to harm people. I think it is a valid observation that our current public square (of greatest influence) exists in a private space. When the intended purpose of the public square is to provide a venue for free speech and the public square is subject to censorship because it has effectively been privatized is an issue.

It seems some of the posters in this thread are assuming that the conservatives in this thread are anarchists and want no government intervention in anything and that is academically disingenuous, easily disproved and damages their credibility. We smell the smoke in the theater and are looking at the dude in the seat next to us asking if they smell the same thing with no regards for what they believe because the fire will kill us both.


Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
As for living without Google, I manage the network of a few schools and use a Barracuda Networks content filter to control internet access. I've shut off Google completely due to students cheating on E2020 by pasting the questions into a Google search box. Google and all related services are gone as are Windows IE updates that are completely trash.
I was the CTO of a 55MM company providing amongst other things managed services to K12. That you have shut off Google is amazing in itself. If it can be done in tech chances are I have done it. I have done Programming, Systems, Networking, Security, Collaboration etc with damn near every vendor in about 34 schools. I wish I could kill off Google and the Barracudas I was using at the time are not good fits for .edu. I think Sourcefire is even worse. Out of those 34 districts 32 of them are G Suite. Feel free to take this part of the conversation to PM.

Upstate is offline  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:25 PM
  #122  
JustinStrife
CF Senior Member
 
JustinStrife's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: Lake Havasu AZ
Posts: 27,126
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
Nobody is disputing that. They are horribly biased against conservative viewpoints, but... aren't they allowed to be if they want? It's a "bake the cake" moment. "Oh, you don't want conservative views on your platform? Tough ****, do it anyway or we'll put you in jail." Just, no.
I'm with you on this Red.
JustinStrife is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:41 AM
  #123  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,735
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by JustinStrife View Post
I'm with you on this Red.
What happens when the public square is gone? If the baker is gone, another will fill the order...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:29 AM
  #124  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 7,213
Received 146 Likes on 129 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Upstate View Post
It's nice to be able to engage in conversation outside the bounds of ideology. I can agree to disagree and move on with no ill will. I consider myself part of the far right conservative but where we fall on the spectrum is subjective even to our peers. I am certainly not narrow minded and many conservatives do have the business acumen and technical background to make an alternative to facebook. The significant barriers to entry are the tech giants and the collective power they wield. Conservatives too by and large would prefer to be left alone.

All businesses exist to make money. All businesses do what they can to minimize competition and maximize growth both of which drive acquisitions. Someone else also mentioned this (maybe differently) that it is not so much a matter of creating the alternative versus maintaining the alternative. Unless your the Koch brothers private venture funding to build an alternative social media platform will be nearly impossible to find. If you do manage to find private capital and can build something to compete it will be very difficult to sustain further growth in any appreciable way of your platform without additional funding. If you can get an IPO off the ground and cannot maintain your controlling share or maintain growth (like Zuckerberg did) as the conservative CEO your company and platform will be swallowed.

If any categorization of a monopoly exists to break up social media I think it needs to have an economic basis and the revenue model of those companies is advertising. Facebook et. al. can leverage their huge audiences, price fix and engage in behavior we would consider typical of a traditional monopoly. I do not think 1st amendment limitations provide sufficient standing for governmental intervention to force a private entity to censor speech in the interest of preventing a monopoly. Or baking cakes.

I perused the thread and an overwhelming theme I am taking away is conservatives are concerned about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I did not see any desire for using the long arm of the government to silence descent despite the factual occurrence of that behavior by those that control the messaging platforms; Which just happen to also be operated primarily by the left. Maybe I need to read the thread again more carefully.

The concern is strong enough for me personally that I share in Owebo's assessment for the need to discuss the codification of the public square. Newspapers and media can do what they want (within reason) for their messaging and so can social media but when you create a platform that delivers a psychological reinforcement mechanism and control the messaging on that platform a potential exists to harm people. I think it is a valid observation that our current public square (of greatest influence) exists in a private space. When the intended purpose of the public square is to provide a venue for free speech and the public square is subject to censorship because it has effectively been privatized is an issue.

It seems some of the posters in this thread are assuming that the conservatives in this thread are anarchists and want no government intervention in anything and that is academically disingenuous, easily disproved and damages their credibility. We smell the smoke in the theater and are looking at the dude in the seat next to us asking if they smell the same thing with no regards for what they believe because the fire will kill us both.




I was the CTO of a 55MM company providing amongst other things managed services to K12. That you have shut off Google is amazing in itself. If it can be done in tech chances are I have done it. I have done Programming, Systems, Networking, Security, Collaboration etc with damn near every vendor in about 34 schools. I wish I could kill off Google and the Barracudas I was using at the time are not good fits for .edu. I think Sourcefire is even worse. Out of those 34 districts 32 of them are G Suite. Feel free to take this part of the conversation to PM.


It was a lot of work finding all their servers but in the end E2020 doesn't use anything from Google so it was easier to just blanketly shut everything down then open what I needed.
Google has quite a few Class A subnets which means I was blocking an s-ton of IPs but I had no choice.

We are starting to deploy Chromebooks now and I just started using G-Suite so I'm having to open things back up but G-Suite does offer a lot of access controls so it's not too bad
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:44 AM
  #125  
vette6799
CF Senior Member
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 28,219
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
Default

Originally Posted by Upstate View Post
It's nice to be able to engage in conversation outside the bounds of ideology. I can agree to disagree and move on with no ill will. I consider myself part of the far right conservative but where we fall on the spectrum is subjective even to our peers. I am certainly not narrow minded and many conservatives do have the business acumen and technical background to make an alternative to facebook. The significant barriers to entry are the tech giants and the collective power they wield. Conservatives too by and large would prefer to be left alone.

All businesses exist to make money. All businesses do what they can to minimize competition and maximize growth both of which drive acquisitions. Someone else also mentioned this (maybe differently) that it is not so much a matter of creating the alternative versus maintaining the alternative. Unless your the Koch brothers private venture funding to build an alternative social media platform will be nearly impossible to find. If you do manage to find private capital and can build something to compete it will be very difficult to sustain further growth in any appreciable way of your platform without additional funding. If you can get an IPO off the ground and cannot maintain your controlling share or maintain growth (like Zuckerberg did) as the conservative CEO your company and platform will be swallowed.

If any categorization of a monopoly exists to break up social media I think it needs to have an economic basis and the revenue model of those companies is advertising. Facebook et. al. can leverage their huge audiences, price fix and engage in behavior we would consider typical of a traditional monopoly. I do not think 1st amendment limitations provide sufficient standing for governmental intervention to force a private entity to censor speech in the interest of preventing a monopoly. Or baking cakes.

I perused the thread and an overwhelming theme I am taking away is conservatives are concerned about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I did not see any desire for using the long arm of the government to silence descent despite the factual occurrence of that behavior by those that control the messaging platforms; Which just happen to also be operated primarily by the left. Maybe I need to read the thread again more carefully.

The concern is strong enough for me personally that I share in Owebo's assessment for the need to discuss the codification of the public square. Newspapers and media can do what they want (within reason) for their messaging and so can social media but when you create a platform that delivers a psychological reinforcement mechanism and control the messaging on that platform a potential exists to harm people. I think it is a valid observation that our current public square (of greatest influence) exists in a private space. When the intended purpose of the public square is to provide a venue for free speech and the public square is subject to censorship because it has effectively been privatized is an issue.

It seems some of the posters in this thread are assuming that the conservatives in this thread are anarchists and want no government intervention in anything and that is academically disingenuous, easily disproved and damages their credibility. We smell the smoke in the theater and are looking at the dude in the seat next to us asking if they smell the same thing with no regards for what they believe because the fire will kill us both.




I was the CTO of a 55MM company providing amongst other things managed services to K12. That you have shut off Google is amazing in itself. If it can be done in tech chances are I have done it. I have done Programming, Systems, Networking, Security, Collaboration etc with damn near every vendor in about 34 schools. I wish I could kill off Google and the Barracudas I was using at the time are not good fits for .edu. I think Sourcefire is even worse. Out of those 34 districts 32 of them are G Suite. Feel free to take this part of the conversation to PM.

Is FB having complaints filed against it by its users claiming costs are too high and escalating? Is FB having complaints filed against it by its advertisers claiming costs are too high and escalating? As to my first question,FB is free to most users so I doubt that user costs is a consideration. As to my second, do you know of any advertisers claiming they are being unfairly charged?

I stated in an earlier post that to break an entity up using anti-competitive/antitrust arguments, there is a financial aspect that is inherent or you quickly find yourself outside the scope of antitrust. If the financial piece is not there, how would you propose proceeding? The only thing that I can think of that is remotely close is FCC regulations on ownership of broadcast stations/newspapers and even there, I believe the rules are being modified. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...wnership-rules
vette6799 is online now  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:52 AM
  #126  
WICKEDFRC
CF Senior Member
 
WICKEDFRC's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2010
Location: Avatar designed by WickedFRC.
Posts: 11,936
Received 375 Likes on 208 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gixxerbill View Post
break that liberal pos up. I am tired of gettting hate speech warning from those bozos. And for some reason its only hate if its against sand people.
Go my first policy violation warning from Facebook and it is exactly this.... basically stated "America has no place for Sharia and if Muslims don't like it, they can pack their ****, their Koran, and GTFO!!"

Got a violation warning that it is considered "HATE SPEECH." Imagine that. Perhaps if I mentioned to toss gays off a rooftop, be-heading Christians, and stoning wives to death I would have got a Thumbs Up from the billionairre dickbag himself.
WICKEDFRC is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:30 PM
  #127  
Tool Hoarder
CF Senior Member
 
Tool Hoarder's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2013
Location: Virginia Beach Virginia
Posts: 7,085
Received 1,979 Likes on 1,106 Posts
Default

What's the line between an elective service and a necessary "utility". People keep saying, "well nobody is forcing you to use Facebook". Nobody forced you to use AT&T (send letters) and nobody forced you to use Standard Oil (ride a horse). I agree FB is a private entity, but they're really the only game in town if you want to have any meaningful dissemination of your information. Sure I can use Myspace... but why?
Tool Hoarder is online now  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:37 PM
  #128  
JustinStrife
CF Senior Member
 
JustinStrife's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: Lake Havasu AZ
Posts: 27,126
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
What happens when the public square is gone? If the baker is gone, another will fill the order...
If you build it, they will come. Create alternatives. This is the internet. Just as conservatives dominate right wing radio(though lets face it our ideas work that's why), the Democrats have been dominating cable tv and internet(they however do lose money with their methods). What you are advocating for, is the Fairness Doctrine.....

Last edited by JustinStrife; 05-14-2019 at 12:37 PM.
JustinStrife is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:24 PM
  #129  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,735
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by JustinStrife View Post
If you build it, they will come. Create alternatives. This is the internet. Just as conservatives dominate right wing radio(though lets face it our ideas work that's why), the Democrats have been dominating cable tv and internet(they however do lose money with their methods). What you are advocating for, is the Fairness Doctrine.....
No, I’m not advocating for anything like that. Cable and radio are media, not the public square. We built the public square before founding the country and the public square is why we survived as long as we did.

FB Changed the public square. They put up a wall, IMO quite deliberately, and have become the gate keeper, for the public and for those companies who would compete by tearing down the wall.

I could care care less what FB posts as a private company to the public square as long as all who come to the public square can post.

These are are dangerous times when we the people are confused about liberty...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:51 PM
  #130  
DB Cooper
CF Senior Member
 
DB Cooper's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2018
Location: Eastpointe MI
Posts: 1,872
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
No, I’m not advocating for anything like that. Cable and radio are media, not the public square. We built the public square before founding the country and the public square is why we survived as long as we did.

FB Changed the public square. They put up a wall, IMO quite deliberately, and have become the gate keeper, for the public and for those companies who would compete by tearing down the wall.

I could care care less what FB posts as a private company to the public square as long as all who come to the public square can post.

These are are dangerous times when we the people are confused about liberty...
The point is that little zuckerturd's website is his property, not 'the public square'. Don't like the rules at his place, then play on a different lawn.

Frankly social media is mostly just a drug for users' inner attention *****. I'm not against crapping on facebook, but do it by lumping it in with the **** sites they want to start filtering, and taxing people to remove the filter. I'm sure the lefty users and owners would be more than happy to pay another tax

Last edited by DB Cooper; 05-14-2019 at 03:57 PM.
DB Cooper is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:55 PM
  #131  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,735
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by DB Cooper View Post
The point is that little zuckerturd's website is his property, not 'the public square'. Don't like the rules at his place, then play on a different lawn.
I want to play on the public square though.....with the public....on the square...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:59 PM
  #132  
DB Cooper
CF Senior Member
 
DB Cooper's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2018
Location: Eastpointe MI
Posts: 1,872
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
I want to play on the public square though.....with the public....on the square...
Sure. The public square is the internet iitself though, not one privately owned and operated website.
DB Cooper is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:05 PM
  #133  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,735
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by DB Cooper View Post
Sure. The public square is the internet iitself though, not one privately owned and operated website.
No, the internet is a bunch of tubes.....


The british owned the public square back in its’ day and if you recall, we took it from them....should we give FB to them now as restitution?

noww, of course, that would be silly....I have no problem with FB posting whatever hate they want to the public square nor do I care how much money they make from those there, the software is their private property....the public square they are exploiting is not however...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:04 PM
  #134  
Upstate
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2003
Location: [Quote=WOEII] Is dried brown doodie powders man! [/Quote]
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vette6799 View Post
Is FB having complaints filed against it by its users claiming costs are too high and escalating? Is FB having complaints filed against it by its advertisers claiming costs are too high and escalating? As to my first question,FB is free to most users so I doubt that user costs is a consideration. As to my second, do you know of any advertisers claiming they are being unfairly charged?

I stated in an earlier post that to break an entity up using anti-competitive/antitrust arguments, there is a financial aspect that is inherent or you quickly find yourself outside the scope of antitrust. If the financial piece is not there, how would you propose proceeding? The only thing that I can think of that is remotely close is FCC regulations on ownership of broadcast stations/newspapers and even there, I believe the rules are being modified. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...wnership-rules
Not at all and I think we agree on both your points. It may have been your prior points that I referenced in my posts to further illustrate my position. I may be completely wrong and acting differently against my self stated ideology and am open to correction. You might not be disagreeing with me and if so that is not clear. I am not really that smart which will become apparent if I actually post more.

Owebo's point stands and I think it is valid. To ignore or not consider the illustration (and not you specifically) is adhering to an ideology over something that is much more important. Those people are the truly dangerous ones. I think your points of requiring a financial aspect are true and was making the point that the only entity that could have standing being damaged by a social media monopoly would be advertisers and not that they actually did have cause for standing.

The FF could not have imagined the world we live in today but here we are. I don't pretend to know the answers but we need to start having the discussions.
Upstate is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:13 PM
  #135  
Chemdawg99
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Chemdawg99's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Bel Air (by way of Fort Worth, TX) Maryland
Posts: 54,681
Received 92 Likes on 67 Posts
St. Jude Donor '12, '15
Default

Originally Posted by Red99SS View Post
I still don't know where to stand at this point, but I cannot get on board with government stepping in and enacting regulations just because they'll help MY team. Isn't this akin to telling Facebook to "bake the cake?" You can't force a private network to host content that they don't want to.
Despite our many differences on the issues of the day, many times, you articulate a point that deeply resonates with me. This is one of those times.

That said, I think this issue is our innate sense of belonging to our preferred ideology and our need as human beings to see our ideology be the dominant force in society that is the problem and not Facebook. It’s like blaming the gun or the access to guns rather than blaming the criminals who misuse them.
Chemdawg99 is online now  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:47 PM
  #136  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 112,735
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by Chemdawg99 View Post
Despite our many differences on the issues of the day, many times, you articulate a point that deeply resonates with me. This is one of those times.

That said, I think this issue is our innate sense of belonging to our preferred ideology and our need as human beings to see our ideology be the dominant force in society that is the problem and not Facebook. It’s like blaming the gun or the access to guns rather than blaming the criminals who misuse them.
And sometimes it’s not...and just about liberty...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:47 PM
  #137  
Upstate
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2003
Location: [Quote=WOEII] Is dried brown doodie powders man! [/Quote]
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WICKEDFRC View Post
Go my first policy violation warning from Facebook and it is exactly this.... basically stated "America has no place for Sharia and if Muslims don't like it, they can pack their ****, their Koran, and GTFO!!"

Got a violation warning that it is considered "HATE SPEECH." Imagine that. Perhaps if I mentioned to toss gays off a rooftop, be-heading Christians, and stoning wives to death I would have got a Thumbs Up from the billionairre dickbag himself.
Just saw this and here is an interesting experiment. I am hesitant to post this here and give those that have power overwhelming more of it to prevent something like this. Chances are they already know. It is super easy with massive amounts of data to draw conclusions and with a degree of certainty identify an individual and for sure an ideology. Depending upon your digital persona, breadcrumbs, fingerprints and metadata what I am about to suggest should be carefully considered and acted upon deliberately. Where you post from is no guarantee of anonymity or protection.

If I were a malicious data aggregator I would score relatable data elements to establish the probability of identity based on whatever metric I want. The larger of a threat you are to the metric the less the probability of positive identification needs to be established to silence your voice. I will get false positives but have little doubt I could easily and automatically silence the loudest of dissenting voices.

Go get a VPN client. Preferably more than one. If you needed to hide beyond that chain in a proxy.

Create multiple online identities with posts originating from multiple countries and thoughtfully post oppositional hate speech. Align your geo-IP with leftist hate speech consistent with your virtual location and you will find your answer.

Make sure your source posting country is the same as when you establish your account.

I do not develop these algorithms but have done almost everything there is to do in IT for 36 years. If I was approached to do data aggregation in this manner I could do it in my sleep and there are people out there way smarter than me and big data is all they have ever done.

If folks are not afraid they should be.
Upstate is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:52 PM
  #138  
JustinStrife
CF Senior Member
 
JustinStrife's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: Lake Havasu AZ
Posts: 27,126
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
No, I’m not advocating for anything like that. Cable and radio are media, not the public square. We built the public square before founding the country and the public square is why we survived as long as we did.

FB Changed the public square. They put up a wall, IMO quite deliberately, and have become the gate keeper, for the public and for those companies who would compete by tearing down the wall.

I could care care less what FB posts as a private company to the public square as long as all who come to the public square can post.

These are are dangerous times when we the people are confused about liberty...
No, you're for the Fairness Doctrine. You're just trying to sugarcoat it. Your Socialist side is coming out Owebo. I'm disappointed you can't see it.
JustinStrife is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:58 PM
  #139  
Gunsmith
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Gunsmith's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2016
Location: Okeechobee Florida
Posts: 3,138
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Conservatives would be better off supporting an alternate social media platform. Let the propagandists die on the vine along with their failed ideas. If enough people started doing it change would happen.
Gunsmith is offline  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:24 PM
  #140  
Vitoc
CF Senior Member
 
Vitoc's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 40,579
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17
Default

Originally Posted by Gunsmith View Post
Conservatives would be better off supporting an alternate social media platform. Let the propagandists die on the vine along with their failed ideas. If enough people started doing it change would happen.
How do you propose you get the word out? Such a site will surely be deemed "hate speech" and full of "dangerous people". Can't advertise or even mention those kinds of sites on Google, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.

At this point, with the power these monopolies enjoy, somebody would have to create a brand new parallel internet and try to establish a presence and compete with the current one. Anybody got a few gazillion dollars it would take to do that?
Vitoc is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Facebook Co-Founder: ‘It’s Time to Break Up Facebook’


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: