Gay Patriot Header Image

Inequality, Bullying, and Facebook

Posted by V the K at 2:32 pm - April 11, 2018.
Filed under: Social Media

So, why is it OK for Facebook to ban conservative opinion such as Diamond and Silk, but not OK for a Christian baker/florist/photographer to decline to participate in a gay wedding?

Leftist: “Well, Facebook is a private company.”

And what branch of Government is a Christian-owned bakery.

Leftist: “Baking a cake isn’t free speech.”

But y’all say burning the flag is.

Leftist: “It’s different because LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM are a legally protected class and conservatives aren’t”

Ah, now, we’re getting closer to the truth. It’s not really about “equality” then, is it? It’s about giving certain groups privileges at the expense of other people’s basic rights.

Leftism is not a coherent political philosophy. Leftism is a cult of bitter losers who lust for Government power so they can use it to bully people they don’t like. It is nothing other.

Share

14 Comments

  1. Leftist: “It’s different because LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM are a legally protected class and conservatives aren’t”

    There’s the money quote right there, sir. It has never been about equality, although progressives will argue that until the cows come home.

    It most certainly is about silencing anyone who doesn’t spout the party line, even if it doesn’t make sense.

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    Comment by Charlotte — April 11, 2018 @ 2:53 pm - April 11, 2018

  2. What worries me as a non-Facebook user is that FB has logs of both-ends of each connection and contact, not just the FB user’s end. With enough data-points even non-users can be triangulated, identified and quantified through through FB-users’ telephone calls, text messages, emails, attachments and likes to them. Business associates, clients, retail websites, …blogs(?).

    My brother’s employer made him get a smartphone because their employee time-clock payroll system uses a Facebook acct. log-in verification. It also allows them to track employees within the facility and while on the road making service-calls. You have to be a Facebook-user to clock-in and clock-out every-day/every-shift and lunch. He was going to up-grade from his flip-phone to a nice smartphone. Now instead he’s uses a cheap burner-phone and keeps it in his workplace-locker.

    I just converted-over to GoGoDuck on all my devices just to tamp-down on the invasive GoogleChrome adbots. And I don’t use any Cloud-Services for business storage or sharing.

    My sister works in the Real Estate Title Insurance field, and almost everyone there has reverted back to facsimile-transition of documents and correspondence. It can’t be hacked or recorded easily since it’s site-to-site telephone connections, and the Federal Wiretapping protections are much more stringent and severe than the rather-loose Web regulations and enforcement. All documents are on-paper, not electronic, and checks and transfers are physical originals with witnessed wet-signatures.

    What’s disturbing is not just the invasive nature of it-all, but it’s yet-another corrosive erosion in all-levels of civic trust in this country. Cell-phone tracking, police license-plate readers and speed/red-light cameras, civic and private surveillance cameras, …and coming soon facial-recognition in retail and public places.

    I’m glad I don’t live or work in the city right-now, I’d become increasingly paranoid. Bwhahhahhahhahhahhah !!

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 11, 2018 @ 3:09 pm - April 11, 2018

  3. Don’t forget that courts have ruled that Muslim truck drivers can’t be required to deliver beer because it is against their religion.

    Comment by Jonathan — April 11, 2018 @ 3:55 pm - April 11, 2018

  4. Let me first say that I am conservative republican and a strong constitutionalist. Zuck is a liberal businessman. You need to understand that free speech is only protected against government infringement, not by businesses or other individuals. Facebook is a publically traded company that answers to its shareholders and it only responsibilities is to make money. The consumer, not the government, has the final word.

    “We don’t have to live this way ANYMORE!!!” … You never did! You either made a conscious choice to join Facebook or not. If you don’t like their liberal views then don’t join Facebook; you don’t have to watch CNN either. If Facebook politics bothers you so much, then join or start up a conservation social media site.

    If you feel so strongly about Facebook censorship, then you have to agree that you have no right to censor Facebook.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/zuckerberg-says-labeling-diamond-and-silk-unsafe-was-enforcement-error-2018-04-11

    Comment by rusty — April 11, 2018 @ 4:07 pm - April 11, 2018

  5. Quote is Michael Pistone in the comments of Market Watch Article

    Comment by rusty — April 11, 2018 @ 4:08 pm - April 11, 2018

  6. I’m going to do the unthinkable and agree with rusty.

    Anyway I know I’m going slightly off topic when I say that everybody and their dog was informed many years ago that there was no privacy with Facebook. I remember it clearly and it’s been highlighted over and over, over the years

    The intent of the Founders has clearly been presented over and over that the market must decide unless it is a public safety issue.

    On topic, it is clear that Facebook has been censoring conservative voices. Hypocrisy is appalling but not surprising and somebody will surely pay a price, mind you me.

    FYI, Liberals, Facebook did not cause Hillary to lose the election.

    Comment by Hanover — April 11, 2018 @ 5:02 pm - April 11, 2018

  7. If what is called the internet is just the powers that be evolving into private entities, that might be something to see.

    Chemicals, radiologicals, information, medicine.

    All fungible, perhaps many players. Hard to know. I am RED.

    Comment by neal — April 11, 2018 @ 6:40 pm - April 11, 2018

  8. rusty is correct – given a “normal” climate.

    Some years ago, supreme court justice Louis Brandeis remarked on the “curse of bigness”. He saw danger in the increasing bigness of government and business.

    Technology has introduced some new wrinkles. While almost anyone can create and edit content (text, audio,video on an affordable computer), distribution relies on a small collection of very big companies.

    Once a platform achieves market dominance, it is nearly impossible for a competitor to get a meaningful share of the market. DuckDuckGo is surprisingly good but their share of the search engine market is minuscule. Ditto for Facebook (never have signed up); YouTube, Twitter, etc. There are competitors though most people couldn’t tell you their names.

    The issue I have with the government policing Facebook, et al, is that it smells of the “fairness doctrine” debates that accompanied Rush Limbaugh’s rise to fame and massive market share.

    But it remains that most people get more and more of their information from fewer and fewer sources. Even local newspapers are less diverse (I hate that word) given that their editorial policies tend to come down from corporate (see Gannett or Sinclair).

    Google, Twitter and Facebook could relieve some of the pressure by being more transparent and objective in their terms of service and telling complaining snowflakes to piss off.

    The left is, per usual, full of stuff. The left has gained a lot of power using government to regulate all sorts of things it has no business messing with and its control of the institutions and culture approaches a monopoly. So lefties shouldn’t complain when people they don’t like get hold of one of their chief weapons,

    Comment by KCRob — April 11, 2018 @ 7:23 pm - April 11, 2018

  9. Rusty et al.

    Facebook is trying to have it both ways – government subsidy and special laws to protect it against competition and lawsuits, but then running to “we’re a private business” when it’s government-protected position is challenged. You can’t wrap yourself in the garb of a market virgin after you’ve been putting out for years.

    Comment by civil truth — April 11, 2018 @ 10:00 pm - April 11, 2018

  10. @rusty: “Government can’t interfere with private businesses” only has so much milage. The right to refuse customers was the claim Southern businesspeople used to justify refusing to serve blacks. We’ve seen that in the past few years, belonging to a Christian denomination that preaches that homosexuality is a sin does not give bakers, florists, or photographers an out to not do business with same-sex couples for their weddings, even if they are perfectly willing to do business with them on any other day. Is it because political persuasion is not a protected class that Facebook and Twitter are allowed to do this?

    A thought occurs to me: people say that Facebook has the right to ban anybody from their platform. Fine. Nobody has to allow a conservative to write for a newspaper, and we don’t call that a violation of First Amendment rights. But if every major paper in the country banned conservatives from righting for them, and printing press manufacturers refused to allow conservatives to purchase presses to make their own papers, only the most ideologically driven progressive would say that conservatives’ First Amendment rights were being respected.

    So when conservatives are being banned from all major social media platforms… and major software publishers are refusing to allow apps designed as alternatives to these platforms on their devices… It’s hard to sit here and say that there isn’t a First Amendment issue.

    And a parting thought: if there really is an effort to prevent conservatives from speaking their mind in the public arena, and it succeeds, how do you think conservatives are going to respond? Remember, talking it out with the person you disagree with is an improvement over just bashing his brains in with a rock…

    Comment by Sean L — April 11, 2018 @ 10:20 pm - April 11, 2018

  11. There is a law on the books that if a publication edits its content it is then liable for all content published. That means that FaceBook could be charged with a crime or sued for posts that it lets stand after deciding that conservatives can be silenced but others can’t because it is exercising editorial control over content.

    Comment by Juan — April 11, 2018 @ 10:56 pm - April 11, 2018

  12. Sean L, I do agree with you. But I must admit, there have been a few times that “just bashing his (or her) brains in with a rock”, seemed like a good idea.

    Comment by Linda — April 12, 2018 @ 9:44 am - April 12, 2018

  13. Sean

    I shared this cartoon with you once before and I believed you appreciated it

    https://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4622891/Tim+dont+give+a+/

    Anyway, Roseanne supported Diamond and Silk because they are comedians in her tweet.

    Censorship is a challenge. Even my liberal friends had their posting abilities curbed when a disturbing men about a religious leader’s past homophobic comments reappeared following his death.

    People can say what they want to say, but depending on the venue, the audience reach and even the media, folk may be called out

    Even here

    Steve,

    Kindly take your thinly veiled bigotry to a site where people don’t have any standards of decency.

    Thank you.

    Heliotrope

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 3, 2017 @ 7:58 pm – February 3, 2017

    Comment by rusty — April 12, 2018 @ 10:21 am - April 12, 2018

  14. Facebook is directly related to the Jerry Springer formula of pandering to cultural rot.

    People who babble away on Facebook are opening their lives to being catalogued, searched, analyzed and sold as information to myriad interests. Facebook is NOT spying. Dupes are taking their bumper sticker philosophy and personal information out of the cul de sac of their lives and opening their trivia to the jet stream of global viewing.

    Supposedly, the issue at hand in the Facebook crapola is the concept of privacy. Wrong issue. There is no privacy issue when one willingly blabs his particulars on the world wide web.

    If a multi-billionaire wishes to use the accumulated information his enterprise has gathered to promote his political agenda, so be it. It is legally obtained information.

    The Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center in Utah is alleged to be able to process “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital ‘pocket litter’.”

    My car has a lane detection warning and it rattles my steering wheel when I touch or cross a lane stripe. If I don’t turn it off on narrow and winding country roads, I accumulate so many “warnings” that the car “tells” me to pull off, have some coffee and take a rest. Why not connect that to the internet and inform my insurance company of my driving habits and the local cops, as well?

    Its our brave new world and we are living in it.

    Bezos and Zuckerburg have more money than can be readily imagined and they are using it to make more and more and more money. They are spying on our every transaction and noting the data gaps which they fill in with sophisticated and highly educated assumptions based on calculating the odds.

    Bookies have been doing this at the race track for decades.

    It is totally lame for an individual to go about claiming “privacy” when he feels the heat of what he enabled by his own actions.

    “Electronic surveillance” has become so pervasive that the concept of privacy is all but moot.

    Zuckerburg and his political philosophy scares me. But that horse is out of the barn. Zuckerburg knows that we have a huge supply of useful idiots who can be molded and made to act if he sends powerful propaganda to their attention. That is how demagoguery has worked since earliest times of recorded history.

    Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli were both dozens of I.Q. points smarter than Bezos or Zuckerburg. But both Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli were engaged in the art of the information they were providing. Bezos and Zuckerburg are following the Henry Ford model of putting the advice into action. They can “afford” to make billion dollar mistakes and keep on moving on.

    Zuckerburg “testifying” before Congress is about as effective as shaking your fist at a blizzard.

    Comment by Heliotrope — April 12, 2018 @ 10:55 am - April 12, 2018

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.