*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3320 on: October 20, 2018, 10:06:56 PM »
Businesses can't ban people for being black, gay, or muslim because those are protected classes in anti-discrimitory law. Which didn't always exist.  Remember the time blacks were banned from certain businesses? 

Where exactly do you think a protected class stems from? Religion is a protected class because of the first amendment. I certainly don't understand "that didn't always exist" argument either. Do you believe business owners should be able to ban blacks just because they're black?

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

The rights of the customers never ended.  Why would you think they did?  The problem, I think, is that you see the first amendment as applying to everyone even though it very clearly states that it only applies to congress.  (ie. congress can't limit free speech) 

Are you even reading my posts anymore?

As for why:
Honestly?  I hate idiots.  Meme spreaders.  Fake news.   I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban those people than watch as society crumbles into shouting matches of emojis and images with vague, nationalistic or misleading messages.

In other words, you hate the freedom of speech, and would prefer that anyone who says things you don't personally like go away. It's because of people like you that I'm thankful that freedom of speech exists in the first place, lest our speech be constantly curtailed by corporatism. It's strange to me that you'd suddenly take a hyper-corporatism stance on this issue after being left-leaning for so long. Perhaps you should reexamine your core political values.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 10:09:49 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3342
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3321 on: October 21, 2018, 02:22:45 PM »
Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3322 on: October 21, 2018, 02:48:02 PM »
In other words, you hate the freedom of speech, and would prefer that anyone who says things you don't personally like go away. It's because of people like you that I'm thankful that freedom of speech exists in the first place, lest our speech be constantly curtailed by corporatism. It's strange to me that you'd suddenly take a hyper-corporatism stance on this issue after being left-leaning for so long. Perhaps you should reexamine your core political values.
He's actually being very consistent. Leftism isn't about liberty. Its about collectivism. And populations will naturally reject too much collectivism as much as they will reject to much individualism (the far right). The only way to keep pushing people left is to force them and to do that you need to be authoritarian ... just as you would need to be to push people far right.

Mao
Stalin
Castro
Current Venezuala

These are all very left wing and they all got there by curtailing freedoms like freedom of speech ... and so Dave wants that ... because he wants more extremism. He wants the world to be even more left. He is an ideologue, and ideologues believe not only that they are right, but that those who are wrong should be forced to think as they do for their own good. Dave thinks he's the one who has worked it all out. That we're wrong if we don't agree. And therefore we have nothing to offer with our opinions, humour or disruption of his glorious version of nirvana. Lord Dave is dangerous. Lord Dave is no different to Hitler.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3323 on: October 21, 2018, 03:01:28 PM »
Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.

This is a fantastic rebuttal to an argument no one made. If you're going to insert yourself into the argument, I suggest actually reading it first. No one here has claimed that corporations can never restrict freedom of speech.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3324 on: October 21, 2018, 08:48:52 PM »



When the cognitive dissonance becomes so strong you'd rather continue to call them "white supremacist groups" rather than contemplating that maybe the groups you think are white supremacist really aren't.

Quote
"They represent the new face of the far right that some scholars term multiracial white supremacy."

I wonder what kind of "scholars" were interviewed for this article.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 08:53:01 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3342
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3325 on: October 22, 2018, 02:56:19 AM »
Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.

This is a fantastic rebuttal to an argument no one made. If you're going to insert yourself into the argument, I suggest actually reading it first. No one here has claimed that corporations can never restrict freedom of speech.

You're implying it when you make weird (and incorrect) assertions like these:

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin.

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

In other news, this is apparently the kind of thing your administration focuses on when "triggering the libs" is a higher priority than tackling actual issues that the country faces.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3326 on: October 22, 2018, 09:56:03 PM »
You're implying it when you make weird (and incorrect) assertions like these:

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin.
The US Supreme Court disagrees.

What, specifically, is incorrect about my statements? So far your argument has consisted of a strawman and "no, you're wrong". Surely you can do better than this.

In other news, this is apparently the kind of thing your administration focuses on when "triggering the libs" is a higher priority than tackling actual issues that the country faces.

I know this might be surprising to you, Saddam, but I'm not literally Donald Trump. It's not *my* administration. Additionally, what's wrong with defining gender more specifically under law? As far as I know, you can never literally become another biological sex, therefore "transgender" isn't something you can actually be. It doesn't really exist as anything other than a mental disorder.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 10:02:30 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3327 on: October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM »
Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.


Eituer I have failed or you have so, here it is in simple form:
Physical locations > digital ones.
A sidewalk is not the same as a website.  Physical locations matter with regard to accessibility, safety, financial ability to travel, etc...  A website does not have these issues and thus, myspace.com has the same ability to act as a public forum as does facebook for just as many people.  (Barring server availability)


I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3328 on: October 24, 2018, 01:12:37 PM »
Telling people not to hate is like asking them not to love.

It is a natural human emotion. It is a reaction to things you really don't like. And its ok to not like things or people. If you want to hate Donald Trump, be my guest. If you want to hate Pokemon, fine. If you want to hate Mexicans, that's your choice too. You telling people they aren't allowed to hate is you telling people you aren't interested in their opinions. I'm sure there are people or things you hate. I hate pickles. No amount of brow beating from you is going to change my mind on that. They are disgusting. I hate them. I wish they could be removed from the face of the earth. And if you feel the same way about Muslims, not much anyone can do about that.

I have the right to tell people how much I hate pickles. I don't care if you are a pickle manufacturer and your business might be hurt by that. I don't care if you are a pickle lover, frightened that I will take your pickles from you. I hate them, I reserve the right to hate them and if I want to talk about a pickle holocaust, you are going to have to like it that way.  >o<
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 01:23:24 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3329 on: October 24, 2018, 03:39:40 PM »
Telling people not to hate is like asking them not to love.

It is a natural human emotion. It is a reaction to things you really don't like. And its ok to not like things or people. If you want to hate Donald Trump, be my guest. If you want to hate Pokemon, fine. If you want to hate Mexicans, that's your choice too. You telling people they aren't allowed to hate is you telling people you aren't interested in their opinions. I'm sure there are people or things you hate. I hate pickles. No amount of brow beating from you is going to change my mind on that. They are disgusting. I hate them. I wish they could be removed from the face of the earth. And if you feel the same way about Muslims, not much anyone can do about that.

I have the right to tell people how much I hate pickles. I don't care if you are a pickle manufacturer and your business might be hurt by that. I don't care if you are a pickle lover, frightened that I will take your pickles from you. I hate them, I reserve the right to hate them and if I want to talk about a pickle holocaust, you are going to have to like it that way.  >o<


Hating pickles is fine.
Just don't tell people how pickles are really monkey penises or how pickles kill more people than drone strikes.  Or that Satan made pickles to make people gay.


You wanna make a meme that say "I hate pickles!" Well, go nuts.  Just don't lie to justify your hate.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3330 on: October 24, 2018, 04:03:21 PM »
The thing is, if pickles did kill more people than Hitler, I should have the right to say it. If Pickles aren't as smart as the average Mexican, I should be able to say that too. And if I think pickles look like rotting penises, that's also a valid observation.

You can't ban the truth because you don't like it.

And if other people agree with my opinions on pickles, that's tough on you pickle-lovers too.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3331 on: October 24, 2018, 04:22:52 PM »
The thing is, if pickles did kill more people than Hitler, I should have the right to say it. If Pickles aren't as smart as the average Mexican, I should be able to say that too. And if I think pickles look like rotting penises, that's also a valid observation.

You can't ban the truth because you don't like it.

And if other people agree with my opinions on pickles, that's tough on you pickle-lovers too.


Considering I just literally said facts are fine, please stop posting, you're unable to read.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3332 on: October 24, 2018, 04:34:39 PM »
As an adendum: if you wanna go posting pickle facts that are anti pickle on www.picklelovers.com then I feel the site should be allowed to ban you.  Or really ban you for any reason.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3333 on: October 24, 2018, 09:24:52 PM »
I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

"I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate freedom of speech!"

Freedom of speech isn't there to protect the popular opinions that you think are fluffy, kind, and everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the unpopular speech, the kind most people don't want to hear. It's there to protect people from being oppressed merely because they're views aren't the norm. The moment you start saying "well I only want factual speech" then you have to start getting into what is and isn't factual information. That's a much more grey area than anyone likes to admit, because we all want our facts to be binary pieces of information that are objectively either true or false, which isn't always the case.

Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

Well yeah, the Jews have already enslaved us all, so saying "will" is silly and wrong.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3342
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3334 on: October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM »
What, specifically, is incorrect about my statements? So far your argument has consisted of a strawman and "no, you're wrong". Surely you can do better than this.

What's incorrect is you saying "When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own" as if that's some sort of established legal principle and not simply the Court explaining their thought process on a case seventy years ago that was specifically about company towns. The Lloyd Corp. case clearly shows that it's not as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. You're also wrong in claiming that "cases like that" are why businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Dave is talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, but he's at least right that anti-discrimination rules are the result of specific legislation that was passed addressing it, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They didn't happen because of the Marsh decision. It's like you think that case was the last word that anybody in the government had on the subject, and therefore that's what we should be consulting when settling the issue of whether or not social media websites are allowed to restrict speech.

Quote
I know this might be surprising to you, Saddam, but I'm not literally Donald Trump. It's not *my* administration.

Yes, it is. You are literally Trump.

Quote
Additionally, what's wrong with defining gender more specifically under law? As far as I know, you can never literally become another biological sex, therefore "transgender" isn't something you can actually be. It doesn't really exist as anything other than a mental disorder.

That's not what it means to be transgender, and you know it. And regardless of whether you want to call it a disorder or a mental illness or whatever, as a medical phenomenon, it's a real thing. Millions of people don't turn their lives upside down and identify as another gender for the sake of a prank, a fad, or a demand for attention. There's no reason not to let them have appropriate federal recognition and protection under the law, just like there's no reason to bar them from the military. It's cruel and divisive, and because I know you'll start talking about feels and reals or whatever if I leave it at that, it's also utterly pointless in practical terms. There is no societal burden from the acknowledgement of trans people, nor would there be any real benefit to stripping them of their protections. This is being done to pander to bigots and to indulge Trump's trollish love of notoriety.

Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.

Wow. Well, I wouldn't normally put this so bluntly, but if that's the tone we're going to take, then here goes. I'm not trying to help you, and I'm certainly not making your arguments for you. If anything, I'm trying my best to keep my distance from you. I don't understand your logic half the time, most of what you're saying about free speech is alarmingly incorrect, and I feel a little embarrassed that people might read this thread and lump us together just because we're both liberals. Frankly, you're pretty much the liberal equivalent of Thork, and I find it fitting that the two of you have descended into a slap-fight about fucking pickles or some shit.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8553
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3335 on: October 25, 2018, 02:11:13 AM »
What's incorrect is you saying "When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own" as if that's some sort of established legal principle and not simply the Court explaining their thought process on a case seventy years ago that was specifically about company towns. The Lloyd Corp. case clearly shows that it's not as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. You're also wrong in claiming that "cases like that" are why businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Dave is talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, but he's at least right that anti-discrimination rules are the result of specific legislation that was passed addressing it, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They didn't happen because of the Marsh decision. It's like you think that case was the last word that anybody in the government had on the subject, and therefore that's what we should be consulting when settling the issue of whether or not social media websites are allowed to restrict speech.

I never said it happened specifically because of Marsh, but clearly the case supports the cause for protecting certain rights (such as freedom of religion) on private property, and therefore supports laws against discrimination. I might have been overzealous saying "this is the reason that blah blah" but saying it's completely irrelevant is pushing it.

Yes, it is. You are literally Trump.

Actually, I've been Q this whole time.

That's not what it means to be transgender, and you know it. And regardless of whether you want to call it a disorder or a mental illness or whatever, as a medical phenomenon, it's a real thing. Millions of people don't turn their lives upside down and identify as another gender for the sake of a prank, a fad, or a demand for attention. There's no reason not to let them have appropriate federal recognition and protection under the law, just like there's no reason to bar them from the military. It's cruel and divisive, and because I know you'll start talking about feels and reals or whatever if I leave it at that, it's also utterly pointless in practical terms. There is no societal burden from the acknowledgement of trans people, nor would there be any real benefit to stripping them of their protections. This is being done to pander to bigots and to indulge Trump's trollish love of notoriety.

Why should we allow mentally disabled people into the military? Especially in an environment where one political party is constantly talking about gun control and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. The depression and suicide rates of "transgender" people are incredibly high, even after their "transition surgery", an even more stressful situation like being in the military is pointless for them. Being in the military isn't (and shouldn't be) a right. The last thing a unit needs is some whacko chopping his own dick off and telling everyone he's a girl.

We don't allow the mentally retarded or people with schizophrenia in the military, either, because it isn't safe. "Transgenderism"  is a mental disorder, plain and simple. It involves not viewing your own body correctly and even goes as far as having people mutilate themselves to fit their perceived body. At some point you need to be able to tell people that you know they can't change and you accept that they are the way they are, but that they are also a danger to themselves and others. There are mental disorders that cause people to want to chop their own limbs off, yet we don't allow them to do that because it's obviously not a good thing to do. Why then, do we allow some men to get a doctor to chop their dick off? These aren't normal activities, Saddam. These are things that someone with serious mental trauma is doing to try to make the mental trauma go away and it won't work. You can't cure a mental disorder by changing your physical body (no, lobotomies do not count).  The mere fact that these surgeries even exist is a mockery of modern medicine and the epitome of our completely failed ability to deal with mental disorders with any reasonable success.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2018, 02:13:05 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3336 on: October 25, 2018, 08:25:32 AM »
I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

"I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate freedom of speech!"

Freedom of speech isn't there to protect the popular opinions that you think are fluffy, kind, and everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the unpopular speech, the kind most people don't want to hear. It's there to protect people from being oppressed merely because they're views aren't the norm. The moment you start saying "well I only want factual speech" then you have to start getting into what is and isn't factual information. That's a much more grey area than anyone likes to admit, because we all want our facts to be binary pieces of information that are objectively either true or false, which isn't always the case.
So if this forum has users who are shitposting in the upper forum every day, banning them should be illegal?  Or are we not popular enough?




Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.

Wow. Well, I wouldn't normally put this so bluntly, but if that's the tone we're going to take, then here goes. I'm not trying to help you, and I'm certainly not making your arguments for you.
Then my comment wasn't to you.
Honestly, it was mostly stemming from what Throk said.


And by wrong, just so I'm clear, I meant "That is not the argument I am making or reason I am saying it".  Not "Your arguments are wrong"






Quote
If anything, I'm trying my best to keep my distance from you. I don't understand your logic half the time, most of what you're saying about free speech is alarmingly incorrect, and I feel a little embarrassed that people might read this thread and lump us together just because we're both liberals. Frankly, you're pretty much the liberal equivalent of Thork, and I find it fitting that the two of you have descended into a slap-fight about fucking pickles or some shit.
Thank you for your honesty.  Not making sense is pretty much on par for me . Perhaps I don't.  Perhaps I'm actually crazy.  Perhaps my brain doesn't work.  Perhaps I haven't gotten enough sleep and ramble on.  Or perhaps I just suck hard at explaining my logic.  But in fairness: there isn't much logic in my argument.  I think websites and private companies should be able to curtail speech in their established domains and remove any who speak in a way they don't like.  Like firing someone for cat calling a fellow employee.  Or banning someone for writing racial slurs in every post.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3337 on: October 25, 2018, 11:18:02 AM »
Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3338 on: October 25, 2018, 11:23:29 AM »
Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.
The problem is they also ban on political grounds.


And that would be ok, if not all the social media platforms had the same politics. But they do. They are all very very liberal.

And if anything else emerges ... like say TBH ... companies like Facebook buy it and close it down before it gets too big. So you are basically saying 'If you have views that aren't liberal, there is no place for you to express your views on social media anywhere. You have to like it that my views are everywhere and you can't disagree with me or you get kicked off the platform'. You can understand why a great many people wouldn't be happy about that.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7650
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3339 on: October 25, 2018, 12:16:50 PM »
Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.
The problem is they also ban on political grounds.


And that would be ok, if not all the social media platforms had the same politics. But they do. They are all very very liberal.

And if anything else emerges ... like say TBH ... companies like Facebook buy it and close it down before it gets too big. So you are basically saying 'If you have views that aren't liberal, there is no place for you to express your views on social media anywhere. You have to like it that my views are everywhere and you can't disagree with me or you get kicked off the platform'. You can understand why a great many people wouldn't be happy about that.


Why would TBH sell themselves to facebook?
I get monopolies are a thing but if you want to compete, why sell out?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.