More liberal censorship

Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
If you want your Facebook page to remain published, then be careful what you post. You’re safe if you keep your posts to family matters. It seems you’re even safe if your posts bash Christians, Jews, Republicans and conservatives.

However, if you post anything that is anti-Muslim, anti-homosexual or anti-liberal anything, including blasting leading Democrats, don’t be surprised if Facebook unpublishes your page.
Click to expand...

To read the rest of the article click HERE.
 
This Charming Manc

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Jefferson do you support companies rights to do what they want with there own products and services?

or do you think you government should legislate to ensure that they don't act in a biast manner?

It seems to me that you have no issues with bias from right wing companies and issues with bias in left wing companies.

Its time to make your mind up do you want freedom for companies to do as they will or not?

Jefferson said:
To read the rest of the article click HERE.
Click to expand...
 
This Charming Manc

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Also so that meme was racist, it suggested that 10% of muslims were monsters, its aim was to create racial hatred and fear of muslims based on a untruth. I would have banned it also. Race hate isn't acceptable.
 
shagster01

shagster01

New member
Yet nobody is clamoring to start a conservative competitor to facebook. I guess it's easier to just whine.


Also, why do people act like having a Facebook page is a right? Don't like it, get off.
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
This Charming Manc said:
Jefferson do you support companies rights to do what they want with there own products and services?

or do you think you government should legislate to ensure that they don't act in a biast manner?

It seems to me that you have no issues with bias from right wing companies and issues with bias in left wing companies.

Its time to make your mind up do you want freedom for companies to do as they will or not?
Click to expand...
Of course I believe a private company like Facebook has the right to censor posts it disagrees with. And since a very large percentage of the public has been deceived into believing Facebook is politically neutral, I have the right to inform them otherwise.
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
shagster01 said:
Yet nobody is clamoring to start a conservative competitor to facebook.
Click to expand...
They should. Conservatives got fed up with the liberal bias in Wikipedia so they created Conservapedia. I don't like that name though. The lefties didn't create "LiberalPedia" or "CommiePedia" or "PinkoPedia" or "SocialistPedia" or "LeftyPedia."

Nope, they're too slick for that. They gave it some neutral sounding name so that the unwary public will be deceived into thinking they are accessing some politically neutral info-bank. The folks at Conservapedia should have done the same thing. They should have called it something like "Infopedia" or "InfobankPedia" so that the public would be deceived into thinking they were accessing a politically neutral site.

But the only way that would have happened was if they first consulted a Christian who is also a deceiving shark. There aren't many of us around.

As Luke 16:8 says, "...the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

rexlunae

New member
Jefferson said:
They should. Conservatives got fed up with the liberal bias in Wikipedia so they created Conservapedia. I don't like that name though. The lefties didn't create "LiberalPedia" or "CommiePedia" or "PinkoPedia" or "SocialistPedia" or "LeftyPedia."

Nope, they're too slick for that. They gave it some neutral sounding name so that the unwary public will be deceived into thinking they are accessing some politically neutral info-bank. The folks at Conservapedia should have done the same thing. They should have called it something like "Infopedia" or "InfobankPedia" so that the public would be deceived into thinking they were accessing a politically neutral site.
Click to expand...

You took your ball and went home. Don't be surprised you're playing alone. In your own universe.

Jefferson said:
But the only way that would have happened was if they first consulted a Christian who is also a shark. There aren't many of us around.

As Luke 16:8 says, "...the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light."
Click to expand...

A shark whose main fishing technique involves posting a series of threads with the same, usually inaccurate title?
 
This Charming Manc

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Haven't you ever considered that you are so far to the right anything balanced seems leftie biased?

Jefferson said:
They should. Conservatives got fed up with the liberal bias in Wikipedia so they created Conservapedia. I don't like that name though. The lefties didn't create "LiberalPedia" or "CommiePedia" or "PinkoPedia" or "SocialistPedia" or "LeftyPedia."

Nope, they're too slick for that. They gave it some neutral sounding name so that the unwary public will be deceived into thinking they are accessing some politically neutral info-bank. The folks at Conservapedia should have done the same thing. They should have called it something like "Infopedia" or "InfobankPedia" so that the public would be deceived into thinking they were accessing a politically neutral site.

But the only way that would have happened was if they first consulted a Christian who is also a shark. There aren't many of us around.

As Luke 16:8 says, "...the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top