Amendment the 1st says….
In one of Zuckerberg’s more egregious moves, a disabled veteran who runs a conservative media outlet and spent $300,000 for ads on Facebook, and who has a very large following (over 3 million people), has been banned from Facebook along with his non-political coffee company. Click on the link to see the “not found” FB page. https://www.facebook.com/MilitaryGradeCoffee . https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/16/facebook-deletes-disabled-veterans-page-without-warning-after-taking-300000-for-ads/ Facebook has also deleted Kolfage’s FB page for his company Military Grade Coffee.net, as shown above. The left-wing alternative media outlet Reverb Press has also been banned from Facebook. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/19/facebook-blacklists-left-wing-site-that-praised-purge-of-infowars/ Reverb Press was just one of the hundreds of pages, which included independent news outlets, banned from Facebook and Twitter this month, such as the news page of a disabled veteran who had invested more than $300,000 in Facebook advertising. In an article published following Reverb Press’ ban, Infowars declared, “Reverb Press’s last post was on October 11th, the day of the banning, so it appears the site has been shut down. This is why you defend free speech no matter who is in the crosshairs.” I tried the link for Reverb Press and get “not available”. Neither Kolfage nor Reverb Press’s owner has reported whether or not any money paid for advertising was returned to either of them. At this point, this appears to me to be as much an FCC matter as a First Amendment matter. I have dealt with the FCC regarding someone who said he represented my cable TV company and wanted to know if I wanted internet service. This was some time ago before I bought a computer for use at home. I told him no, that I didn’t have a computer at home, and had no use for internet service. Undaunted, he signed my name to a contract I had not agreed to and the cable company started billing me for service I didn’t have, so I contacted the FCC and filed a complaint about it, with copies of my driver’s license and other documents requiring a signature, demonstrating clearly that I had not signed any contract for internet service. It was fraud, plain and simple. RCN very quickly sent me a revised bill and gave me about 9 months’ worth of free cable TV. In my view, while Mssrs. Kolfage and Belisle (Reverb Press) have completely opposing views, they both have a valid FCC complaint against Facebook.
Either Zuckerberg ponies up and gives them what they paid for and restores their access, or they get permanent free FB ads for the remainder of FB’s existence, along with the hundreds of others whose FB pages were abruptly shut down. Zuckerberg owns Facebook, yes, but his facility is presented as a place for open communication. He doesn’t own what people say.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Dumbass Bullshit
Two words for the Zuck; cultural purge.
I ain’t advocating, just being a weatherman.
It’s neat how people can’t freaking learn from history…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_destroyed_libraries&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Human_action
Trump needs to declare FB, Google and Twitter as monopolies. Break them up and then regulate them as utilities.
Just like as America did with Ma Bell, Standard Oil and electric companies.
I worked for a gentleman who had been a VP of the Wisconsin State Telephone Association when Ma Bell got sliced and diced up.
He said it would change everything about telephones in America.
Well, he was right about that, except that he said it would wreck telephone service forever.
Then cam MCI with cheap long distance, the rest of the telephone service providers and we now have loads of cell phone providers, I never pay long distance fees and have good service pretty much all across the USA…
So, break them up and make certain that they can have no further involvement in anything like social networking…
Stick them in the mailroom at AT&T for a few years, They’ll understand how America works after that !!!
Better yet, just run them out of business, take them over like obozo did GM!
It is folly to implicate the 1st A in this FB/Twitter matter. If the gov’t were to force the private concerns to reverse its actions or were found to have been behind the striking of the deleted accounts, then, yes, the Constitution would be in play. To my knowledge it has done neither, and your asserting otherwise is mistaken.
Ah, you missed the point, AirCav.
Facebook presents itself as both a public forum and a place to advertise your business.
If you pay a fee, as Kolfage did, to promote your product on Facebook and then you shut him down because you down’t like his politics, but do not refund the money he spent to advertise, you’ve committed fraud. As someone points out below, that can be either FCC or FTC oriented, but it is fraud, plain and simple.
If Zuckerberg does not want anyone with wide-of-center political views on Facebook, he does not indicate that. His purported intent is to rid FB of ‘fake news’, but since there are over 800 FB subscribers who have been shut down by his direction under the guise of ‘fake news’, if any of them have paid him money to advertise, then he has to refund it, period.
That’s the first part. The 2nd part, which is related to the 1st Amendment, can be tested in court and should be. Does a publicly-held company like Facebook, which has a current value of $154.04/share of common stock on the NASDAQ, have the right to restrain content generated by its customers?
And who IS Zuckerberg to judge what is and is not real news as opposed to fake news? Did he shut down other pages such as the networks and news syndicates and companies like the Tribune and the NYT, as well as Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek?
That needs to be tested in the legal system, considering that both Kolfage (conservative) and Belisle (liberal) were shut down.
That was my point. It’s not just about 1st amendment stuff, it’s also about defrauding people when you offer a service and then shut them out of it.
I missed no point. That FB committed fraud, as you say, is a legal conclusion. Let me know if FB is prosecuted and, if so, whether it is found guilty. That aside aggrieved subscribers have recourse to take civil, action against the company. Finally, there is no constitutional issue presented here, notwithstanding wish otherwise. You seem not to appreciate that shareholders do not the gov’t make or that a corporation does not cease to be a private entity merely because one can purchase shares in the corporation.
One other thing about that public issue. FB the corporation (or whatever its registered corporate name is) has NO legal duty to satisfy me, you, or any other member of the public. Its duty is a fiduciary one owed solely to its shareholders.
It won’t fulfill that duty by refusing to please customers. And there are other issues involved here such as the difference between a publisher and common carrier. FB has held itself, as has Twitter, as common carriers, but has begun holding itself out as publishers by their actions. Both the fraud issue, and the Common carrier vs publisher issue places companies like Twitter and FB on a much different plain where they are afar more vulnerable legally than they were.
Zuckerberg is a P.O.S. and the whole facebook B.S. should be shut down imho,, everyone on there should get out, find another blog..one worth a shyt imo
Re: no duty (and not being a lawyer, and never having played one on TV), but from the discussions online I’ve read (ie, this isn’t my original idea), if a website regulates content (other than, say, no porn or no nudity or whatever they decide their standards are), then the website changes from being a neutral provided of webspace to a publisher and different legal standard (such as, I’m told, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act could apply. A publisher has a different responsibility for the content than a neutral content provider under DMCA.
Pretty much everything that is going on today was predicted by a supposed blind prophet/disciple in a cave 2K years ago, and/or a fellow named Orwell 70 some odd years ago. Don’t have a spaced out in your face page twit/clit book or smart phone. Bastards track me enough thru this machine and my debit card. Not sure if Zuckie/Suckie would be so much in violation of 1st A, (FCC issue) or restraint of fair trade (FTC issue). Again, The Golden Rule comes into play. (He who has the gold, makes the rules) Ma Bell is terrified of what is called a “Presidential Complaint (notification routed to Co pres.) and an FCC Complaint. Magic words/threats of that will get immediate response to any issue. Cable TV Companies are not as heavily regulated by the FCC as the phone companies, there fore can get away with more crap, short term. Disclosure, 20 year Ma Bell employee outside plant/line construction. Past employment, design, sale, installation, programing, and maintenance of SMATV/CATV systems.
Ex’s Right Wing News and Military Coffee founder.
Breitbart News Link
Triple Amputee Veteran Brian Kolfage Vows to Haul Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg into Court
A law firm might look into a class action suit, with all the people getting blocked from FB.
It’s all about the contracts and going it alone will mean the end of an individual. Unless that ind’al is a Soros, he’ll go broke trying. If FB doesn’t like the negative publicity–and who wants a pissed-off triple amputee Veteran against them?–the only way to go is class action. That will tie shit up for years and years. FB thinks it’s being a responsible corporate partner. It is, unless one is not a Democratic Socialist.
I have twice been restricted by FB for comment inconsistent with their social norms or some such shit. So, twice like a good boy I sat on the sidelines. Now I no longer post. I read what my friends have to say and if I want to respond to them, I send them an email or phone call. FB is a bully but, unfortunately or otherwise, they are the biggest gorilla bully in the room. They suck but I can live without them. I don’t need them; they don’t need me. Makes us both happy as hell. My life will have become too shallow if/when it comes to the time when I feel that I MUST post on social media.
The a.h.’s blocked me for not giving them my phone number? But wouldn’t want on there now, no matter what!
There are a great many add-ons and programs available to best keep yourself private, but even those who avail themselves of such things make the mistake of joining these social media monsters. Don’t like a service or a product? Don’t use it. It’s as simple as that. B/c I’m not a social media user, I don’t get to comment in many places that require a FB or similar account. I know. Those places don’t know how lucky they are.
Would you say the same about electricity? Water? Trash? Etc.
Like it or not – FB is now the “public square”
We are talking at odds here. FB may be the newest public square but so long as gov’t isn’t telling FB what it can and can’t say, what it can and can’t do, then the 1st A to the US Constitution is not involved. As for water and other utilities, I did not follow that. Would I say the same what about them?
The electric company doesn’t like your politics – therefore, you are cut off from electrical service to your house…
The water company doesn’t like your politics – therefore, you are cut off from water service to your house…
The trash doesn’t like your politics – therefore, you are cut off from trash pickup service from your house…
Which is why these utilities are highly regulated as they are near monopolies.
Do the same for FB/Twitter/Google
+++++
“As for water and other utilities, I did not follow that. Would I say the same what about them?”
You are comparing apples and oranges. Social media is far different from public utilities.
Bullshit.
FB is the modern Public Square. They are a monopoly. They ban people whose politics they don’t like. They have great influence on elections. They can destroy people/businesses and their reputations at a whim.
+++++
“You are comparing apples and oranges. Social media is far different from public utilities.”
Since you are pulling no punches, neither will I. You clearly do not grasp the application of the 1st A if you are going to insist that FB has violated anyone’s 1st A rights. And although you did not say that explicitly, your repeating that FB is the new public square implies that it ought to be subject to the same treatment as the old public square. Well, it is. The government is not restricting FB content. The better comparison would be a privately held park whose owner prohibits speech making unless it first approves of the speech to be made. As for the utilities, some are held by municipalities and the gov’t is involved. Thus, in those instances, the gov’t would be prohibited from denying service based upon one’s politics. In the matter of privately held utility companies, every customer has a contract with the utility, whether you realize it or not, and the bases for termination are listed in that contract. If a privately held utility violates that contract, the consumer has legal recourse. Same with FB. It’s about the contract, not the 1st A. Put another way, you are wrong as wrong can be.
The primary problem with FB is the contract. They terminate people without cause, then won’t explain why they did, just make vague references to their “standards” but refuse to tell you what you violated. Their conduct is fraudulent and is a criminal issue as well as a civil tort.
Opine all you want, but you have absolutely no right to pretend that your opinion is fact when it is not. Your opinion is your opinion, and that is all.
Meanwhile, social media is entirely optional. Use it if you want to; ignore it if you want to ignore it. No one is suggesting that you must participate and that if you want to participate in the “new public square” that you must do it on any particular platform.
You might want to check the definition of monopoly again. Apparently it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Mark Zuckerberg has always claimed that Facebook is a neutral technology “platform,” but the company has actually operated as a de facto publisher. Since that would make Facebook closer to the New York Times than, say, Verizon, people such as Alex Jones seem to have a weak case.
Still another issue is that the Trump administration has rolled back prior Obama-era FCC regulations on net neutrality. Even if Facebook was indeed closer to Verizon, it probably wouldn’t make all that much difference. Utility companies also tend to be controlled not so much by the federal government as by state public utility commissions.
For what it’s worth, there also seems to be something of a TAH double standard in play here. Awhile back, Jonn Lilyea bounced Commissar for being a disruptive influence. At the time, I don’t recall anybody jumping to The Commissar’s defense because of First Amendment issues.
Jonn’s weblog; Jonn’s rules. Zuckerberg’s platform; Zuckerberg’s rules. If Alex Jones is not happy with Facebook’s rules, he can always start his own Facebook.
A very glib answer. No, actually, it is the US government’s rules. Zuck just lives in that world.
FB is a private company that depends on public infrastructure built with the money/assistance of the US government.
Just like railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, public bandwidth, etc. Use the assistance of the “people” through the US government and you BETTER act for the good of the people.
Now go read up on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Now, after FB and Zuck have “made it” they want to rule like progressive dictators and ban/destroy people who they don’t like their politics.
Nope. Doesn’t work that way.
Which is why, for example, the electric company can’t ban you from receiving electricity if they don’t like a blog of yours.
But fools like you would say “go out and start your own electric company if you are not happy with the electric company’s rules…”
+++
“Jonn’s weblog; Jonn’s rules. Zuckerberg’s platform; Zuckerberg’s rules. If Alex Jones is not happy with Facebook’s rules, he can always start his own Facebook.”
You just don’t get it 2Banana and those who do you are treating as the ones who are wrongheaded about this.
Thanks for the lecture, 2Banana. Since you’re apparently an expert on Sherman Anti-Trust, can you point out the specific provisions in the law that Facebook happens to be in violation of? Also, if you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you file a class-action lawsuit and bring Facebook to account? I’m sure you can find an available attorney to help. Michael Avenatti might have some free time now that Stormy Daniels got shot down.
Funny, I thought all the ISPs and large commercial companies built almost all the internet infrastructure. It ain’t all DARPA and has not.been for decades.
Use of existing right of ways? Eminent domain? Use of public property?
You really think commercial companies built the “internet infrastructure” all by itself?
It ain’t like building a McDonalds on a empty lot.
You saying that McDonalds developed the street, sewer, power lines and stuff leading to that empty lot? All by itself??
Are you really that thick or just pretending?
It would be as if McDonalds used thousands of miles of governmental right of ways, condemned massive amounts of private property through government eminent domain and uses massive amounts of public property to cook a Big Mac. And then becomes the only restaurant in town as it bought up ever other restaurant.
And then decided “no burger for you” because they didn’t like a political post of yours.
Thanks for making my point. One is nothing like the other.
since net neutrality would have made these issues worse, good thing it is gone.
The issue is simple. Facebook is a monopoly and has no actual competition.
Why? They bought up everything in sight to ensure this outcome.
As for the private blog comparison, no dice. Facebook is not a private blog. Facebook is a data mining company. What it mines is information to be sold as a raw material to companies and entities who repurpose the raw material into commercial products for sale to third parties. This raw material, however, is not “bounty of the earth”, but the actual information owned by you, the facebook account holder. Because facebook is not required to pay for the rights to the information, it is really just stealing your information for resale.
What does this mean? It means that like 3M or Peabody Coal, it can be regulated as to how, when, how much, and must pay someone for the rights to mine the data. This means that like other mining efforts in the geophysical domain, mining in the cyber domain must be regulated and those who lose use or control of their information and data must be compensated. It also means that the mining company must share the market with competition.
The same is true for services like youtube. Youtube is a most accurately described as a trucking company. When you ship a package, your ownership rights over the package do not transfer to the carrier. Neither should your ownership of a video posted on youtube transfer to that carrier. Youtube has no grounds to delete videos, accounts or block content unless that video clearly breaks existing law. Because it is the content owned by the poster intended for broadcast to others, not a private conversation in a blog, the same rules that apply to TV broadcasts should be in effect.
But, Americans are too stupid and too lazy to care that the FANG companies essentially decide their fates now.
First of all, you’re mostly preaching to the choir. I’ve had no respect for Zuckerberg going back to when the little weasel was stealing photos from sororities at Harvard.
Still, it would be hard for me to accept the argument that Facebook is a monopoly. While it’s true the company has globally around 1.6 Billion end users, only about 150 million are American and such domestic growth has mostly stopped. Another dog not barking is that Facebook likely has a fairly large percentage of duplicate accounts which throw the numbers off. A point being that market dominance is not the same as being a monopoly.
What’s also apparent is that being able to opt out of Facebook makes it not the same as trying to opt out of, for example, an electric company.
I also understand the implications of Facebook, Google and others in their relentless data mining. Left to his own devices, he’s demonstrated this on multiple occasions, Zuckerberg would probably follow everybody around with a proctoscope if he thought it was worth a few bucks– and he could get away with it.
Still, unless I’ve missed something, Zuckerberg’s disregard for privacy gets closer to a Fourth Amendment issue than a First Amendment one. YMMV
Perry – Lars also tried to doxx some of us here on the site. I’m thinking that was the last straw for him.
I’m not involved with facebook or twitcher so no comment which I just commented on not commenting so I’ll leave it there.
actually, everyone with any type of internet presence is involved with facebook and google. They just don’t know it because they can’t see those companies digging in their yard to find gold.
Twitch is owned by Amazon. So, if you’ve ever used Amazon, you’re involved in twitch.
Instagram is owned by facebook, along with many other social media constructs.
If Facebook or Amazon doesn’t own it, than most likely Google owns it.
It is not a 1st Amendment issue if it isn’t a government entity in question. And Facebook is not the sole internet forum. This a contractual dispute.
Facebook wants it BOTH ways:
They want to be treated as a platform, in which case they must uphold free speech.
But they also want to be treated as publisher, in which case they can censor but also can also be sued for slander/libel for EVERY post on their publishing site that is not true.
Assuming that what you just wrote is true, what FB wants and what the constitutional reality is concerning its business relationship with its customers are two distinct things that do not merge.
Ex-PH2, the thing that absolutely amazes me is that you got the federal government to actually respond to a complaint you made AND take action!
Holy shit!
I’ve made 2 separate complaints to the FTC, as well as the State of Maryland and the BBB.
Like tits on a boar, useless.
No fucking response. Well, to be fair to the State of Maryland, they tried, but came back with “The company didn’t respond. Oh, well, we tried. Have a nice day.”
I finally got satisfaction by writing the CEO and the company’s Resident Agent in one case. In the second case, my bank (God bless you USAA!) simply pulled the money back.
So, good on you. You must really have the gift of blarney to get some friggin’ bureaucrat to get off their ass and do their job!
Gee, I wish I had read the post right above mine.
Still, I’ve seen incidents where companies have refused to do business or continue service with someone they disagreed with. The only response possible was to bring the power of the consumer down on top of their thick skulls.
Okay, I’m checking out for the day. Obviously, the comment above is meant for my comment below.
Sheesh!
I’m ready to be edumacated on this, but I would say the conundrum here is that the Federal Government is not involved. Which tells me that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply.
Facebook can cancel accounts all day long if they don’t like their content and the subscriber can’t do shit about it.
Of course, FB runs the risk of pissing off other subscribers and losing business which is probably the only way you can hold them accountable.
Now, the $300K for the ads is another story. Sue the fuck out of FB for LOTS of dinero.
Am I wrong?
Facebook is not a privately-held company. It has shareholders whose current holdings are valued at $154.05 per share. If people start to bail out of their shares of FB, it drops the value of the company.
Zuckerberg does not just answer to himself, despite what you may thing, He put his company on the NASDAQ to raise money to run his little empire. He does not actually produce a product, and while there is probably a massive income generated by advertising revenues, his company does not pay dividends. Without advertising revenues, Facebook is just another online meetup spot.
Zuckerberg answers to investors, not just the people whose pages he blocked. The stock has already dropped considerably in value in the last two months and there is a high count of shares being shorted – a way to bet on a bad deal and profit – and this shutdown of several hundred subscribers based on an assumption will diminish the value of the stock further.
That’s the financial side of it. It’s very likely that Zuckerberg may be getting a lot of flack from the people who run the corporate end of FB. I think there is much more to come on this story.
Reading the Breitbart article, the $300k is what he spent in advertising with Facebook over the years, it is not money currently spent. He has presumably already received the value in ads for the money.
The Book of Face has been hit with a number of security issues over the last couple of years – including one a couple of weeks ago that affected 50 million users:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html
They can’t seem to keep their software secure and can’t stop the leaking of information. It’s a train wreck… and they want all of our info.
“Facebook can cancel accounts all day long if they don’t like their content and the subscriber can’t do shit about it.” The subscriber may sue under the contract. If the contract allows the company to construe contract provisions how it wants and when it wants, such a contract is unlikely to be enforced at law. The problem is the immense resources available to FB that are not available to its subscribers.
With respect to your question, no you seem to have a grasp of this issue, in my view.
They have canceled accounts that post stuff they don’t like and the excuse for it is that accounts have violated the rules. Then they ignore you when you want to know what you violated, and they simply say “have a nice day.”
From all appearances there is a case for defamation. Suckbook has an obligation to tell you what you have violated when they kill your account. In the case the maimed Af Vet who they deleted also has a more detailed case that could well sink Suckerburg. It couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
I was wondering whether Christine Ford, the PhD who had a violent sexual fantasy involving Justice Kavanaugh is back doing whatever she does. I never found out, but I did learn that a few weeks ago, the city of Palo Alto intended to honor her with some proclamation. My point is that the site that reported the story allowed comments. I laughed at what I read. One after another comment what been deleted and the space where it had been now occupied by this: “[Post removed.]” Here’s the site, Palo Alto Online if you want to see for yourself. BTW, see how many “Likes” the deleted comments had.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/10/02/palo-alto-to-honor-christine-blasey-ford-with-proclamation
Fuck pinko Zuck and his Ass Burgers! 😉
Fuck Zuck.
Hello. SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case regarding cable access channels very similar to the current social media content censoring issue. I don’t have the number but it will be argued. This term most likely. This result will be having some effect, and probably will result in a second case being taken for further definition
Clearly the article author hasn’t read the First Amendment despite posting a graphic quoting it. The First Amendment reads “CONGRESS shall make no law…” Mark Zuckerburg is not Congress and Facebook is privately owned and indeed does own everything posted on Facebook. The First Amendment restricts the government, not private entities.
I don’t see where the FCC has anything to do with Facebook. Unless you believe that the internet is a public utility subject to regulation.
Facebook is a business and will succeed or fail within that model. Don’t like it, start your own awesome company and see how far you can push your customers before failure.
Consisder a startup company named “you can’t say that”. See how that works out.
Oh, and without the internet (it will happen),
there is no Facebook.