What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ron Paul Now Locked Out Of His Facebook Page - Yeah, This Is Nothing To Worry About, Conservatives and Libertarians -- Just Your Old Run Of The Mill D (1 Viewer)

rockaction said:
JAA said:
Did you read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words I guess.

If you read the article it explains why his FB page was banned.  I would also recommend to go to his public Facebook page.  There is a lot of conspiracy and lies there.  Not at the Q level, but with about 3 clicks it was clear to me why his page was banned.

I get it that people are upset he is banned, but the article explains it and his FB page corroborates it.  :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA said:
Thanks for the kind words I guess.
Click to expand...
I edited my post, but you responded too quickly. I just wanted you to know why you get one word answers from me for what you think might be legitimate questions and then thought better of it. My apologies, both in content and form.

So Paul has always been a crank. That his stuff is worthy of banning now is questionable. Paul was third or fourth in the 2008/2012 Republican primaries. Who determines what is fringe is sort of the point here. If conspiracy theories exist, they're just as much on the non-transparency of government dealings and the size of the institutions then they are on the holder of such ideas, in my opinion.

And sorry again about before. I just went off of impulse instead of thinking about what I was saying, actually. Consider that moving forward, I'll try and be clear and precise in my dealings. I certainly read the article. The word "purge" comes directly from it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA said:
Thanks for the kind words I guess.

If you read the article it explains why his FB page was banned.  I would also recommend to go to his public Facebook page.  There is a lot of conspiracy and lies there.  Not at the Q level, but with about 3 clicks it was clear to me why his page was banned.

I get it that people are upset he is banned, but the article explains it and his FB page corroborates it.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
I just watched a CBS interview where Speaker Pelosi said she knows the Russians have something on Trump.  I didn't see anything saying this hasn't been confirmed as a factual statement or that it is a conspiracy theory.

 
rockaction said:
I edited my post, but you responded too quickly. I just wanted you to know why you get one word answers from me for what you think might be legitimate questions and then thought better of it. My apologies.

Paul has always been a crank. That his stuff is worthy of banning now is questionable. Paul was third or fourth in the 2008/2012 Republican primaries. Who determines what is fringe is sort of the point here. If conspiracy theories exist, they're just as much as the non-transparency of government dealings and the size of the institutions then they are on the holder of such ideas, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Remember Ross Perot?  

 
BassNBrew said:
Remember Ross Perot?  
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I supported him at the age of eighteen in what has to be the most embarrassing support of a candidate since I've become an adult. I never voted, of course, because I was eighteen. But I wanted a viable third party in the U.S. Who knew what would arise from its ashes in the form of Trump and Trumpism (a former Reform Party candidate, this is the same coalition that got severed in '92 between GHWB and Ross Perot).

 
rockaction said:
I edited my post, but you responded too quickly. I just wanted you to know why you get one word answers from me for what you think might be legitimate questions and then thought better of it. My apologies, both in content and form.

So Paul has always been a crank. That his stuff is worthy of banning now is questionable. Paul was third or fourth in the 2008/2012 Republican primaries. Who determines what is fringe is sort of the point here. If conspiracy theories exist, they're just as much on the non-transparency of government dealings and the size of the institutions then they are on the holder of such ideas, in my opinion.

And sorry again about before. I just went off of impulse instead of thinking about what I was saying, actually. Consider that moving forward, I'll try and be clear and precise in my dealings. I certainly read the article. The word "purge" comes directly from it.
Click to expand...
No worries - I get it.  Lots of people rub others the wrong way.

As Americans we do need to work together and live together.  Ill do better at my part.  :thumbup:

 
Ron Paul = Uncle Leo 

He's an old man, gets confused and probable just forgot his password.  Hint: ILoveAyn*69

 
BassNBrew said:
JAA said:
Thanks for the kind words I guess.

If you read the article it explains why his FB page was banned.  I would also recommend to go to his public Facebook page.  There is a lot of conspiracy and lies there.  Not at the Q level, but with about 3 clicks it was clear to me why his page was banned.

I get it that people are upset he is banned, but the article explains it and his FB page corroborates it.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
I just watched a CBS interview where Speaker Pelosi said she knows the Russians have something on Trump.  I didn't see anything saying this hasn't been confirmed as a factual statement or that it is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
I was angry at that interview and I wish CBS would have called her out on making that claim.  I don't like NP myself.  I think she is a poor leader of people as described in the interview.  You need to groom your successor and build the team.  She hasn't done that.  I also believe she is an arrogant, pompous, and self absorbed career politician.  Less of them please.

Edit - I happen to agree with her claim.  However, I dont think its right for her to use her platform to speak on it.  She needs to be more professional than that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
BassNBrew said:
Remember Ross Perot?  
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I supported him at the age of eighteen in what has to be the most embarrassing support of a candidate since I've become an adult. I never voted, of course, because I was eighteen. But I wanted a viable third party in the U.S. Who knew what would arise from its ashes in the form of Trump and Trumpism (a former Reform Party candidate, this is the same coalition that got severed in '92 between GHWB and Ross Perot).
Click to expand...
Im like 3 years younger than you and was in the exact same boat ... exact same

 
I could go on about NP.  My baseless speculation is that she purposefully didn't build the team so they would continue to need her.  Such horrible leadership.

Being a true leader is hard.  You have to work yourself out of a job.  That's your role, that is how to be a servant leader.  We need more of these folks in the public sector.

 
BassNBrew said:
I just watched a CBS interview where Speaker Pelosi said she knows the Russians have something on Trump.  I didn't see anything saying this hasn't been confirmed as a factual statement or that it is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with FB? 

 
rockaction said:
I think he's getting at how mainstream politicians push conspiracy theories and the network news is giving her their imprimatur by broadcasting it.
Click to expand...
FB isn't network news.  

I agree there should be more checks and balances in the news too, with push back on things that would toe that line.  

I guess my feathers aren't very ruffled about the FB and Twitter blocks.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
FB isn't network news.  

I agree there should be more checks and balances in the news too, with push back on things that would toe that line.  

I guess my feathers aren't very ruffled about the FB and Twitter blocks.  
Click to expand...
As for the bolded, I know. The network news is regulated, even.

My feathers are a bit. Everyone's mileage over a private corporation choosing to serve particular end users and not others is going to be a widespread source of disagreement that doesn't fall so neatly within preëxisting ideological bents. It's no surprise that people on the left who are tech savvy (often first adopters) view this as private property that is sanctified by its private nature; no surprise that people on the right who have adopted technology (often somewhat unwillingly) view it as more of a public necessity.

 
KarmaPolice said:
Good grief.  

Now equating Twitter bans to rounding up groups of people to die? 
Click to expand...
It's really a rebuttal of the slippery slope fallacy, wherein people who draw arbitrary lines around censorious actions or other actions are rebutted through the use this quote. A bit heavy-handed for sure, but par for the course in internet discourse.

 
rockaction said:
KarmaPolice said:
FB isn't network news.  

I agree there should be more checks and balances in the news too, with push back on things that would toe that line.  

I guess my feathers aren't very ruffled about the FB and Twitter blocks.  
Click to expand...
As for the bolded, I know. The network news is regulated, even.

My feathers are a bit. Everyone's mileage over a private corporation choosing to serve particular end users and not others is going to be a widespread source of disagreement that doesn't fall so neatly within preëxisting ideological bents. It's no surprise that people on the left who are tech savvy (often first adopters) view this as private property that is sanctified by its private nature; no surprise that people on the right who have adopted technology (often somewhat unwillingly) view it as more of a public necessity.
Click to expand...
Ya know - that bolded is incredibly insightful.  I would never have thought about it in this manner.  If we make this assumption, I can see why people would believe something they rely on is being taken away.  The reality it that it isnt being taken away, just that there are different companies which offer the same service.

 
KarmaPolice said:
Good grief.  

Now equating Twitter bans to rounding up groups of people to die? 
Click to expand...


rockaction said:
It's really a rebuttal of the slippery slope fallacy, wherein people who draw arbitrary lines around censorious actions or other actions are rebutted through the use this quote. A bit heavy-handed for sure, but par for the course in internet discourse.
Click to expand...
 "guess my feathers aren't very ruffled about the FB and Twitter blocks."

Personally I think it's pretty fitting.  I don't particularly care or like the Trumpers so my feathers are ruffed.  Paul is a crazy loon so I really don't care.  So on and so on.... 

 
rockaction said:
It's really a rebuttal of the slippery slope fallacy, wherein people who draw arbitrary lines around censorious actions or other actions are rebutted through the use this quote. A bit heavy-handed for sure, but par for the course in internet discourse.
Click to expand...
As to this and the above reply, I don't fall into either group you describe.   I just don't see it as a 1st issue or censorship issue.   I think it was the Tristan Harris pod that referred to it as we have the right to free speech, but not the right of broad reach (something on those lines)  

These companies are in over their heads imo.  Maybe they saw it coming, but its probably shame on us as well for letting FB become outer go-to for news and info.  Now they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Their algorithms and monetization incentives are out of whack.  

I guess I have not bothered to look at a list of who's been banned on the site and why.  Is it 100% conservative leaning folk? 

 
JAA said:
Ya know - that bolded is incredibly insightful.  I would never have thought about it in this manner.  If we make this assumption, I can see why people would believe something they rely on is being taken away.  The reality it that it isnt being taken away, just that there are different companies which offer the same service.
Click to expand...
Regulation is different, but what if Spectrum kills my cable service because I'm a Panthers fan.  That's probably lawful and you would be right in saying that I have the option of dial up.

 
BassNBrew said:
 "guess my feathers aren't very ruffled about the FB and Twitter blocks."

Personally I think it's pretty fitting.  I don't particularly care or like the Trumpers so my feathers are ruffed.  Paul is a crazy loon so I really don't care.  So on and so on.... 
Click to expand...
See my reply above.  My stance isn't about what side it is, its that I don't view it as a censorship issue, hence why my feathers aren't ruffled over this.  

 
Everytime I click on the "okay" to accept Terms of Service on any website, it goes without saying that I just neutered my rights.

Move on, or write your congressman/congresswomen, or ##### into the void

 
KarmaPolice said:
I think it was the Tristan Harris pod that referred to it as we have the right to free speech, but not the right of broad reach (something on those lines)  
Click to expand...
This stance has appeal ... however: do we get bogged down by conceivable definitions of "broad reach"?

 
BassNBrew said:
JAA said:
Ya know - that bolded is incredibly insightful.  I would never have thought about it in this manner.  If we make this assumption, I can see why people would believe something they rely on is being taken away.  The reality it that it isnt being taken away, just that there are different companies which offer the same service.
Click to expand...
Regulation is different, but what if Spectrum kills my cable service because I'm a Panthers fan.  That's probably lawful and you would be right in saying that I have the option of dial up.
Click to expand...
Cable is different as you mentioned because most of that is negotiated at the town level.  For example, my town has an exclusive deal with Comcast.  No other cable service is allowed.  Such a joke, but it was negotiated before my time so I need to roll with it.  Now, the origin of it is important as Comcast paid to have all the wiring done in town.  However, that contract has come and gone.  There should be some competition now.

 
KarmaPolice said:
As to this and the above reply, I don't fall into either group you describe.   I just don't see it as a 1st issue or censorship issue.   I think it was the Tristan Harris pod that referred to it as we have the right to free speech, but not the right of broad reach (something on those lines)  

These companies are in over their heads imo.  Maybe they saw it coming, but its probably shame on us as well for letting FB become outer go-to for news and info.  Now they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Their algorithms and monetization incentives are out of whack.  

I guess I have not bothered to look at a list of who's been banned on the site and why.  Is it 100% conservative leaning folk? 
Click to expand...
These companies are on a slippery slope, but you are right shame on us.  

It's interesting that the automotive industry seems to always have options and even as companies merge, others form.  That's in a business that isn't very lucrative.  You get into some areas of the tech realm and everything consolidates down to a couple of options. In other areas like streaming that does;t seem to be an issue.  Just strange when it comes to internet speech that one or two platforms have dominated.

 
KarmaPolice said:
Doug B said:
This stance has appeal ... however: do we get bogged down by conceivable definitions of "broad reach"?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is shooting off right-wing conspiracy theories in the local watering holes. A half-dozen of the usuals are listening in.

Suddenly, the American Stasi raid the joint, looking for one Ron Paul. "Mr. Paul ... didn't we warn you before about 'broad reach'? You're spreading lies to six people in here ... oh, and the bartender makes seven.' Too broad ... you'll be coming with us ..."

 

 
KarmaPolice said:
As to this and the above reply, I don't fall into either group you describe.   I just don't see it as a 1st issue or censorship issue.   I think it was the Tristan Harris pod that referred to it as we have the right to free speech, but not the right of broad reach (something on those lines)  

These companies are in over their heads imo.  Maybe they saw it coming, but its probably shame on us as well for letting FB become outer go-to for news and info.  Now they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Their algorithms and monetization incentives are out of whack.  

I guess I have not bothered to look at a list of who's been banned on the site and why.  Is it 100% conservative leaning folk? 
Click to expand...
I was just explaining why he posted that. It's not my position. I just know what BassNBrew was getting at.

I'm conflicted about the banning because of the public/private distinction you make (not being able to post on Facebook is certainly not prior restraint by the government), but unhappy that it seems to be almost all conservative people while Chi Com's embassy supports the sterilization of women and justifies concentration camps on their feed and it isn't subject to review.

And they do have an impossible situation on their hands. They generally use algorithms, from what I understand. I'd had a post of mine showing Patrick Kane stickhandling blocked once he got accused of rape (I had posted the stickhandling thing days before the charge because I was showing my nephew some tricks and drills and wanted him to watch the best -- oops), and I know they're not watching my posts as I post, so...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
Everytime I click on the "okay" to accept Terms of Service on any website, it goes without saying that I just neutered my rights.

Move on, or write your congressman/congresswomen, or ##### into the void
Click to expand...
No, you haven't. It's boilerplate language which can be gotten around in either the doctrine of contracts or any other implicated doctrine one can think of. It's never that easy.

 
rockaction said:
Mister CIA said:
Everytime I click on the "okay" to accept Terms of Service on any website, it goes without saying that I just neutered my rights.

Move on, or write your congressman/congresswomen, or ##### into the void
Click to expand...
No, you haven't. It's boilerplate language which can be gotten around in either the doctrine of contracts or any other implicated doctrine one can think of. It's never that easy.
Click to expand...
A.  I no longer read ToS.

B. If I get banned, I move along.

C. I checked my calendar - Doctrine of Contracts is not on my to-do list until 2022.

 
rockaction said:
I was just explaining why he posted that. It's not my position. I just know what BassNBrew was getting at.

I'm conflicted about the banning because of the public/private distinction you make (not being able to post on Facebook is certainly not prior restraint by the government), but unhappy that it seems to be almost all conservative people while Chi Com's embassy supports the sterilization of women and justifies concentration camps on their feed and it isn't subject to review.

And they do have an impossible situation on their hands. They generally use algorithms, from what I understand. I'd had a post of mine showing Patrick Kane stickhandling blocked once he got accused of rape (I had posted the stickhandling thing days before the charge because I was showing my nephew some tricks and drills and wanted him to watch the best -- oops), and I know they're not watching my posts as I post, so...
Click to expand...
I would agree that if that is in fact the case, it's a little more worrisome.   I will 100% admit that I have bascially 0 online/social media presence, so I really don't know who is being banned and if there are equivalent pages on the other side of the spectrum that is going untouched.   

I am all for there being checks and balances online, but the problem is these outlets are sooooo huge that they can't possibly start this after the fact without it looking a bit suspect.   So either they didn't care that it would get to this point or they didn't have the foresight to realize the power that they possessed.  

I don't think they have any incentive to wrangle in their algos because their $ is generated by keeping our chimp minds on their site for as long as possible, and we all not what does that the more effectively.   There is 0 way they can police billions of posts as to their content and factual nature, so I guess that is why we are at the point that we are with the bannings.  

 
rockaction said:
I was just explaining why he posted that. It's not my position. I just know what BassNBrew was getting at.

I'm conflicted about the banning because of the public/private distinction you make (not being able to post on Facebook is certainly not prior restraint by the government), but unhappy that it seems to be almost all conservative people while Chi Com's embassy supports the sterilization of women and justifies concentration camps on their feed and it isn't subject to review.

And they do have an impossible situation on their hands. They generally use algorithms, from what I understand. I'd had a post of mine showing Patrick Kane stickhandling blocked once he got accused of rape (I had posted the stickhandling thing days before the charge because I was showing my nephew some tricks and drills and wanted him to watch the best -- oops), and I know they're not watching my posts as I post, so...
Click to expand...
Is it possible you are combining alt-right* view points with conservative view points?  I don't see any conservative ideologies being censored.  What I see being censored are lies and inciting of violence.

* - This is prolly a poor term to describe those views, but I could not think of a better one.  I am open to a better term.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED "The Trouble With Socialism Is That Eventually You Run Out Of Other People's Money." (4/22/22 21:05PST)
2 3
Replies
138
Views
6K
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
T
LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
305
Views
18K
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
3K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top