Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Vector, Feb 27, 2014.
I dont like it but i put up with it for now
*yawn* barely newsworthy
So restriction of speech is ok?
What are you talking about Queen of Thunder?
Just like Armslist.
Not having a policy in place makes Facebook more open to the possibility of litigation I would think.
Essentially, nothing has changed; they promised to try a little harder to police it and to send an email to the offending party if someone reports it.
Facebook is a private entity and they are free to place whatever restrictions they want on the voluntary users of their services.
We restrict speech here at THR, far more strictly than Facebook does.
There is no harm in just looking, don't see why it should be blocked.
Originally posted by Pizzapinochle
Of course I realize they are a private company. My statement was kind of a joke. However, it seems we have more and more of this backdoor action everyday which makes it seem like we live as such at times. See this is where law gets kind of grey to me. This kind of violates the right to free speech IMO. You could argue that yes, it is a private company, but it is also on the internet which is considered public domain. I guess they can get around that though by saying you can just not use their service. Whatever, I don't care.
deleted>'. They datamine everything about you including your network of personal relationships.
Naw . . . . I don't use FB. And maybe Zuckerberg was right about what he said regarding those who continue to do so.
You can go to your children to ask persmission to post things if you like, I won't play that game.
almost wish the anti-gun groups had gotten their way and gotten themselves banned from Facebook for being organizations almost 100% exclusive to discussion regarding firearms...
you know, like the law enforcement gun buybacks that are now banned in Colorado under the new gun control laws.
And here is where we disagree. Facebook is a publicly traded company. It's business is transacted on government owned property aka public easements (local,state and federal). These easements are government property and therefore Facebook has no right to censor.
That has got to be the strangest, least logical legal arguments I've ever heard.
This may be your opinion, but it has no basis in reality. At all. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of just about every concept upon which you claim to base your opinion.
Anti-gunners put pressure on Facebook. Facebook essentially responded with "we are not going to restrict users from expressing themselves, but we will make efforts to improve our policing of activity to help ensure that we are not facilitating anything illegal." Bravo on them.
There is a WaPo article with some Brady lackey lamenting that FB "fell short" in its response.
Separate names with a comma.