Mark Zuckerberg Announces Investigation Into Anti-Conservative Bias

[Damajin]

I demand that liberal views are not suppressed on Fox News, KNRS, Breitbart, the Blaze, Prison Planet, or any other right-wing extremism entertainment outlet.

Funny how they bitch about the very thing they have been doing for years.

And funny how those sites sprung into existence because the mainstream media like CNN, NBC, CBS, NY Times, etc would never cover the topics or issues they felt needed covering and provide the perspective that they were looking for. "Right wing" media is a relatively new thing in the media world, all things considered.

[Jingoism]

we were taught this in high school. not sure what the point was, though.

Meh, I remember having to read some ethnic poetry garbage in high school too(less in college though). I thought it was worthless then, now I'm much more certain of the fact.

[Saucerian]

It's pretty funny considering extreme far right is fascist, and extreme far left is communist. Right is silenced, because 'fascism, xenophobia, hitler, mussolini, death camps', but left and far left, hell, even communism, that brough more victims than fascism, is widely supported by liberals

More scary than funny, IMO. Atrocities are A-OK and overlooked, long as perpetrated by the popular/winning side.

Everyone remembers Hitler, far fewer remember Stalin. My grandparents fled Russia to get away from the latter.

And now here I am in America watching his 21st century female version about to take power here, wondering about a full circle.

[Endus]

No platforming is bullshit, and when a platform like facebook is damn near as ubiquitous as a street corner, claiming the "private business" defense is bullshit as well. They should remain neutral and let conservative idiots have their say, and you should be happy letting them spread their message because it makes it that much easier to see exactly how stupid they are.

"No platforming" as a concept is itself bullshit. It doesn't actually exist. What it actually is, is private owner's right to say "not on my platform". And the only way to abrogate that is to attack their property rights.

Don't pretend it's a pro-free-speech argument. It isn't. It's an argument against property rights.

As long as you have the right to stand on a public street and speak your mind, you have freedom of speech. Demanding private citizens give you their platform to broadcast that speech is going into something entirely separate from free speech.

[Glorious Leader]

Where does the conservative persecution complex come from? Is it in political "dna"?

[Orbitus]

All I ever see on Facebook are stupid conservative meme's that are almost always 100% false. IMO, Facebook needs to a do a better job filtering out that conservative garbage.

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.n...sands_meme.jpg

Yep, I see some of my friends passing along the same memes that have been debunked by multiple sources but they think they are true because Donald Trump shared them. Hell, Trump doesn't check the accuracy before passing them along. That is why I kindly post the snopes link or politifact link and go on about my day.

[PC2]

Censorship can be a good thing when it comes to supressing free speech.

Why do you need to suppress free speech if you have a good logical argument?

[Cyi]

The left and right wings in politics are objectively defined, not subjectively. That's the entire point. It's entirely possible for all political parties of a country to be right (or left) wing. The US is nearly there; the playing field has been shifting right for decades.

Otherwise, you could argue that anyone but the most extreme right-wing candidates are all "left-wing", because they're to the left of that extremist. While simultaneously saying that anyone to the right of anarcho-communists are "right-wing". Both views are contradictory, but that's the argument you are supporting.

It's wrong, because the left/right dynamic is objectively determined. The Democrats aren't a left-wing party; they're moderates. Some members (like Bernie Sanders) lean left, some (like Clinton) lean right.

To say that The Bern is a moderate that leans left pretty much proves the point that so many have been saying for so long, your view of what is moderate is so very far left of what the general consensus is. Bernie is a confirmed socialist which is pretty far from center. Its not a question of leaning, he is way over there.

[Endus]

To say that The Bern is a moderate that leans left pretty much proves the point that so many have been saying for so long, your view of what is moderate is so very far left of what the general consensus is. Bernie is a confirmed socialist which is pretty far from center. Its not a question of leaning, he is way over there.

Not once you get outside the American bubble, no. Which is more or less my point.

A lot of developed Western nations have socialist parties, not just a single guy who's a little socialist in some ways.

[Orbitus]

To say that The Bern is a moderate that leans left pretty much proves the point that so many have been saying for so long, your view of what is moderate is so very far left of what the general consensus is. Bernie is a confirmed socialist which is pretty far from center. Its not a question of leaning, he is way over there.

And there is where you are wrong. If you were to put Bernie Sanders on the Political Compass, he is left of center.

It is not his fault you are basically right where the Republican candidates are. You are SOOOOOOOOOO far right that of course he seems like a socialist. You are still wrong.

[nextormento]

As long as you have the right to stand on a public street and speak your mind, you have freedom of speech. Demanding private citizens give you their platform to broadcast that speech is going into something entirely separate from free speech.

This is awfully similar to "gays always had the right to get married [to someone they don't feel attracted to]".
Sophistry is just the natural outcome of taking the legislative framing when no request for legislation is made.
"They should be neutral" is criticism, not a request to relinquish their rights.

[s_bushido]

"No platforming" as a concept is itself bullshit. It doesn't actually exist. What it actually is, is private owner's right to say "not on my platform". And the only way to abrogate that is to attack their property rights.

Don't pretend it's a pro-free-speech argument. It isn't. It's an argument against property rights.

As long as you have the right to stand on a public street and speak your mind, you have freedom of speech. Demanding private citizens give you their platform to broadcast that speech is going into something entirely separate from free speech.

"They should have just gone to the restaurant down the street that will actually serve niggers."

[Endus]

"They should have just gone to the restaurant down the street that will actually serve niggers."

Why don't you go try and figure out where it specifies you have any "right" to use that platform against the owner's will.

I'll wait. This is why it's completely incomparable to your example; those black people do have a right to be served. You do not have any right to your message being broadcast or given a platform. That is not part of the right to free speech, and it never has been.

By your argument, I should be able to demand that Fox air my 8 hour reading of the entire Twilight series, and if they won't, I've been "no-platformed". It doesn't matter if my performance and/or its content are stupid, or it won't make them any money, or it interferes with their business; they have to do it or it's an attack on my freedoms. It's a ridiculous position.

[s_bushido]

Why don't you go try and figure out where it specifies you have any "right" to use that platform against the owner's will.

I'll wait. This is why it's completely incomparable to your example; those black people do have a right to be served. You do not have any right to your message being broadcast or given a platform. That is not part of the right to free speech, and it never has been.

Who determines what is or is not a "right?" I'm sorry...what's that? We do? Excellent. Now that we've got that sorted, I guess we'll get down to the process of figuring out how to adapt to a world of constant connectivity.

I fail to see how the "find another website" response you're endorsing is any different than the "find another restaurant" one bigots have used.

[Endus]

Who determines what is or is not a "right?" I'm sorry...what's that? We do? Excellent. Now that we've got that sorted, I guess we'll get down to the process of figuring out how to adapt to a world of constant connectivity.

Really? Your argument is that we should respect non-rights and be obliged to abide by them because someone in the future might make it a right?

No, that isn't how this works. Rights are defined under national laws, and international treaties like the ICCPR. If it ain't in there, it's not a "right", and you don't get to make them up like this.

[Tennis]

He literally looked up the definition of censorship and added free in front of speech.

Apologies. I meant suppressing hate speech.

[Espe]

And there is where you are wrong. If you were to put Bernie Sanders on the Political Compass, he is left of center.

It is not his fault you are basically right where the Republican candidates are. You are SOOOOOOOOOO far right that of course he seems like a socialist. You are still wrong.

It's crazy how far right the fringe lunatic conservatives in the US have dragged our politics.

I mean they don't even bother with bigoted dog-whistles anymore for the Southern Strategy, they just come out and openly say whatever racist, sexist, homophobic thought pops into their head at any moment. It's telling.

[Cricket22]

Of course there's a legal and moral difference. People choose to be conservative. People don't choose the be gay. Oh...wait... Guess they might not like that difference, eh?


My money's on: "only because they can't." Who had criminal charges brought against them for the discrimination stuff anyway?

Filing criminal charges is not the same as a federal lawsuit -- and that's what my money's on.

Our betting pols are going wild on this.

[s_bushido]

Rights are defined under national laws, and international treaties like the ICCPR. If it ain't in there, it's not a "right", and you don't get to make them up like this.

This is like some crazy Bizarro world where you're playing the conservative in this argument, right?

It's pretty funny, except that the number of people who could/would be effected by this is far greater than the number who stand to be inconvenienced by a bigoted shop owner telling them to get lost.

[Kraenen]

Really? Your argument is that we should respect non-rights and be obliged to abide by them because someone in the future might make it a right?

No, that isn't how this works. Rights are defined under national laws, and international treaties like the ICCPR. If it ain't in there, it's not a "right", and you don't get to make them up like this.

So before there were anti-discrimination laws... what the hell is your argument?

- - - Updated - - -

This is like some crazy Bizarro world where you're playing the conservative in this argument, right?

It's pretty funny, except that the number of people who could/would be effected by this is far greater than the number who stand to be inconvenienced by a bigoted shop owner telling them to get lost.

It really is conservative... interesting.