So what is it Facebook, Diamond and Silk's race or their politics that prompted you hurting them?
Meanwhile Facebook tracks and sells your data even if you are not on Facebook.
Meanwhile Facebook tracks and sells your data even if you are not on Facebook.
Mark Steyn: Only In America
EBL: Zuck almost passes Turing test
The Virginian: No appeal to Facebook
Thread Reader: Diamond and Silk shut down
Daily Caller: Exclusive on D&S and Facebook
PJ Media: Facebook Deplatforms Diamond and Silk
AoSHQ: Facebook hates Diamond and Silk and The Morning Rant
The Lid: Facebook reconsiders and The NOT Dangerous Diamond and Silk
AoSHQ: Facebook hates Diamond and Silk and The Morning Rant
The Lid: Facebook reconsiders and The NOT Dangerous Diamond and Silk
American Mirror: 'Unsafe to the community...' Facebook takes on Diamond and Silk
Instapundit: Social Justice for Diamond and Silk, Punch Back Twice As Hard and Anti Social Media
This really doesn't look good. Personally, I do believe free speech is a right to speak protected by the government. I'm actually fine with a platform choosing what speech to provide (unless they take taxpayer dollars). Of course, that needs to go for all things. You can't make a baker bake a cake and then allow FB to ban political speech for which they disagree.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fears of a return to Jim Crow; first it is currently lopsided anyway as AoSHQ points out regularly. Second, a free market can really solve this. Refusing markets hurt income potential. Some will be happy with an exclusive cliental, but there will still be a place for more open conversation. For example, we can have a conversation here at blogspot (Google) rather than say AshleyMadison or Tinder (examples of exclusive conversation based on topic, but then not necessarily exclusive via banning). Facebook is only one platform. It's a good platform, but I'm old enough to remember IRC, and I still have a mIRC app when I want to use it.