[quote1) I'm not sure youtube isnt actually worse &][/quote]

Youtube is a Google operation.

Yeah, people can try other platforms but then watch what happened to Parler early on, a gang=pile of big tech to silence any opposition-- they needed to bring in AWS (Amazon Web Services) to do that by not allowing Parler any server capacity without buying/building their own. AWS is one of the largest, if not the largest, supplier of cloud computing to the U.S. government.

As bowhunter has pointed out, most of the global digital information flow is only through a handful of big companies who have each other's back. Most people are being played and don't even know it. Some of my tinfoil people are on other, more minor platforms such as Bitchute (I think out of the UK) and Telegram. Some of these other places are fighting back but the big guys gained advantage under Uncle Sugar's protection that still exists.

I will tell you how it is different. The book site says it dosen't discriminate against anyone and only removes content that is false. But as you are aware it does discriminate against anyone who dosen't fall in line with the predetermined correct think. Whereas this fine site has the rules listed up front in less than a half a page and spells out exactly what will get a user removed. These two sites are not at all alike and you trolling along trying to compare them makes you look weak minded and slow. Please wake up but don't go woke.

I don’t have to watch the news or be on FB to find the enemy. They have shown themselves long ago and I govern myself accordingly.

Who cares what each site's rules are? That's irrelevant. The fact is that a privately owned website can host whatever content they want.

What's the other choice? What do you think Facebook should do? Do you think the government should force them to allow content they don't want? That doesn't seem like a very conservative idea.

LG,

Most of these new conservatives are not actually conservatives. They love big government as long as it's their big government.

I’ll repost that for you when Bill Gates’ Mexicans are farming your land and you are making 300 rubles a month working for the government filling out their citizenship paperwork. LMAO!

You packed a lot of crazy into one long sentence. Nice work.

Thank you for keeping a list of my posts for future posting. I'm consistent so it's not really necessary--but you do you.

Let’s see, FB is a private company and can censor what they chose and the government shouldn’t interfere...
But a private baker can refuse to bake a cake and the government steps in and shuts them down...
What am I missing?

Comparing Tman to Facebook is like comparing Apples to Angels, it's asinine.

Even Google could not compete with Facebook in the social media realm, they hold a Monopoly. Beyond Monopolizing the social media space Big Tech clearly works in concert to hurt any competition that attempts to arise. If Facebook is going to control the information released on it's platform while promoting ideas they like and censoring those they don't then they need to be treated as a Publisher and be held responsible for the content of their site.

My recollection is that the cake baker won at the Supreme Court.

I don't want the government intervening in much of anything. That's why we have the Bill of Rights--to keep the government from doing so.

And as stupid and destructive as I think Facebook is, it is a private company like you said. It can censor one group and allow another to scream as loud as it wants. I agree, there are some inconsistencies as Facebook seems like something more than just a private company.

I think all social media is destroying our country, by the way--as I type this on an internet forum....

Not irrelevant at all the book site hides behind the government's rules and states it does not publish content. Yet at the same time it removes any content it does not agree with and does not follow it's own guidelines therefore becoming the editor/publisher it claimed it is not. Should they follow the laws they hide behind? Is that a real question?

There is a big difference between the two sites. Facebook and sites like twitter are covered under Section 230 whereupon they can’t be sued for content true or untrue that is posted on their site and as such agreed to operate without censor. Section 230 was intended for these sites to be a free avenue of public opinion. It’s obviously blatant these same sites are censoring. As a consequence of their censorship - section 230 protection should be repealed if our government truely cared about free speech.

I doubt Mr. Dobbins is afforded the Section 230 protection

It wouldn't hurt if they admitted to doing it. Same for the MSM.

And that surprises you why ???

When private companies are able to steer public opinions enough to sway elections then it is an issue for everyone to be concerned about. Action should be taken to allow open and free dialogue on those venues or they should be done away with.

A lot of conservative people whine about Facebook. Ive asked several why they dont just delete it then? Everyones answer is the same: “ its how i stay in touch with friends and family.” The real answer is: “ im addicted to Facebook.” Phones function even better nowadays than before FB was around and youll find out who you are actually close to when you delete that crap. Get off facebook!

You mean like making people mow their grass? Big government starts somewhere

I agree with your premise though, people need to get off FB encourage their friends and family as well. Let the market decide not a bureaucracy

Mr Dobbins doesn't promote false narrative.

I've heard MeWe is supposed to be good and not censor stuff, and claim to have their own servers so that unlike Parler they can't be shut down by the competition. But, I don't do Facebook or other social media and aren't interested in doing so. So I haven't checked MeWe out, those of you who can't seem to function without Facebook, Twitter, etc. should probably check it out though. A little competition in the marketplace wouldn't hurt.