Tucker: Mark Zuckerberg is making our 1st Amendment irrelevant after 215 years pic.twitter.com/eE6a3tVSuH
— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) May 4, 2019
-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Florida unanimously signed a bill protecting jews against ” harmful speech” in schools K-20. It is now illegal to be anti-Semitic or have any negative views regarding essentially any aspect of jews within Fl schools. The lies of the Holocaust etc. are secured as truth within a legal framework.
Because I live in Florida, I want to express my 1stA rights today.
Fuck all you Zionist scum.
Ron DeSantis ( our new govenor) what the hell happened to you?
President Donald Hussein Bush will fix it !
The demonrats and republicants……..which party is in the wrong with this Ohio ruling:
“We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” said a unanimous three-judge panel, giving the state until June 14 to submit a new map. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters.
The ruling said the current district plan “unconstitutionally burdens associational rights by making it more difficult for voters and certain organizations to advance their aims, be they pro-Democratic or pro-democracy.”
The court said the map, drawn for the 2012 election and used since, “dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined.” In each of the four elections under the 2012 plan, Republicans have won 12 of the state’s 16 congressional districts, leaving the Democrats with the remaining four”
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum- next up on the New Order of the Ages agenda…..destroy the American election process ?
As a Florida resident, I am embarrassed. And wrote the governor to say so, and requested him to veto the bill.
I take some pride in the fact my mother ate breakfast with LeRoy Collins, future Florida Governor 1955-61, often, when he would come go quail hunting with my grandfather. Their house in Welborn had no inside bathroom and a woodburning cookstove back then. I learned what slop jars were when we would visit…
Thanks Yo, for all you do.
How long before the bastards muzzle Tucker Carlson? He makes too much sense to be allowed to continue.
This censorship is long past unacceptable. These socialist social media companies need to be corralled or broken up–and fast before the right end of the spectrum has no voice going into critical upcoming elections, both in the USA and abroad.
OK, this kind of state-backed restriction (in Florida, and for Jews/Israel) on speech that is punishable by the State via fine/imprisonment IS the very definition of “censorship”.
Zuckerberg, Dorsey and the rest placing limits on what can be posted on a private/corporate website – one of billions – is not really censorship. It is property rights in action.
Pinterest and others in the top 100 – I don’t see anyone claiming censorship for not being allowed to post, for example, Porn there. Why can’t I post porn to Coca-Cola’s site – is that censorship?
Without property rights, the admin here at TBP, for example, would not be able to ban me (or anyone) for posting, for one example, porn. What if I start posting ads for porn and easy ways to earn money in every single thread? Does Admin, who pays the bills and uses time to run the site, have the right to make and enforce his TOS on his property? Can I go to Admins other properties – like his house or business or car – and place any singnage I want and claim “censorship” when he won’t let me do it?
Goal 24 of the communist 45 goals:
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
It may as well say “eliminate all laws governing property rights by calling them censorship….”
“Obscenity” is pretty subjective. I think some speech by some in congress, like AOC is obscene…and I can, at least, stop her from saying it on my property due to property rights being enforced. Stop enforcing them, even for the worst private sites, and there are no more property rights for anyone soon enough.
NO ONE has to use Facebook, twitter, and the rest. There are alternatives – like TBP! Anyone can use them and with wordpress as simple as it is, anyone can set up their own site. But that would be too hard…it is easier to devalue the work/success of others that disallow things (for any reason) and claim “censorship” if they balk.
Facebook is not the public square and those claiming it is are bolstering it’s power and doing a disservice to everyone.
I disagree. Goolag, You Tube, Fukbook, Twatter are the public square. They control 90% of the “action”. They don’t get it both ways, which they currently do. Either take on all comers (open and free) or control thought/content and be open to lawsuits for doing such. Everybody wants their cake and eat it too. Life doesn’t work that way.
Do you have to use them? I never use any of those outlets for news, debate, payments, etc.. and they are not necessary – I have zero “social-media” accounts and seem to be fine, but may have missed some memes and cat videos. They are businesses. Do you have the right to enter any business or post signs in front of any business that you are not part owner of? Do others have a right to post signs you find offensive or just don’t want there (for any reason) in your front yard, at your business or on your car?
90% of what “action” is controlled by them – posting memes and gossip? Where is that statistic from and what does it refer to specifically? Why not just use TOR browser (or others – there are like 20 now) and go to sites directly if you don’t like the stupid policies of sites like Facebook?
This issue isn’t about facebook banning people. It’s all about property rights.
Can The Burning Platform owner enforce a TOS (including banning/”censoring”) that you don’t like and disagree with or not?
If not, then there are no property rights. If facebook and others can’t enforce their own TOS (and I don’t like it or agree with it either, but it’s their property that they pay for and create), then neither can The Burning Platform or any other site. Your property and mine would be next.
Not paying anything for site access that costs real money and then believing you can dictate terms of use is the epitome of getting cake and eating it too – and you are right, life doesn’t work that way. People own their own stuff in the U.S. and can dictate how others can use it – just like you can dictate what, if any, signage others can place in your proerty or front yard.
On the other hand, ISPs are private, and the post office has been privatized. My phone service is private. Do they have the right to shut down my phone or internet service or not deliver my mail depending on my political viewpoint? If not, why not?
What about de-banking and cutting off access to credit-card and payment-transaction services?
A fair point and one that I had not thought about.
Those businesses are not in the business of direct-print-media, though. You can’t go to your ISP’s website (different than using an ISP to access the whole internet) and post anything. Same with your phone provider or post office or Coca-Cola’s corporate site. De-banking is different than violating a TOS on a site that allows you to post opinion and information and would violate civil rights law IF it was done solely based on a political opinion or even relaying alt-media information.
I get where it’s/you’re going, and as mentioned, I don’t like Facebook, their policies or other “social media”.
My concern is that I see Hegelian Dialectic – Problem, Reaction, Solution – at work:
Problem: Social media banned my favorite alt-media!
Reaction: This is bullshit, please .gov gods, step in and regulate!
Solution: .gov gods step in and regulate away property rights and determine what is ok on all sites, including TBP, infowars, zerohedge, and so many more.
And bingo, what was desired all along, namely the right to control what is posted on any site by .gov decreee, becomes instituted because it was “asked for”.
The assumptions regarding “social-media” regulation are many and include the belief that regulation only cuts one way. That is not how it has worked every time in the past. Regulation will spread, and history shows it will do the opposite of what it would seem at first glance and what was intended.
The larger point, as I see it, is whether these venues (FB et al.) are public utilities/monopolies. I think a case can easily be made for that. We already have regulations surrounding public utilities, which makes their monopoly positions (slightly) less onerous than they might otherwise be.
The post office, afaik, has to mail anything you put a stamp on, within physical limitations and barring illegal items like anthrax and kiddie porn. The post office is provided for in the Constitution because it was vital for economic development in just the same way the Internet is today.
Furthermore, we (American taxpayers) PAID FOR the development of the Internet, so to be blocked from using important parts of it based on someone’s ideological preferences is disturbing. The Internet is, to a good degree, *our* property, from which we have been alienated. Just as Big Pharma squats on the intellectual property developed by gov.-funded universities..
Even if this usurpation were not the case, where does the discrimination stop? How is it that the same people arguing fundie Christians must bake cakes for gay weddings can turn around and bar the “public accommodation” door in the case of these other public businesses? Incoherent.
—
These are just the superficial arguments. I know these won’t go anywhere, because (imo, and I assume you would agree) Google, FB, Twitter are not in any way “private” or “normal” capitalistic enterprises. They are clearly manifestations of the surveillance state, and as such are subsidized, again, by us taxpayers. This is the real reason the gov.-run and gov.-created Internet was developed, and the couple decades of relative freedom we got out of it were a serendipitous by-product, not the main intent. It’s like Charlie Brown got to kick the football… once.
I appreciate you responding in depth – I know it takes valuable time. I read your response word-for-word. Thank you for your insightful views.
What are the parameters to define a public utility? Does social-media rise to that level? An argument could be made but is Facebook really comparable to postal, electric, water, gas, etc.? The majority of people I know don’t ever use it and stats show highschool kids and down think it’s lame. The vast majority of content on social-media is personal pictures, memes, entertainment and gossip. Does that information/content make it a public utility?
The regulations that currently exist on, for example, utilities prevent competition and solidify current monopolies just as much, or more, than open markets (no new electric companies in my state in decades – only mergers). The regulations are double-edged in that they may provide for no discrimination, but also prevent new providers and almost all competition while dictating specific features of supply like “X-percent green” by X-date or removing certain potentials all together.
We paid for the internet, but we also paid for roads to get to businesses but we don’t get a right to post any signs we want at every business we want. We all kick in so that our little space is accessible to us and those we want it accessible to – most people don’t get access to our property.
Fundie Christians should not have to make gay wedding cakes if they don’t want to – and gay bars should not have to post pictures of hot chicks in tight clothes because I say so….And I agree people arguing they should, while at the same time arguing against sites like infowars having access to Facebook, are two-faced bearers of double-standards.
What we agree on most is this is all .gov controlled. Facebook, as I would bet you are aware, was funded by In-Q-Tel; “In-Q-Tel identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) to further their missions.”
And, of course, ARPANET is where the internet came from.
Maybe it’s all a bunch of intentional tail-chasing.
Property rights still matter though – the question, I think, is do Facebook and other private companies (but maybe they really are public if we really knew the CIA involvement level?) have them and can they exercise them as everyone else can?
Can they “be dickheads about it” (like copyright or patent holders often are), sums it up.
Well, most people don’t use the postal service to write letters to each other anymore, nor do most people have copper phone hook-ups, so I’m not sure whether obsolescence is a factor or not in what can be deemed a public utility.
Re. the roads.. We are not denied the use of the public way in a city or town because of the bumper stickers on our car, and we don’t (yet in the US) have people dis-allowing us from driving down the road based on what our political party is known to be, whether we are known to be racist or gay, or whether we are carrying bibles in the trunk versus Hustler magazines. If you went to Saudi Arabia, they would certainly have different feelings about those sorts of things.
I’ve said before: Rights don’t exist outside of what you can control by force, or what other people agree to concede to you.
Property rights “matter” to those who can impose them at the expense of other claimants. And copyright, which you mentioned, is particularly interesting: think of how the concept of the “public domain” in that regard has shrunken with time. It’s possible that libertarians and others (propertarians?) don’t concede that there is any such thing as a Public Domain whatsoever… I’m not sure.
I didn’t say that most regulations were desirable, but I would also point out that lack of regulation tends not to be a hallmark of any kind of civilization: people simply must—in one way or another—codify access to resources which are shared and/or essential. The Internet, unfortunately, has become essential to the current version of civilization.
Civilization is synonymous with complexity. Regulations have become complex because we are currently faced with complex things and because—in the absence of the personal information and capacity for trust and judgement we would have in small tribal bands, and in the absence of anything approaching a general and common understanding of or expertise in the matters at hand—we have ended up outsourcing many important decisions to lobbyists, lawyers, and other “policy-makers”. This is the result, however fortunate or unfortunate you may take it to be in its entirety… but this is always the result with Civilizations.
—
I’d like to know what the anti-regs people think about de-banking. Living without FB or Twitter isn’t the end of the world, but fucking with people’s banking and payments has to cross a line into treading on the other person’s property, wouldn’t you say?
From the 30,000 ft . view though.. banks aren’t really private organizations, either. All their money and power comes from us (we concede it to them), whether via the gov. or not. What they take away is only what we gave them.
=====
Lastly, re. my time: it’s not valuable.. it’s of no value whatsoever, since no one pays me for it. [And how can time really be mine, if people can rob me of it so easily? And then.. why do they rob me of it, when it’s of no value?!?]
Well, let’s boil it all down to what seems to be the main/real issue:
Can the owner of The Burning Platform censor/ban people at the site? Does he need a reason for censoring/banning someone if the site is free to users and he pays for/maintains the site?
I would say it is a matter of transparency and what the site is advertised as being. If Admin is paying all the bills (he’s not) then he can do what he likes. As we saw, certain advertisers felt that the site (when it was partially “theirs”) was being poorly used. Individual donors could do the same at some point. I don’t know what the finances are of the site, but if donors pay for the majority then I would consider that those folks should have a say in how editing of content is handled. If not, then no, Admin can do as he sees fit, I’d think.
At the same time, “The Burning Platform” has an editorial mission. It does not pretend to represent all viewpoints or to be a universal resource.
If FB said, “we are not the venue for everyone to talk to each other; we are only the cat-lady venue”.. then fine. The problem is when they pretend to want to include everyone in their “conversation”, but secretly shut folks down. FB and Twitter do not present themselves as having an editorial voice (though they do, and we are only now becoming aware of the extent of their censorship). They are trying to have things both ways.. Jim isn’t.
Fig-leaf aspects of this aside… since the conventional broadcast spectrum is limited, you need a public license and you need to prove that you serve a “public good” with your radio or TV station. Only in theory, the Internet is not limited in bandwidth, and so such licensing has not seemed necessary. (Again, I am not saying what is desirable, only what is). But, with anti-“Net Neutrality”, throttling, and now content censorship.. we see that the “unlimited” Internet has found itself with artificial, non-technological, limitations imposed by people for reasons of greed and power, just like with any other Private Takeover of a Commons.
I think it’s defined contractually whether you donate or not.
Making a donation to a group/church/etc. does not automatically confer some type of governing rights.
Buying shares in a corp/business might provide some governing rights though – depends on the terms of the contract.
A free site like TBP or Facebook certainly does not have to provide someone posting any guarantees on anything and that is spelled out in the terms in the liability and other sections.
Facebook never claimed they were the venue for everyone to talk to each other and, in fact, a thorough reading of their terms of service quickly dispels that idea. For example, it says this regarding others creating a site within Facebook:
“We may enforce against your app or website if we conclude you have violated our terms or are negatively impacting the Platform, and we may suspend your app or website, with our without advance notice, while we investigate suspected violations of our terms. We may or may not notify you in advance.”
“…or Negatively impacting the Platform” – that means they can ban you for whatever they want for whatever reason when/if they feel it is pissing off other users/customers. Even if they are wrong.
They actually do present themselves as having “an editorial voice” as you call it – and, in fact, an authoritarian voice regarding their site(s). There is no wanting it both ways, they wanted/got authoritarian control of the users that willingly signed up with no coercion or force necessary.
Shutdowns/suspensions of accounts aren’t “secret”, the process (including the “without notice” part) was/is spelled out clearly in plain language, but users had to do their homework and most were too lazy to take the time to read the terms spelled out in a few pages.
The fact is the site and its terms SUCK and people were dumb to sign up for it, regardless of how many did. There was no mandate and the terms were available for all to read.
Oh, and furthermore… the revenue of FB (for example) comes not only from .gov, but from all the users. It’s not “free” to users at all, because it comes at the cost of all their data being sold!
The way things work now, we assume that a person does not OWN the data appurtenant to his personal life: that FB can “mine” this data for a profit, and no harm, no foul. But I think TBP’ers would probably discern a harm, and some may throw their lot in with folks who are trying to exert property rights over their own personal data. Seeing as this data has value, why should the value not accrue (at least in part) to the original CREATOR of the value??
There’s a case where descendants of the woman whose cells were used for the famous “HeLa” cell lines used in cancer studies now want a piece of some kind of pie, with the idea that researchers could never have made advances without that particular raw material, for which she was never compensated. (I think this case has factors working against the family’s claim, but I don’t want to get the thread too far off track.)
https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-henrietta-lacks-johns-hopkins-20170213-story.html
I don’t disagree that Facebook generates revenue from participants content, but again, there is a VERY clear terms portion when you sign up that specifically says they are going to use your data FOR FREE and that it is part of the “trade” you are making where you get the ability to post personal information and they get to use it since you don’t pay anything for that service.
Should people be paid for exposing their data and letting Facebook use it to make a profit? Damn right they should.
Is that what people agreed to in the plainly written language of the Terms of Service? NO.
Most people didn’t read it. That is on them and they can shut down their accounts anytime and still be a living human being with friends, hobbies, association-groups, etc.
No one needed Facebook to enjoy life. It was all voluntary and again, the terms aren’t written in some hard to comprehend legal-language. It’s plain language and simple stuff – they tell you very clearly they are going to use what you post any way they want to make a profit:
“We collect and use your personal data in order to provide the services described above to you….
….This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products that you use. ”
One must read the contract when making a trade, whether there is cash involved or not, that is how trades work to prevent (as often as possible) future claims of bad faith. The fact that people didn’t read the contract and are now mad that facebook uses their data, doesn’t negate the contract.
The contract can be terminated at any time.
Sites like gab and dissenter might offer better terms, or not.
It’s the internet. Buyer (especially when “free”) beware!
P.S. I’m not really a fan (I don’t think) of the Hegelian dialectic since I don’t know enough about it… *but*.. the opposite of “Problem, Reaction, Solution” is “No Problem, No Reaction, No Solution”.
And maybe that is the case.
It certainly is the case when you take the 30,000 ft. view: that we’ll all be dead in 12 years. 😉
But it is also, from my limited understanding, the case in certain ancient philosophies.
if the bastards win,does it mean no more posts like this?
&t=1556991873&ymreqid=587a1262-89ed-f61a-01f9-bf00b6010000&sig=cVWEf8zVKkYTqZPbyXPyrQ–~C
big tech is doing this worldwide–facebook owns whatsapp,which spain’s independent leftist party uses–
it just got shut down over there–
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/whatsapp-which-is-owned-by-facebook-just-shut-down-the-massive-channel-used-by-spains-independent-leftist-political-party-podemos/