So this just happened: Facebook banning private gun sales

[sjfcontrol]

[the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform.

You are NOT Facebook's customer -- You're their product. Their advertisers are their customer. They "sell" you to their advertisers.

[C-dub]

I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

[chamberc]

I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm interested to note that, of the 3 such "private sale" FB groups I belong to, all 3 are still conducting business as usual this morning. Not sure what this whole hubbub is about.

[steveincowtown]

[the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform.

You are NOT Facebook's customer -- You're their product. Their advertisers are their customer. They "sell" you to their advertisers.

Anytime you can get something for free, you are the product being sold.

[rotor]

A big and very profitable ( I believe it was $1 billion last quarter) data mining company. I am not a member and don't plan on joining. Suit yourselves. Bad enough Google data-mines everything, don't need facebook.

[ScottDLS]

I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

This was kind of my point. Regardless of who is the customer, they are telling the "users" that they are providing a platform for discussion and social sharing. The don't have to, they can make up arbitrary rules, they can be in the tank for the commie Democrats like the rest of the media. It's not a Constitutional/legal free speech issue, but it's a "tolerance" (favorite lib word) and transparency issue. As a "target" of their media you have an expectation that they will deal with you honestly. Facebook doesn't; they're leftist, statist, freedom hating, anti-Christian, anti-Israel hypocrites and we ought to call them out when they are. We can't put them in jail, but we can make fools of them in other social media...

"They're a private company, no expectation of free speech...", So what. That's why I said that statement was a non-sequitur. Nobody is arguing that you have a legal right to use their platform however you please, they're just pointing out that their "policies" are inconsistent, immoral, and generally full of excrement.

Now as to the phone company, they could theoretically regulate the content of your speech over their lines. They're are private company right? It's not a free speech issue... But they are a common carrier and subject to utility regulation and wiretap laws...but that's not really a free speech issue, right?

[ScottDLS]

Ohh one more side note.... Didn't the Dallas Morning News ban classifieds for private gun sales around 20 years ago? Same thing as Facebook, just for the Dinosaur media...

Not a free speech issue either, but just shows DMN is as full of bovine excrement as Fakebook.

[mojo84]

There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or login to this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?

[dhoobler]

Gun owners respond to Facebook gun control policy

http://wate.com/2016/01/31/gun-owners-r ... ol-policy/

[ScottDLS]

There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?

Well the internet is really nothing but a bunch of mostly privately owned "sites", "applications", tools, etc. connected together by (mostly) privately owned infrastructure. Absent wiretap laws and utility regulation the phone company could tell you what you could write in your e-mail over their privately owned wires...but they shouldn't. Facebook, and eBAY, and DMN can refuse to let you use their classifieds for selling guns, just as they could refuse to print leftist propaganda, but they DON'T. A publicly open business can tell me I can't carry a concealed gun on their property or wear a (concealed) thong, or go "commando". Neither is really any of their business, as neither really affects anyone else on the property. So they can do it...Yes.... And we can say they are full of bovine excrement, which they are.


Edit to add: Remember when AOL tried to bust non-AOL users of Usenet groups for violating their "Terms of Service" even though Usenet is simply a cooperative...of sites posting newsgroup content...

[C-dub]

I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.

[C-dub]

There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or login to this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?

The problem as I see it is that AFAIK, no one is actually selling firearms on FB. They are merely agreeing to the conditions and completing the transaction somewhere else. This is a legal activity. There's very likely far more illegal and or immoral activities that are being done the same way utilizing FB that they won't do anything about.

[VMI77]

If you're using Facebook you're a revenue source for one of the most treasonous anti-American oligarchs on the planet....Mark Zuckerberg, right up there with George Soros.

[chamberc]

I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.

That instructor was not fired for, nor arrested for "violation of free speech". There is no such charge. An employer may terminate an employee for behavior they deem damaging to the organization.