Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PSPS

(13,644 posts)
4. As usual, the discussion mistakingly brings up the "alarm free speech advocates" canard.
Sun May 21, 2017, 04:09 PM
May 2017

There is no "free speech" or "first amendment" when it comes to a private company and its publications or products. Facebook is under no obligation whatsoever to allow anything at all, let alone what's discussed in the article. It makes me laugh when they feel they have to "decide" that "snap the bitch's neck" is really OK and will be "allowed." Try to place an ad in the New York Times with such a phrase and see if they'll publish it.

Facebook is in it for nothing more than the money. The more people that use it, the more money they get for the advertising they run. Like most self-entitled under-taxed billionaires, Zuckerberg has no social conscience, no decorum, no sense of decency.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Revealed: Facebook's inte...»Reply #4