Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
Presidential candidate believes Meta’s chatbot can reliably reveal shadowbans.
You're viewing a single thread.
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn't be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.
Okay sure, but there's nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.
Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn't apply to them.
The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov't money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.
Meta is not the government. Something being government funded does not make it an apparatus of the government. There has been no curtailing of 1st amendment rights here.
There has indeed been curtailing of 1st amendment rights. We all remember the twitter files I'm sure. You can bet anything that same crap happens on meta platforms. Surely there is an argument to be made on the curtailing of 1st amendment rights and whether these social media companies are an apparatus of the gov.
But yea according to all these expert lawyers in the comments nothing to see here.
nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with the first amendment.
No, they have to follow laws.
Which law are you referencing?
You agree to their EULA and TOS when you make your account. In that, there exists a clause that states that you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all at the site administrators discretion.
So explain to me again how meta is in the wrong here?
All companies have to follow laws. It's not rocket science.
Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.
Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules
Okay, so you have no clue what you're talking about. Got it 👌
Corporations have to follow laws. It's pretty simple? I am refuting your statement that they don't have to follow laws. It's up to you (once you grasp the concept) to continue the debate here
I am refuting your statement that they don’t have to follow laws.
What kind of nonsense strawman is this? Quote me on where I said that, because I didn't anywhere in any of my posts.
I am falling asleep debating you honestly
This is what you wrote if you wonder
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn't be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
It's a big stretch to call this a debate.
I feel like the context of that statement is self-evident, considering it's a top level comment, but since you seem to be stubbornly obstinate about it, I'll break it down for you.
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This is in direct response to RFK complaining that his first amendment rights were being infringed by Meta. The thing that presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. apparently doesn't understand about the constitution is that 1st amendment rights shall not be infringed by the U.S. government. No law or statute can be passed that would limit or remove one's freedom of expression. However, as I mentioned in another post in this same comment chain, Meta is not a government entity. By using their platform, you agree to their rules. They get to set the rules as whatever they want and you agree to abide by them so long as you are an account holder. If they decided that they don't want anyone to say the word "Facebook" anymore and started banning people for saying it, that would be fully within their rights as a private entity, albeit unfair. This is no different than a platform like Lemmy banning you for posting Nazi shit or CSAM. You do not have unlimited free speech in private forums, and that's a fact.
So when I said "Meta can do whatever the fuck they want", I'm not sure how you possibly came to the conclusion that what I meant was "Meta doesn't have to follow laws". Of course they have to follow laws, everybody does. But if they aren't breaking any laws, they can do as they please with their platform. When I asked you what the law in question was that was being broken, you responded with nothing but deflection, because you're a clueless simpleton and you have no idea what you're talking about.
This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
Given that I previously highlighted how out-of-touch RFK is with the substance of the constitution, this should come as no surprise. Anybody stupid enough to use a response from a AI chatbot as "proof" of anything is technologically illiterate and deserves to be ridiculed.
"Debate" over. You are blocked.
Private company in what way? The company is publicly traded - there are rules and regulations that organizations have to abide by. it's not totally lawless current state ... They're legally beholden to shareholders to maximize value. They can do what they like but probably don't want them allowing certain folks to have a platform (moderating the platform). Meta uses the grey area to manipulate and addict users, that's just their business practice to drive value and generate views/engagement with their platform.
Agree this dude is unhinged.
private company in that it is not owned by the government. Those are the two categories.
Either they're owned by the government or they're owned by private citizens. Being traded on the stock market, or traded privately, or not traded at all makes no difference to them being a private company
EDIT: publicly traded still means privately bought and owned by private citizens and private businesses/companies. At no point does the government become involved.
They sure have received a lot of government/taxpayer money for being such a private anti free speech company.
Tesla just got $17 billion from the government, is Musk now owned by the USA government? No.
A coal miner just got laid off work and is collecting his first unemployment check while he looks for new work. Because he got support from the government between jobs, does that mean the government owns him like a slave?
Or perhaps you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Yes, that seems to be the case.
I'm just saying there can be a case made in front of a judge about the government funding these companies and then using these companies to reprive people of their 1st amendment rights as they have been proven to have done on X.
But whatever you say... Coal miners.... Unemployment.... Between jobs.... Slavery... Wtf are you talking about?
as for "what I'm talking about" - the same thing you are. Government giving money.
Tell me, how is the government giving money as an unemployment check different to the government giving money to a company? And if your logic is "if the government gives you money, that means the government owns you, that means 1st amendment", then tell us all how someone who is getting money from the government isn't just as owned and controlled?
Because you're an idiot, that's how.
There is no case, because they're not the government. End of discussion. 1st amendment has nothing to do here.