• @Furbag
      link
      English
      17 months ago

      Okay, so you have no clue what you’re talking about. Got it 👌

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -27 months ago

        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

        • @Furbag
          link
          English
          17 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -17 months ago

            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.

            • @Furbag
              link
              English
              17 months ago

              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.