/liberty/ - Liberty

>>90061

>Either suck facebook's dick or support government speech laws, fuck you.

Or use an alternative. Like you are supposed to do in AnCap. Use an alternative and deny market share to the faggots who think they can decide who gets to speak and when.

>Also, why are you supporting monopolies (i.e. big social media sites)

You don't know what a monopoly is. Facebook isn't a monopoly just because people are too fucking stupid and complacent to go elsewhere.

>>90061

Facebook is not a monopoly and I never supported it. I don't support anyone who has worked with the Government to spy on citizens. Anyone dumb enough to be on normiebook deserves no better.

>This would make things worse for politics as people will no longer talk to each other, further increasing tension in an already politically fractured US

If people had intentions to talk they would do it. This isn't something that's stopping them. It's a Democracy, even with the added features of a Republic. Tension will always and forever be there as long as one side threatens the other's interests with their votes. There's nothing to talk over nicely, when at the end of the day they are still polar opposites vying for control.

>>90066

you need fb if you study

>>90067

>when at the end of the day they are still polar opposites vying for control

Mainstream american politics isn't two sides vying for control, it's two sides that differ a little but think they are polar opposites vying for control. At the very least, it might worth letting people know that the right isn't all nazis and the left isn't all commies so they can work their problems out on some level. But then again, libertarians aren't very good at that either because there are a whole host of issues that if you step out of line on will get you branded as "not real libertarian" like open borders, intellectual property, the state, etc.

>>90069

Our goal shouldn't be to "get both sides talking to each other," our goal is to stop or slow down the left in its various avenues of attack by any means necessary. Leftism is a cancer on society and there is nothing to be gained by trying to cooperate with them. Or have you missed the past hundred-odd years, in which anyone who tried "reaching across the aisle" to them just had their hand grabbed and viciously dragged further left? Leftists are r-selected vermin, and compromise with them is neither feasible nor desirable. If that means fighting on the same side as 'nazis', so be it–if there's one thing nazis are good at it's killing commies.

With regards to OP, there's a very clear answer to this dilemma–Facebook and the like are not merely private companies exercising their free will over their private property–they are actively petitioning a coercive organization (the state) to do violence on their behalf and impose its will over others. As such, there is nothing peaceful about its actions and therefore no problem with limiting them accordingly. More prudently, removing Facebook's influence means slowing down the leftist hellmarch a little more, and that means we get to enjoy a civilized society a little bit longer.

>>90068

One of my classes does have a FB group, but not all of them. There are other websites for that purpose that aren't devoted to shitposting.

>>90060

>This would make things worse for politics as people will no longer talk to each other, further increasing tension in an already politically fractured USA.

Status Quo. There can be and will be no discussion between anyone while communists and foreigners represent such a large sample of the population. People are unwilling to talk about anything with people who are fundamentally different from them or who they consider to be their mortal enemy. Just sharing the same site doesn't mean everyone is friends or discussing anything. Most people just look at other people to mock them. Most people are terrible subhumans.

If you support legislation regarding anything you're wrong.

>>90081

>Facebook and the like are not merely private companies exercising their free will over their private property–they are actively petitioning a coercive organization (the state) to do violence on their behalf and impose its will over others.

Every single company who has the money to influence politics, does. Politicians are the puppets of these people and the marionette has no control over the puppetmaster. Legislation here will only negatively affect smaller companies and individuals. It's best to escape the marshy swamp of ends-justify-the-means and get back to first principles anyway.

Facebook is merely a private company exercising their free will over their private property. They may also be trying to influence the government, likely for the purposes of self protection, but that would only imply the latter is wrong and not the former. Regulations on their speech affects them in the former not the latter (and are also unconstitutional and fundamentally wrong).

I fail to see how giving the government more power over speech is going to help create a more free and prosperous society.

>>90098

>likely for the purposes of self protection

Explain to me how censoring and shadowbanning anyone who doesn't get on their knees for the tranny agenda is "self-protection." It isn't, it's virtue-signalling in the name of a coercive government's political agenda; Facebook is acting as the enforcer of the Democrats in exchange for the latter giving them favorable regulation once they're in power. Far from complying with the government for self-protection, they're an active and willing accomplice to the state's myriad crimes against the citizens.

>I fail to see how giving the government more power over speech is going to help create a more free and prosperous society.

I'm not in favor of the government having more power over speech. I'm in favor of Facebook (which is acting as an agent of government) having less.

>>90083

yes but normie pick fb because they think everyone has it

>>90100

Pic context?

>>90100

Libertarian Lauren Southern PRing nazbols.

I was seeking help for myself by trying to have sex with animals but people are restricting me from doing it. If I am such a nuisance to you people when I'm not having sex, can't help but feel like youre trying to harm yourselves. You did this to yourselves. You like to harm yourselves I know you could take a step further and step off a tall bridge. You are working so hard for it all you need is the courage to take that final step you're almost there.

>>90063

This.

Also, the fact that competition doesn't produce immediate results is no reason to ignore principles, not only is the libertarian stance more intrinsically ethical, it also attracts (though again, not immediately) the most innovative and exciting people to the platform, which is a winning result over time.

If the founding fathers and others that fought for liberty can give their lives for the cause, I think the rest of us can switch/support social networking/etc. sites that respect liberty..