Ask Me Help Desk - Facebook cancels Reagan

Facebook cancels Reagan

FB had a permanent ban on children's book publisher Heroes of Liberty . Heroes of Liberty publishes children's books ; biographies of such figures as Ronald Reagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and economist Thomas Sowell .

When called out on it, FB claimed the ban was in error.
Facebook reinstates conservative Heroes of Liberty account (nypost.com)

Some rabid lefty in FB employ pulled the trigger in their zeal to censor conservatives . In this case Heroes of Liberty had already paid FB for advertising and that is the real reason they were reinstated . Someone at FB reviewed an appeal by the publisher and still slapped it with a permanent ban. So it was not an 'error' .It was a deliberate act of censorship.

Apparently, an illustrated biography celebrating the achievements of President Reagan is no longer permissible according to our Big Tech cultural overlords,” Mandel wrote. “They have informed us that our content is ‘disruptive’ and locked our ad account, our data banks, our digital assets.
“They sunk our investment just like that, with a curt e-mail message. We appealed and were informed that the decision is final and permanent,” she added.

Big tech not only censors content of their sites ;they conspire to shut down competing conservative platforms and now their censorship is in books their ideologues oppose. Their actions are and should be covered by anti-trust provisions that already exist in the law ;or new laws addressing their monopolistic behavior have to be passed ;and special protections written into the law for them eliminated

The key part of your article was reinstated. You wingers should take a lesson for common sense while you double down on conflation and look for matches to burn library books. Amazing how easily you engage in stuff you accuse others of doing.

example please . The remedy for bad speech is more speech not suppressing it .

Conservatives want to eliminate library books about LGBT+ issues.

I don't want those books "eliminated " . I just don't want them part of school curriculum.

Quote:

Conservatives want to eliminate library books about LGBT+ issues.

There is not a shred of evidence for that. We've already discussed it here. It was ONE repub in Texas who simply requested information. There has been no talk about burning books. The great objection was to PORN that was made available to middle schoolers including a book that described and pictured men and boys engaged in sex.

I don't really know what it means to "double down on conflation" as regards to anything repubs are trying to do.

So it's just fine with conservatives that fiction and non-fiction books about LGBT+ issues are available to any age in public and school libraries?

Internet providers, in their argument for 230 clause protection, stated that they didn't have the technology to monitor and edit the content on their sites, as such they should not be held responsible.That is clearly no longer the case.

Quote:

So it's just fine with conservatives that fiction and non-fiction books about LGBT+ issues are available to any age in public and school libraries?

The allegation was that cons wanted to burn books. You then said that cons wanted to eliminate them. Neither one of you has so much as a speck of evidence for either claim. Cons have been very clear that the objection was to porn books that glorified sex between men and boys, an activity that is illegal to begin with. You have actually never said whether or not you oppose young children reading porn. Perhaps you can clear that up now.

I'm OK with books about the LBGT deal as long as both sides of the argument are represented. You OK with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The allegation was that cons wanted to burn books. You then said that cons wanted to eliminate them. Neither one of you has so much as a speck of evidence for either claim. Cons have been very clear that the objection was to porn books that glorified sex between men and boys, an activity that is illegal to begin with. You have actually never said whether or not you oppose young children reading porn. Perhaps you can clear that up now.

What about sex between two men? two women?

Quote:

I'm OK with books about the LBGT deal as long as both sides of the argument are represented. You OK with that?

What are "both sides of the argument"?

Quote:

What about sex between two men? two women?

Not sure what your point is. If it's a description, then children shouldn't read it. If it's simply mentioned, then fine. But even at that, the parents should have a big say in it.

You have yet to say if books describing adult men taking advantage of boys in an illegal manner should be in a middle school library. Care to comment?

Quote:

What are "both sides of the argument"?

The fact that many religions regard homosexual behavior to be immoral should be mentioned. The fact that there is no genetic connection to homosexuality should be mentioned. The fact that men and women are clearly made to be sexual partners with members of the opposite sex should be mentioned. The fact that many children, teens, and young adults consider themselves to be homosexuals but then change and live their lives as heterosexuals should be mentioned.

What do you think so far?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You have yet to say if books describing adult men taking advantage of boys in an illegal manner should be in a middle school library. Care to comment?

As a negative, yes. The parents, who have been previously alerted, or even have the books available on a "parent shelf", can then discuss that sort of situation with their children.

Quote:

The fact that many religions regard homosexual behavior to be immoral should be mentioned. The fact that there is no genetic connection to homosexuality should be mentioned. The fact that men and women are clearly made to be sexual partners with members of the opposite sex should be mentioned. The fact that many children, teens, and young adults consider themselves to be homosexuals but then change and live their lives as heterosexuals should be mentioned.

Yep! And other misunderstandings should be discussed also. And be sure to research and discuss the science. And what happened to binary in Genesis 3.

I can make a clear distinction between a school library and a public one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I can make a clear distinction between a school library and a public one.

Yes, and a school library will have a special collection for parents, not for students.

Quote:

And be sure to research and discuss the science.

You mean like this?

"The fact that there is no genetic connection to homosexuality should be mentioned. The fact that men and women are clearly made to be sexual partners with members of the opposite sex should be mentioned. The fact that many children, teens, and young adults consider themselves to be homosexuals but then change and live their lives as heterosexuals should be mentioned."

Now perhaps you can respond to them with some specifics?

Quote:

And what happened to binary in Genesis 3.

Nothing. Still there like it always was. Your idle (idol?) speculation means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You mean like this?
"The fact that there is no genetic connection to homosexuality should be mentioned....

Nope, not genetics. Hormones.

Quote:

Nothing. Still there like it always was. Your idle (idol?) speculation means nothing.

I've posted this before. God created humankind as binary. Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities.

Quote:

Nope, not genetics. Hormones.

Would you like to take a guess as to what determines which hormones are produced? If you answer "genetics", then you get to move to the front of the line.

Quote:

I've posted this before. God created humankind as binary. Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities.

Except that the Bible does not say that. So again, it is idle/idol speculation by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Would you like to take a guess as to what determines which hormones are produced? If you answer "genetics", then you get to move to the front of the line.

Nope. You're wrong. Genetics have nothing to do q with hormones that are injected into or given to the pregnant woman. Genetics has nothing to do with LGBT+ issues. Now, if you want to talk about Asperger's syndrome and genetics, let's grab some coffee and go into the staff room.

Quote:

Except that the Bible does not say that. So again, it is idle/idol speculation by you.

Oh, yes, it and so much more came from that activity.

Quote:

Nope. You're wrong. Genetics have nothing to fo with hormones that are injected into or given to the pregnant woman.

So you are really trying to say that homosexual men came from mothers who had hormones injected into them? Really? You do realize how easy it is to dismiss such a silly idea?

Quote:

Genetics has nothing to do with LGBT+ issues.

Which is exactly what I said. Thanks for the support.

Quote:

Oh, yes, it and so much more came from that activity.

The Bible does not say that. If it did, you would have quoted it. You didn't, and that speaks volumes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you are really trying to say that homosexual men came from mothers who had hormones injected into them? Really? You do realize how easy it is to dismiss such a silly idea?

No, it's often the transgender beginning.

Quote:

The Bible does not say that. If it did, you would have quoted it. You didn't, and that speaks volumes.

So when did all the turmoil of life begin?

Quote:

No, it's often the transgender beginning.

But we weren't on the topic of TG. We were on the topic of homosexuals.

Quote:

So when did all the turmoil of life begin?

That's a good question, but you were talking about "binary". Now you change the subject to "turmoil of life". I would say that the turmoil of life started in Genesis 3. The text there certainly would support that idea. But to suggest, as you have, that it's perfectly OK to be a homosexual because, after all, "Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities," has no support there at all. And to refer to Adam and Eve "enjoying" their choice to disobey God and introduce all of the negatives of sin into the world seems more than a little strange. Is that really what you meant to write?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But we weren't on the topic of TG. We were on the topic of homosexuals.

From Psychology Today --
"...there is credible evidence across cultures that, for men, their birth order has some effect on their sexual orientation. Men with more older brothers are significantly more likely to identify as gay compared with first-born sons or men with older sisters. This is likely related to evidence that prenatal hormones affect the sexual orientation of boys."

Did you know all fetuses begin as female? Do you know about all the hormones that slosh over that fetus's developing body?

Quote:

That's a good question, but you were talking about "binary". Now you change the subject to "turmoil of life". I would say that the turmoil of life started in Genesis 3. The text there certainly would support that idea. But to suggest, as you have, that it's perfectly OK to be a homosexual because, after all, "Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities," has no support there at all. And to refer to Adam and Eve "enjoying" their choice to disobey God and introduce all of the negatives of sin into the world seems more than a little strange. Is that really what you meant to write?

Yes, I've already mentioned Genesis 3. Keep up! Adam and Eve were enjoying that fruit until!!!!! Time for more coffee for you.

shoot me kill me . This is about Tech Giants censoring .

Quote:

From Psychology Today --
"...there is credible evidence across cultures that, for men, their birth order has some effect on their sexual orientation. Men with more older brothers are significantly more likely to identify as gay compared with first-born sons or men with older sisters. This is likely related to evidence that prenatal hormones affect the sexual orientation of boys."

Words like "credible evidence", "some effect", and "likely related" are all qualifiers intended to prevent the reader from drawing any hard conclusions. But even at that, you are affirming what I have already said. While there are no doubt many environmental influences at play, yet there is no genetic "hardwiring" that results in a man being "born gay". So again, thank you for your support.

Quote:

Did you know all fetuses begin as female? Do you know about all the hormones that slosh over that fetus's developing body?

Gender is determined at the moment of conception by the sex chromosomes, so everyone does not "begin as female". But even at that, your comment has nothing to do with people becoming homosexual. And hormones don't "slosh".

Quote:

Yes, I've already mentioned Genesis 3. Keep up! Adam and Eve were enjoying that fruit until!!!!!

It just went right over your head. Too bad.

Let's let Tom have his thread back. We've hijacked it long enough.

As I have said private companies police themselves and there are plenty of those available besides the big brand giants. Even MTG despite being banned on twitter, still posts on her government account so excuse me if I'm unsympathetic to conservative victim hood. It's a bit self serving to holler Soros and give Koch a free pass. I know I may be guilty of the inverse and won't apologize for it no more than you have. At least on some level you acknowledge the policy of big biz abusing it's public trust and should be corrected...left or right leaning.

Quote:

As I have said private companies police themselves and there are plenty of those available besides the big brand giants.

When the tech giants conspired to deny Parler access to the net they were acting in classic monopoly practices . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations .The Sherman Act was created to combat juggernauts that ruled entire industries like oil and railroads. It was made precisely for the highly concentrated power we see today in Big Tech.

Could Parler bring suit based on the Sherman Act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

When the tech giants conspired to deny Parler access to the net they were acting in classic monopoly practices . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations .The Sherman Act was created to combat juggernauts that ruled entire industries like oil and railroads. It was made precisely for the highly concentrated power we see today in Big Tech.

Enforce the law...Go Tom Go!

I support efforts to do so. It is a bi-partisan effort in Congress. You are welcome to hop on the train.

Grassley, Klobuchar, Colleagues to Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Rein in Big Tech (senate.gov)

Congress Introduces 5 Antitrust Bills to Rein in Big Tech (businessinsider.com)

I've always been for reining in ALL the big money guys.