Laura Loomer was banned from Facebook, paid Zucky's castle a visit

Do you use Facebook?

  • Regularly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Have an account, don't use much

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Have an account, deactivated it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't use it, **** that ****

    Votes: 6 85.7%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .

touma.akagi

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
218
Reaction score
78
Location
Salt Lake City
Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopolous and Alex Jones were all banned from Facebook, and its child app Instagram, a few days ago. Laura actually found out about her ban from Instagram 30 minutes before it was supposed to happen, as people were in on it, and she was able to make a final post.

Look, I understand that there's a valid reason to think of Laura as an obnoxious troll given what she did to Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom's homes, and you could argue that it and her other actions such as the Twitter HQ handcuffing, stirs the pot more. But the fact is, Laura's been banned from Uber, PayPal, Lyft among several other apps and services. And for what? Her political beliefs. And it makes me sick to my stomach, to be frank.

I also am a conservative. I'm just not banned for anything because I'm not on The Mob's radar... yet. "The nail that stands up..."

A ban from YouTube may not even be that far off for her. How else can the higher ups at Google interpret Facebook's action as a green-light for them to do so?

So yeah, in the vid, she visits the lobby of Facebook HQ and the police come on down and force her to leave. She tries to leave Zuck a parting gift, but the staff members working the lobby refuse to deliver it to him.

Laura's best known for trolling AOC and Ilhan Omar, trolling the women's march, and meeting Donald Trump Jr.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
1,637
Bottom line, when you use values to determine allowable content, you are donating to a political party.

That means these social media platforms and search engines in reality are massive Super PACs, not businesses.

They need to be treated as such.
 

sosousage

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
1,015
Age
28
Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopolous and Alex Jones were all banned from Facebook, and its child app Instagram, a few days ago. Laura actually found out about her ban from Instagram 30 minutes before it was supposed to happen, as people were in on it, and she was able to make a final post.

Look, I understand that there's a valid reason to think of Laura as an obnoxious troll given what she did to Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom's homes, and you could argue that it and her other actions such as the Twitter HQ handcuffing, stirs the pot more. But the fact is, Laura's been banned from Uber, PayPal, Lyft among several other apps and services. And for what? Her political beliefs. And it makes me sick to my stomach, to be frank.

I also am a conservative. I'm just not banned for anything because I'm not on The Mob's radar... yet. "The nail that stands up..."

A ban from YouTube may not even be that far off for her. How else can the higher ups at Google interpret Facebook's action as a green-light for them to do so?

So yeah, in the vid, she visits the lobby of Facebook HQ and the police come on down and force her to leave. She tries to leave Zuck a parting gift, but the staff members working the lobby refuse to deliver it to him.

Laura's best known for trolling AOC and Ilhan Omar, trolling the women's march, and meeting Donald Trump Jr.

how special person you have to be to be banned from taxi LMAO
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,458
I think a business should be able to ban anybody it wants to.
 

Who Dares Win

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
5,080
Reaction score
2,483
I think a business should be able to ban anybody it wants to.
I agree with your point, a private company or business should be free to decide to who deliver service or deal with.

The fact is that businesses can say fvck it to someone from a side but cant to those in the other otherwise it becomes a "discrimination".

Lets make it simple while avoiding politics (nevermind we cant), a night club can refuse guys to enter cause they want to keep a certain ratio within or simply cause its a girls night, yet if an other business keeps poor people away cause they cant bring wealth or certain groups of people cause they usually bring troubles, then it becomes discrimination.

Going back to facebook, twitter, youtube and so on what they did untill now is basically to ban those who DO NOT accept the agenda that such companies embrace and by agenda I mean a political one, a leftist globalist one.
 

How This "Nice Guy" Steals Women from Jerks

Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...

And she'll still sleep with you?

If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.

But how is this possible?

Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...

And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.

Matt Cook knows this all too well.

Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.

In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:

How to Control Her Emotions and Make Her Chase You

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
1,637
I think a business should be able to ban anybody it wants to.
I WOULD agree normally, however there are two large issues with this.

  1. If there are going to be laws protecting certain groups, then what we really have are a few chosen priveleged groups. Freedom doesn't work that way.
  2. If a business requires any kind of license to operate, and does so using taxpayer funded infrastructure specifically benefitting that business, then there is simply no justifiable way for that business to exclude taxpayers who contributed to that infrastructure.
 

Spaz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
6,749
Reaction score
5,079
Location
Somewhere where's it's none of your business
Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopolous and Alex Jones were all banned from Facebook, and its child app Instagram, a few days ago. Laura actually found out about her ban from Instagram 30 minutes before it was supposed to happen, as people were in on it, and she was able to make a final post.

Look, I understand that there's a valid reason to think of Laura as an obnoxious troll given what she did to Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom's homes, and you could argue that it and her other actions such as the Twitter HQ handcuffing, stirs the pot more. But the fact is, Laura's been banned from Uber, PayPal, Lyft among several other apps and services. And for what? Her political beliefs. And it makes me sick to my stomach, to be frank.

I also am a conservative. I'm just not banned for anything because I'm not on The Mob's radar... yet. "The nail that stands up..."

A ban from YouTube may not even be that far off for her. How else can the higher ups at Google interpret Facebook's action as a green-light for them to do so?

So yeah, in the vid, she visits the lobby of Facebook HQ and the police come on down and force her to leave. She tries to leave Zuck a parting gift, but the staff members working the lobby refuse to deliver it to him.

Laura's best known for trolling AOC and Ilhan Omar, trolling the women's march, and meeting Donald Trump Jr.
She's fat and ugly.

All fat and ugly women should be banned in social media.

Pretty sexy cute polite feminine women brightens up the world and should be allowed to flourish in social media.

If fatties causes more trouble to get attention then I'd advocate jail time.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,458
I WOULD agree normally, however there are two large issues with this.

  1. If there are going to be laws protecting certain groups, then what we really have are a few chosen priveleged groups. Freedom doesn't work that way.
  2. If a business requires any kind of license to operate, and does so using taxpayer funded infrastructure specifically benefitting that business, then there is simply no justifiable way for that business to exclude taxpayers who contributed to that infrastructure.
If in #2 you're talking about a public entity like a utility, then I agree. But a lot of private businesses benefit from tax breaks or taxpayer funded infrastructure. Probably all of them. For instance, sports teams get their stadiums built with tax money, but they ban people all the time for poor behavior.

And operating licenses - that's just rent-seeking.

As for #1, that's a separate issue. But I don't think the answer is MORE laws protecting more people or things.

Look at it this way: It's just Facebook. If people don't like it, they should delete their accounts and stop driving ad revenue for FB, rather than running to gov't for protection. This woman, whoever the hell she is, can always start her own social network.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
1,637
If in #2 you're talking about a public entity like a utility, then I agree. But a lot of private businesses benefit from tax breaks or taxpayer funded infrastructure. Probably all of them. For instance, sports teams get their stadiums built with tax money, but they ban people all the time for poor behavior.

And operating licenses - that's just rent-seeking.

As for #1, that's a separate issue. But I don't think the answer is MORE laws protecting more people or things. I did not argue for more laws, your defense is a strawman.

Look at it this way: It's just Facebook. If people don't like it, they should delete their accounts and stop driving ad revenue for FB, rather than running to gov't for protection. This woman, whoever the hell she is, can always start her own social network.
For number 1, the answer is not more laws, it is that no groups get special treatment unless it is Constitutional related.

For number 2 your answer basically amounts to "We have always done it that way", which is not a valid argument for selective rights.

If facebook consumes large amounts of infrastructure that our tax dollars pay for, then they should not be able to disable users.

Moreover, let's pick the recent example that Trump was not allowed to block users because they have a right to see and respond to his content.

So why then does facebook or twitter get to block us from seeing and responding to that content?
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,458
If facebook consumes large amounts of infrastructure that our tax dollars pay for, then they should not be able to disable users.
And I'm saying the should. Private business. Just because the government decides to hand out tax breaks and incentives, that's not Facebook's fault. If gov't/people don't like it, then stop handing out taxpayer money to private businesses. I don't mind changing things at all - but more nanny state socialism is not the answer. Stop giving special treatment, as you call it.

As for Trump, do you mean he can't block users on Twitter? About that, I'm not sure...if he's an elected official perhaps it's different. But he doesn't own Twitter so I don't see the parallel. This is about private businesses banning customers, not taxpayers' rights to see publicly posted information from those who tax them.

Look at this story from a red pill perspective. This is a woman who didn't comply with the rules of a private enterprise, and now wants a pu$$y pass. If it were the Freemasons or a country club, nobody here would support her fight for equality or whatever. Then she turns into Michael Moore and films a visit to give a gift to Zuck? Sounds like an attention h0 to me.
 

Danger

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
1,637
And I'm saying the should. Private business. Just because the government decides to hand out tax breaks and incentives, that's not Facebook's fault. If gov't/people don't like it, then stop handing out taxpayer money to private businesses. I don't mind changing things at all - but more nanny state socialism is not the answer. Stop giving special treatment, as you call it.

As for Trump, do you mean he can't block users on Twitter? About that, I'm not sure...if he's an elected official perhaps it's different. But he doesn't own Twitter so I don't see the parallel. This is about private businesses banning customers, not taxpayers' rights to see publicly posted information from those who tax them.

Look at this story from a red pill perspective. This is a woman who didn't comply with the rules of a private enterprise, and now wants a pu$$y pass. If it were the Freemasons or a country club, nobody here would support her fight for equality or whatever. Then she turns into Michael Moore and films a visit to give a gift to Zuck? Sounds like an attention h0 to me.
I agree fron the private business perspectice but if it uses taxpayer resources it is no longer truly private.

The parallel on Trump is, if he cannot block people from seeing his posts, then how come Twitter or Facebook can?

The companies are the equivalent of the historic town square. They skirt the line of being "private".
 

touma.akagi

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
218
Reaction score
78
Location
Salt Lake City
As for Trump, do you mean he can't block users on Twitter? About that, I'm not sure...if he's an elected official perhaps it's different.
A user blocking someone and the service itself banning someone from the platform are two separate things entirely.

Donald Trump blocking someone won't be affective. He has a public profile, so all someone needs to do to see it is log out. Blocking is only effective on a private profile.

The reason Trump's not banned from Twitter is that if he was, CNN wouldn't be able to nitpick about his tweets. Trump says rough and mean things, so obviously CNN wants to take advantage of that and twist them to the fullest contrived ulterior meaning possible.
 

Shrubber101

Don Juan
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
57
Reaction score
42
Age
46
What a whiney little snowflake. You all joined Facebook like sheep and made it what it was then complain about the censorship.

I remember the early days of the internet when people didn't just use Facebook and YouTube. There's plenty of platforms for free speech that aren't multinational companies.

I've never used it because I knew what it was becoming.
Facebook is wet dream for governments that want to keep tabs on their citizens.

I remember here in the UK when they were constantly pushing to bring out national ID cards. Every time a so_called terrorist attack occured or a kid got abducted, they tried to push ID cards, then when Facebook started to take off, ID cards suddenly took a back seat and were never mentioned again. Bit of a coincidence.

People have willingly given up their privacy out of their own narcissism. Facebook gives the government and corporations more info about you than any ID system ever could and completely voluntary. They must be laughing their arses off.

Stop using Facebook. Problem solved.
 

sosousage

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
1,015
Age
28
What a whiney little snowflake. You all joined Facebook like sheep and made it what it was then complain about the censorship.

I remember the early days of the internet when people didn't just use Facebook and YouTube. There's plenty of platforms for free speech that aren't multinational companies.

I've never used it because I knew what it was becoming.
Facebook is wet dream for governments that want to keep tabs on their citizens.

I remember here in the UK when they were constantly pushing to bring out national ID cards. Every time a so_called terrorist attack occured or a kid got abducted, they tried to push ID cards, then when Facebook started to take off, ID cards suddenly took a back seat and were never mentioned again. Bit of a coincidence.

People have willingly given up their privacy out of their own narcissism. Facebook gives the government and corporations more info about you than any ID system ever could and completely voluntary. They must be laughing their arses off.

Stop using Facebook. Problem solved.
IF you set everything to private then they cant see almost anything about you,
 

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,380
Reaction score
2,500
Location
象外
There's plenty of platforms for free speech that aren't multinational companies.
Nobody is really being censored.

The last decade are so have been unique in that it was very easy for anybody with a few second hand ideas to EASILY become famous.

Before 2000 or so, going back to the printing press, if you wanted to get your message you had to work HARD for LIFE to get people to hear you.

Go down to the public square, stand up and take some serious risks making your point. FIGHT for people's attention.

Most of the "idea" that all these conservatives social media super stars have are very UNORIGINAL, mostly second hand ideas.

What they are REALLY miffed about is their VERY EASY and RISK FREE fame and income is gone.

You want to spread some ideas?

Save a ton of money, tour the country SELL tickets and speak to audiences.

What most people are missing is that the audiences, by and large, of these social media superheroes are too lazy to leave the house and spend their time on social media lazily clicking whatever pops up next in their feed.

Some of these famous internet heroes have given actual speeches, old school style.

Their audiences are TINY and their public speaking skills are uninspiring.

If getting banned from social media is what gets peoples panties in a twist, just wait till the dollar stops being the reserve currency.

Then you'll see some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Spaz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
6,749
Reaction score
5,079
Location
Somewhere where's it's none of your business
Nobody is really being censored.

The last decade are so have been unique in that it was very easy for anybody with a few second hand ideas to EASILY become famous.

Before 2000 or so, going back to the printing press, if you wanted to get your message you had to work HARD for LIFE to get people to hear you.

Go down to the public square, stand up and take some serious risks making your point. FIGHT for people's attention.

Most of the "idea" that all these conservatives social media super stars have are very UNORIGINAL, mostly second hand ideas.

What they are REALLY miffed about is their VERY EASY and RISK FREE fame and income is gone.

You want to spread some ideas?

Save a ton of money, tour the country SELL tickets and speak to audiences.

What most people are missing is that the audiences, by and large, of these social media superheroes are too lazy to leave the house and spend their time on social media lazily clicking whatever pops up next in their feed.

Some of these famous internet heroes have given actual speeches, old school style.

Their audiences are TINY and their public speaking skills are uninspiring.

If getting banned from social media is what gets peoples panties in a twist, just wait till the dollar stops being the reserve currency.

Then you'll see some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Well ain't that the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,458
Nobody is really being censored.

The last decade are so have been unique in that it was very easy for anybody with a few second hand ideas to EASILY become famous.

Before 2000 or so, going back to the printing press, if you wanted to get your message you had to work HARD for LIFE to get people to hear you.

Go down to the public square, stand up and take some serious risks making your point. FIGHT for people's attention.

Most of the "idea" that all these conservatives social media super stars have are very UNORIGINAL, mostly second hand ideas.

What they are REALLY miffed about is their VERY EASY and RISK FREE fame and income is gone.

You want to spread some ideas?

Save a ton of money, tour the country SELL tickets and speak to audiences.

What most people are missing is that the audiences, by and large, of these social media superheroes are too lazy to leave the house and spend their time on social media lazily clicking whatever pops up next in their feed.

Some of these famous internet heroes have given actual speeches, old school style.

Their audiences are TINY and their public speaking skills are uninspiring.

If getting banned from social media is what gets peoples panties in a twist, just wait till the dollar stops being the reserve currency.

Then you'll see some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Great point. Everyone is equating a couple of social media outlets with the 1st Amendment itself. It's sad that that's where we are in 2019.
 

touma.akagi

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
218
Reaction score
78
Location
Salt Lake City
What a whiney little snowflake. You all joined Facebook like sheep and made it what it was then complain about the censorship.

I remember the early days of the internet when people didn't just use Facebook and YouTube. There's plenty of platforms for free speech that aren't multinational companies.

Stop using Facebook. Problem solved.
You're right, there are platforms that aren't Facebook. But you're still missing the point. I'm not on Facebook myself, it's the principle of free speech that's at stake here. Because Twitter and Facebook did it, that's a green light for other platforms to do so.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,458
Easy fix: Don't use platforms whose principles clash with yours.
 
Top