Are we going to ignore the fact that one side tried to kidnap an governor?  Both sides have bad people...

BLM is into kidnapping
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/man-accused-of-hatching-plot-to-kidnap-whitmer-is-blm-supporter-and-made-comments-critical-of-police

First amendment means people are allowed to say stupid, false and ignorant things.  The whole idea of freedom and liberty is that we must tolerate people who say things we don't like.
 Only in certain exceptions is that speech breaking any laws, so it's allowed.

If you, or FB or anyone else thinks that kind of speech should be suppressed, then YOU are against the 1st Amendment's intent.

Yes, a private person or corporation can censor anyone using their resources for expressing their ideas.  However, the corporation has no 1st Amendment protections while doing that.  If, however, the corporate resources constitute a "platform" with a free and open exchange of ideas, then the 1st Amendment applies, as it does with Newspapers and other journalism outlets.

You can't violate the 1st Amendment's purpose on your site, then cry that the gov't is violating YOUR 1st Amendment rights.  That's a pathetic argument.

Is it really suppressed?  You don't have to speak on that site.  Just like if I own a building I don't have to let you have a press conference in it.  But even Facebook isn't doing that. I truly believe they are attempting to be neutral as the fact the left complain just as much as the right do for the "censoring".  Its hard when they are bound by employees who have bias they have no control over their moderators biases.  They are not censoring as badly as you think they are. They are policing liberals also.  Are they also censoring them?  I am failing to see this massive anti conservative only bias everyone is saying.  The recent blocking of hunter Biden leak, was because the information was obtained illegibly and most likely through a Russian spy.  That's gray area as fuck,  and they apologized for it and let it go on now.

Is it really suppressed?  You don't have to speak on that site.  Just like if I own a building I don't have to let you have a press conference in it.  But even Facebook isn't doing that. I truly believe they are attempting to be neutral as the fact the left complain just as much as the right do for the "censoring".  Its hard when they are bound by employees who have bias they have no control over their moderators biases.  They are not censoring as badly as you think they are. They are policing liberals also.  Are they also censoring them?  I am failing to see this massive anti conservative only bias everyone is saying.  The recent blocking of hunter Biden leak, was because the information was obtained illegibly and most likely through a Russian spy.  That's gray area as fuck,  and they apologized for it and let it go on now.

The analogy doesn't hold.  Since the government can't block anyone from commenting on their posts unless they violated the ToS, the implication is that the site has become a public resource more than a private site.  To argue otherwise flies in the face of the normal use of the site.

The mistake RB and Twitter just made was locking official gov't accounts as well as labeling an official link to a House of Representatives site as malicious or "spammy". 

Since these "platforms" have yet to lock any accounts pushing the Trump-Russia hoax, doing that to accounts sharing a NYP article on the Bidens with no evidence it's false is acting as a publisher -- picking and choosing what they want users to see.

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/indepth/2020/10/15/21409131/conservatives-facebook-bias-section-230-mark-zuckerberg-tucker-carlson-media-trump-hunter-biden

Is it really suppressed?  You don't have to speak on that site.  Just like if I own a building I don't have to let you have a press conference in it.  But even Facebook isn't doing that. I truly believe they are attempting to be neutral as the fact the left complain just as much as the right do for the "censoring".  Its hard when they are bound by employees who have bias they have no control over their moderators biases.  They are not censoring as badly as you think they are. They are policing liberals also.  Are they also censoring them?  I am failing to see this massive anti conservative only bias everyone is saying.  The recent blocking of hunter Biden leak, was because the information was obtained illegibly and most likely through a Russian spy.  That's gray area as fuck,  and they apologized for it and let it go on now.

Is it really suppressed?  You don't have to speak on that site.  Just like if I own a building I don't have to let you have a press conference in it.  But even Facebook isn't doing that. I truly believe they are attempting to be neutral as the fact the left complain just as much as the right do for the "censoring".  Its hard when they are bound by employees who have bias they have no control over their moderators biases.  They are not censoring as badly as you think they are. They are policing liberals also.  Are they also censoring them?  I am failing to see this massive anti conservative only bias everyone is saying.  The recent blocking of hunter Biden leak, was because the information was obtained illegibly and most likely through a Russian spy.  That's gray area as fuck,  and they apologized for it and let it go on now.

perhaps you don't know the meaning of "illegibly"

Illegally

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5900157/rudy-giuliani-revives-attack-on-hunter-biden-with-highly-suspicious-leak/%3famp=tr

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/10/trump-giuliani-hunter-biden-hack-leak-russia-burisma-collusion-new-york-post.html

Took .5 seconds on Google.  Faster than your spell checking probably took...
Even rudy said it might be....

O
M
F
G
!!

What we have here is ... failure to communicate!

True but that's the capitalist way.

Thanks for the feedback.  My wife said it’s a bit dark. Planning to watch it this weekend.

The problem that I see is that these companies are not being totally upfront with the consumer about what information they have on you and who they are selling it to and for what purpose it is going to be used for. Then they write up an onerous 60+ page privacy policy in lawyer speak that the average person cannot comprehend. And they won’t allow you on their platform until you acknowledge reading it.

I think the world would be better off without all these social media platforms such as FB, Twitter, etc. I would not miss them at all. The only reason I am on FB at all is that it is the platform my family from all over the world chose to stay in touch with each other. So I use FB mostly for that and I am on some reloading FB pages as well. I cut out all the political and most of the localized pages due to all the political BS and arguing. And if FB were to disappear tomorrow I would immediately buy a domain and install a private website where we can all communicate and stay in touch. And we would all be much better for not being on FB. The problem is convincing all of them to use it over FB.