VCDL removed from Facebook?

[LeverGunFan]

Reports are that the Virginia Citizens Defense League has been removed from Facebook without explanation. Can any VCDL member confirm this? Apparently it has been removed in the past only to be reinstated; the current ban is said to be permanent. I'm not a member of VCDL or Facebook so I am unaware of any activity that would warrant a ban. If true, what does this mean for other pro Second Amendment groups?

[Aguila Blanca]

Gee -- if Facebook removes my state's grass roots pro-2A group then maybe they'll start keeping their web site up to date.

Seriously, my guess is that VCDL is the first to fall, and others will follow like dominoes. I still don't understand why so many conservative, pro-gun, pro-2A people (and groups) use Facebook. Facebook is the enemy. They are not interested in furthering or promoting freedom of speech, freedom of association, or freedom of anything. They are interested in making money, and advancing Zucker's progressive agenda.

[raimius]

Unfortunately, I move frequently and Facebook has a defacto monopoly on its style of social media. It's benefits for keeping in contact with people is currently (slightly) more useful than the frustrating tendency to censor opinions they don't like. Seems like that may change soon.

[mehavey]

See https://www.facebook.com/VCDLPACpage/
(at least for the moment)

[Aguila Blanca]

In the event that page disappears, basically all it does is provide a link to a different site:

https://mewe.com/p/vcdl-pacvirginiac...enseleaguepac1

[44 AMP]

I would remind everyone that Facebook is a private entity, and not the US government, so various "First Amendment" protections of free speech DO NOT APPLY.

[5whiskey]

I would remind everyone that Facebook is a private entity, and not the US government, so various "First Amendment" protections of free speech DO NOT APPLY.

They do not run afoul of the 1st amendment as private companies, but there are laws that may pertain to them. The platform v publisher argument is intriguing in regards to social media... not that this will change things very much. Well, it could. Publishers can be held liable for libel. A few libel suits would pump the brakes on facebook’s desire to moderate should this activity lead to it being established a publisher. Sure they have deep pockets, but that does little other than make them a more lucrative target.

[mehavey]

The big Social Media companies -- and the way they can now totally control communications and
discourse -- are approaching a situation where they might also approach being considered Utilities.

They had better watch out at that point.

[Nathan]

The big Social Media companies -- and the way they can now totally control communications and
discourse -- are approaching a situation where they might also approach being considered Utilities.

They had better watch out at that point.

I would argue they have set themselves up that way and a remotely effective administration would regulate them as such.

While you do have a choice, they have effectively used their resources to eliminate your choices before they become big enough for you to know about them.

[Ricklin]

Just say no to the book of faces. I actively encourage folks to leave big social media.
I get all the "social" I want or need on the few forums I am a member of.

[Aguila Blanca]

Somewhat to my astonishment, my state's grass roots organization (our analog to the VCDL) is still using Facebook. I received an e-mail just yesterday announcing that this month's virtual meeting will be conducted on Facebook. Aside from the fact that I'm not happy they (apparently) haven't done anything about freeing themselves from Facebook, I'm also upset because there are people (like me) who are members and who don't participate on Facebook, so by using Facebook as their meeting (and news) platform they are excluding a segment of their membership base.

I have made this point to the executive board multiple times, but they don't seem to care. My guess is that they'll continue until Facebook deplatforms us, then throw up their hands and cry, "Oh, woe is us. Whatever shall we do now?"

[Ricklin]

The issue for most groups?
It's having a member that can make those changes at no cost to the group.

Often the technical changes are not difficult at all. It's getting someone to get that infamous round tuit.

Too easy to not make the changes.

[Radny97]

They did it to Utah Citizens Alarm in Utah this fall. It’s been going on for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Webleymkv]

While I have some very strong opinions on the way Section 230 is being applied, it doesn't seem that either party is particularly interested in doing anything about it currently and they actively ostracize those that try (neither Donald Trump nor Tulsi Gabbard seems particularly popular amongst the other elected officials of their respective parties). That being said, moving away from the big tech firms isn't as difficult as one might think. I've been using DuckDuckGo as my search engine for months and I like it better than Google. I've recently started using the Brave browser in leu of Chrome and I'm quite satisfied thus far. There are certainly alternative social media options including Gab, MeWe, and Clouthub (it remains to be seen what will happen with Parler). The only big tech I've had less than satisfactory results in finding an alternative to is YouTube, though Daily Motion, Rumble, and BitChute could rival it if they get enough good content creators. If you don't like what big tech is doing, I'd suggest you first vote with your feet and stop using it to the extent that you can.

[44 AMP]

If you don't like what big tech is doing, I'd suggest you first vote with your feet and stop using it to the extent that you can.

Using your "feet" and your wallet isn't enough. If you boycott any one, for any reason, it cannot work unless they know they are being boycotted, and why.

Otherwise any change/loss in their business will be attributed to some other cause, (assuming they even notice).

So, use your fingers (letter/email) or your voice to let the company know WHY you aren't going to use their services/product. They may not care, but if they don't know, they will never care, or ever do anything about it.

[Aguila Blanca]

They won't care if one person, or ten people, or a hundred people stop using their platform. How many gun owners are there in the U.S.? Pre-COVID-19 something like 40% of American households owned at least one gun, and there were supposed to be 300 million gun owners. Both numbers have certainly gone up significantly over the past year. One number I saw (but can't find again) put the number at 393 million people.

If even ten percent of gun owners would band together and just stop using Facebook, that would cost them 39 million users. I think they'd notice losing 39 million users.

But don't ask me to stop using Facebook. I have never had a Facebook account, and I'm not about to open one now just so I can close it.

[Radny97]

To be honest i don’t think they’d care much if it were only a few million users. Facebook has like 3.5 billion users. That’s 3500 million users. A few million might get a little attention, but not a whole lot. What would get their attention is loss of ad revenue to competitors, like Parler or MeWe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

They won't care if one person, or ten people, or a hundred people stop using their platform.

You are almost certainly correct, the big outfits don't worry or notice small numbers. But, if you don't make you reasons known, its guaranteed they won't ever notice, or change.

[LeverGunFan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

They won't care if one person, or ten people, or a hundred people stop using their platform. How many gun owners are there in the U.S.? Pre-COVID-19 something like 40% of American households owned at least one gun, and there were supposed to be 300 million gun owners. Both numbers have certainly gone up significantly over the past year. One number I saw (but can't find again) put the number at 393 million people.

If even ten percent of gun owners would band together and just stop using Facebook, that would cost them 39 million users. I think they'd notice losing 39 million users.

But don't ask me to stop using Facebook. I have never had a Facebook account, and I'm not about to open one now just so I can close it.

I think that you are conflating the number of guns with the number of gun owners.... current US population is about 332 million, so it's unlikely that we have 300 or 393 million gun owners. Regardless, gun owners probably make up a significant percentage of Facebook users, but I am not one either.

[stinkeypete]

Facebook is a private company, they can do what they want.

Nothing keeps anyone from buying their own domain name and publishing their own content.
Cost of the domain name is less than $20 a year.
All you need is a crappy ancient laptop to run as your own server, the software required is dirt simple, we used to do it all the time back in the day.

Now it’s your job to get out there and promote your web site.

Just because YouTube, Google, Bing, Amazon, Facebook, etc. make it really simple and popular doesn’t mean they are the exclusive way to publish information. The Constitution doesn’t grant the right to be lazy or force successful businesses to do anything the owners don’t feel like doing.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

All you need is a crappy ancient laptop to run as your own server, the software required is dirt simple, we used to do it all the time back in the day.

If it were that simple, I would have my own web site. What you are overlooking is that running a web site requires that your server be connected to the Internet with a static IP address. When you just get "Internet" from your phone company or cable company, you don't get a static IP, you get a dynamic IP. That means every time you reconnect, their system assigns a new IP at random. When your IP changes, the Internet can't find you.

You can get a static IP, but it's more expensive, and it may require some arguing to get it. I have a friend across town who has his own server -- and he's in IT, so his server isn't an old laptop, it's a rack of redundant servers in his basement. He was stuck with a very slow DSL connection for years because the cable company that has the monopoly to serve our town couldn't (or wouldn't) do a static IP. They finally came around and just last year he was able to switch to the cable company and get better speeds. But ... to get a static IP connection he had to buy a commercial account -- they won't do static IP for a residential customer.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

I think that you are conflating the number of guns with the number of gun owners.... current US population is about 332 million, so it's unlikely that we have 300 or 393 million gun owners. Regardless, gun owners probably make up a significant percentage of Facebook users, but I am not one either.

I'm not conflating anything -- I'm citing numbers I found in on-line sources.

That said, it is possible (perhaps even probable) that the authors of those articles conflated the number of firearms with the number of owners.

[fan_of_flux]

I think FB is beginning a very slow and methodical purge; Join MeWe. It seems to be more friendly to 2A groups and conservative ideals.

[KyJim]

Some of you may be familiar with UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh who has a blog called the Volokh Conspiracy and is generally friendly to the 2A. He recently had an online, moderated discussion with Santa Clara Law Professor Eric Goldman. Basic information and the embedded YouTube video at https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/12...ion-decisions/. In addition Professor Goldman summarized the discussion at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archive...n-carriers.htm.

Professor Volokh posits the possibility that large, near-monopolistic platforms like Facebook might be subject to some content regulation by government based on a "common carrier" theory. The video discussion is informative without being overly-technical. It is worth a watch if you have any interest on the topic.

[hdbiker]

We just had a By-Sell-Trade reloading group removed from Face Book, no explanation Was up less than a week with over 60 members already. hdbiker