Why am I not allowed to reply to posts on the thread I created?

Looks like it was locked to head off further objectionable content. Nobody is allowed to post there.

Oh dear.

Thank you for letting me know that.

Do you know why that would happen? What was going on?

I was not posting on the thread. I don't know how bad it was.

Do you know what would typically cause something like that to happen?

I have read all the posts in that thread. All I saw, was a bunch of people arguing. I am very much wondering if the site admins here decided my post was "objectionable content", simply because they disagree with me politically and ideologically.

We do know this type of behavior is widespread amongst tech companies. Google manipulates information to advance it's political agenda, twitter and facebook etc., have well documented double standards in regards to banning conservatives and removing content.

I can't speak for the site. I am just a reader/poster.

I understand.

That is my suspicion however, because the first post I created here was censored and removed. It did not contain any explicit language or calls to violence. It was simply a post about the bullying my family had experienced, and my fears for the censorship and deplatforming that conservatives face by big tech companies.

It was removed right away after I posted it.

"Nope. You have never pointed out anything that I am wrong about".

"Not at all. I was smarter than everyone else and had a better mastery of subjects than my teachers from the very beginning".

I enjoyed these consecutive quotes.

What are you referring to?

It's an iq test.

Do you really think my thread was shut down because people were arguing about IQ?

Come on now.

Yes. The thread devolved into ****.

there is a Contact Us link at the bottom of this page...

This is a privately owned site. The people who manage the site have every right to block anything that they find objectionable. The TOS makes it very clear that they will delete any posts that they feel are racist, sexist or hateful. If you don't like that, go elsewhere.

I generally agree with the decisions made by the people who manage the site. They are pretty willing to accept a large range of points of view. I appreciate that.

If they blocked a thread, it is probably because they made the judgement that it was crossing a line to offensive or that people were just fighting with no content. It is necessary for them to do this from time to time to create a site that isn't just people throwing mud at each other.

Google, facebook, and twitter hide behind this same misleading statement.

In the case of Google, they are without a doubt the most powerful company on the planet, and are in control of most of the world's information.

Google even has more money and power than any country on the planet, including the U.S.

I hope you can see how people might find it disconcerting when Google's CEO Sundar Pichai stood before congress and swore under oath that his company has no political bias, when just a few months prior to that he was caught on tape talking about how he, and his company were deeply disappointed about the results of the 2016 election, and how they vowed to never let something like that happen again.

Twitter and facebook have essentially become the public square. When they silence or censor someone, that essentially restricts that person's ability to communicate globally.

This is a whole lot of power to be entrusted into only a very small handful of companies, and this should scare everyone.

These companies all have leftist political ideology, but hide behind the claim that they are 'private companies'. They also hide behind their status as not being 'publishers'. This way, they are able to disseminate whatever ideological message they choose, by selectively censoring or flat out eliminating content that they disagree with politically.

These companies are rife with hypocrisy as well. For instance, by coincidence only and not because all these companies were conspiring together, as I have been informed by the mainstream media, all major social media companies decided to ban Alex Jones at the exact same time last year.

Facebook for one example, stated that as a private company, they are able to ban anyone they choose.

A small business, whom I shall not name out of respect for their privacy, shortly after the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, posted on their company facebook page, that they would no longer be hiring female employees, because they felt it was unsafe to do so in a social climate where women were allowed to make any accusations they want without being made to back those accusations up with actual evidence. This company felt that it was in their best interests to attempt to avoid any potential lawsuits, by not hiring workers who were allowed to throw around baseless accusations.

This company's post with their announcement was removed by facebook for 'hate speech'.

So, this very small, and private company made a decision to not allow certain people to be employed at their establishment, and simply announcing that was deemed 'hate speech', by a company who hides behind the claim that as a private company, they can ban anyone they choose.

I have no way to show you my original post, but all I spoke about in it, was my family's experience being bullied for our Christian beliefs. I also spoke about my fears of censorship by large tech companies. My post had no explicit language, or calls of violence.

I contacted the Contact Us support multiple times and received no response.

You and LivingLava are funny conservatives. You both call yourselves conservatives, and yet you are arguing that private for-profit companies should be forced to act in the public good.

The argument you are making, that a private company doesn't have the freedom to act in its own interest, is essentially a socialist argument.

These are strange times we live in, when "conservatives" argue against free enterprise and "liberals" argue against free speech.

Answer me these questions,

Would you feel the same way if the tables were turned, and these companies were run by conservatives who silenced liberal views?

Because I would be just as angry if the shoe was on other foot. I want everyone to be able to speak, not just conservatives.

If the creator of the printing press when it first came out decided that newspapers could only print news of one particular political ideology, would that be acceptable to you?

What if the phone company only allowed people with a particular political ideology to make calls?

Most people in the year 2019 get their news from social media. At the core of ethical journalism is the concept of impartiality.

My issue isn't with private companies acting in their own interests. My issue is that these companies are so large that they do not allow for competition.

There are anti trust laws in this country, and these companies are monopolies that also get tax subsidies from the government. I would also include companies like Disney and Amazon here. These behemoths do not allow fair competition.

If these companies want to hide under the banner of being "private companies", then they should also be classified as "publishers". Because they currently hold no liability for the content disseminated on their sites. "Publishers" would be accountable for the material they post on their sites.

When a company as large as twitter or Google allows only one dominant message on their platform, they are no longer "hosts", they are editorializing, and 'publishers' editorialize.

My problem is not with private businesses, my problem is with these business not being transparent, not being honest, and not allowing fair competition.

You do know that several prominent conservatives were banned and defunded by paypal, patreon, and even Mastercard in the past year right?

These people were deplatformed by payment processors! That's how deep the censorship goes! That's how deep the problem goes!

How are conservatives supposed to complete fairly if they aren't even able to fund their own operations, because even the payment processors are in bed with the authoritarian liberals, and participating in the war of ideology?

You did not address my points in my previous post, would you be willing to?

I am not at war with you my friend. I want you to be allowed to speak. Do you not want me to be allowed to speak as well?

Does it not bother or worry you that Google's CEO lied before congress (a felony)?

This has been proven. There is video evidence.

What do you think about the hypocrisy of facebook removing the speech of the small, private company I mentioned, when they claim that they as a private company are allowed to do whatever they want with their business? Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Do you not see the danger in allowing monopoly control of information and communication to a group of companies so small that you can count them on one hand?

Sure, I will respond (although I think you are a silly person).

- I am pretty strongly in favor of free speech, however I don't want the government involved. I don't feel comfortable with the government intervening to turn businesses into "public spaces". We have to figure this out as a public.

- I think that conservatives have a point about media being slanted against them. However, I think it is a minor point... they exaggerate it quite a bit.

- I don't think that Google or Facebook should be in the censorship business... anyone should be able to express themselves. However there should be lines.

- Most Americans (including me) agree that Muslims Terrorist Groups and/or White Supremacist Terrorist Groups using public media to recruit new members is a problem. The balance of where the line is between expressing offensive views, and inciting violence is a tricky one.

- Fox News, CNN and NPR each support their own constituency with their own sets of biases. I think this is the natural way for the media to work.

- I am curious who these "prominent conservatives" are that you say are being banned from payment processors. There are some conservative voices I respect quite a bit. There are others who I think are idiotic, extreme and violent. I would like to think the people being banned from payment processors fall into the latter category.

- Yes, I do see the danger in a small group controlling media. I also see the danger in government intervention in media. I think I prefer the former, although I strongly support social organizations (EFF, FIRE) that push back against censorship.

I support free speech with very few exceptions. When conservatives march down the street with they creepy tacky tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us", I support their right to free speech. Although I think they are pathetic and despicable, they have the right to their freedom of expression.

But.... do you realize how awkward this is? The conservatives aren't making it easy to defend their rights.