Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
Presumably, the decisions aren't being left solely to the discretion of the grunts.
However, at a minimum, the Facebook employees setting the polices those foreign workers follow will be in both the US and SV, so you can't assume their actions will be aloof from American politics.
He knew the answer (no, because that's so clearly egregiously illegal) but wanted to make the insinuation.
Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right.
The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech.
So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
So if I say frat bros are idiots am I guilty? There are grey areas.
Can i want to have none of these? Is there a third option, that opposes both?
On the other hand, Cruz wasted our time, and more importantly, the time any other member of Congress would have had to ask something important, asking Zuckerberg about a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page that was deleted for 12 hours, yet failed to mention the words "Cambridge Analytica." Hmmmm.
I can't even see where the goalposts have gone.
Couple of different "goal posts" here
Ted Nugent has actually suggested executing Democrats, recently. Not only did he say it, but there was no backlash from the right.
And before you say it wasn’t meant literally - very obviously what Nugent says isn’t literal either. He’s a crazy old man, but he said if you see a coyote you shoot it and allegorically compared this to verbally shutting down Democrats rather than engaging with them. In no way did he suggest shooting Democrats.
The Democratic Senators aren't grilling Facebook for deleting pro-ISIS pages, but the President is completely happy to be supported by Nazi groups.
Transgendered implies something happened to someone, rather than transgender, which is an attribute someone has. Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive, e.g. "No one/No thing transgendered me, I was always this way. It's who I am."
As far as I know, people are still free to say what they want? Doesn't mean they don't get any consequences though. Or that other people are forced to give them an ear.
Take Laura Ingraham. She's free to make fun of the Parkland survivors and she did. She's also losing her advertisers as a consequence of being a poor excuse of a human being. Also I would never invite her to come talk to anything I would organize (if I was organizing stuff). Would I be infringing on her free speech then by not giving her a platform? Why would I be obligated to give her a platform?
Taken to an extreme for purely rhetorical purposes: if you get fired, black-balled, and publicly shamed for voicing any opinion, then do you live in a society with freedom of speech?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
And there aren't many liberals willing to censor people for controversial opinions presented in a self-aware, carefully worded, and relevant manner abounding in due consideration for the facts. They do censor people who like to peddle propaganda and wave their victimhood around like pariahs.
I think Cruz played his role as partial acknowledged politician very well.