Laura Loomer, a Republican congressional candidate in Florida, was thrown out of Mark Zuckerberg’s treehouse in May of last year. When asked for details, Facebook’s corporate office claimed that Loomer was banned for being a dangerous hatemonger. Loomer responded by filing a lawsuit.
Facebook’s attorneys argued today that Loomer’s case should be dismissed. Loomer, they asserted, was clearly a dangerous hatemonger.
Usually, when people show up to assert something in court, I expect to see some sort of objective data that supports such people’s argument. What was the basis of their argument? The motion totally seems to consist of a list of other establishment web sites which have banned Laura Loomer.
If Facebook had cause to see Loomer’s lawsuit dismissed, they would have shown up with evidence of the danger she poses to the public. Instead, they showed up claiming that other outlets (including their own subsidiary, Instagram,) had banned Loomer, and this was supposed to prove their claim.
.we banned her, so clearly she deserved it.
Spicy times ahead ..
Hope everyone has prepared for Rule 308.
They are Facebook, the heart of the beast. They have enough pull they don’t need evidence, and there are plenty of liberal judges who would rule in their favor simply because they are part of The Borg.
@SnapperTrx
My now-AWOL “church” uses Beastbook as their sole means of external information communication, despite my many warnings about how this not only limits their outreach, but puts them at risk of censorship/deplatforming (coming soon to all Christian organizations near you). Of course it fell on deaf ears.
Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be returning.