I am here in Asia and I understand that for whatever reason Facebook can ban us from using or doing business like advertising on it. What I understand is that Facebook is using A.I. in dealing with things like this. I think this has nothing to do with race at all. I mean it can happen to anybody and I applaud that someone is protesting the very system that Facebook is using. And though I am actually a little bit tired of people using the racism card, I am supporting anybody who is going against Facebook. By the way, I am using "against Facebook" term because I don't believe that Mark Z. has a personal or even a corporate interest with your situation - Facebook is a big corporation and Mark Z. is not micro-managing things there he got many men and women working for him and even a bot for approving and disapproving things. So good luck and more power.
They made a commercial about it first off.
And then are using the Market Reaearch, they are being Racist. If you look at the U.S. Commerce Clause Facebook is subject to Constitutional Rights as they do business in the United States. That is how Segregation Ended.
Segregation was just a Policy at the End, and the 14th Amendments was expanded by the Civil Rights Acts.
So then, Facebook has exemption from Suit in that if someone thinks I am being Racist, they can't get sued. But if they systematically attack a Black Owned Business to Steal Intellectual Property, they are Subject to a Lawsuit Regardless of Policy. I will get you examples.
Child Labor was a Policy.
Jurisdiction
28 U.S. Code § 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S. Code § 1337 - Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs
28 U.S. Code § 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S. Code § 1343 - Civil rights and elective franchise
28 U.S. Code§ 1357.Injuries under Federal laws
28 U.S. Code§ 1366.Construction of references to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.United States v. Cantrell, 307 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. La. 1969)
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)
White v. White, 150 S.E. 531 (W. Va. 1929)
Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)
They can't claim A.I., we also contacted BBB about it
Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 20-616 (2d Cir. 2021)
They did benefit from my Wife's likeness
Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2017/a148623.htmlThe Winklevoss case
Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2007cv10593/108516Looks like the U.S. Government is Recognizing it, this is a new case
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. FACEBOOK INC. 1:2020cv03590 (2020)
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2020cv03590/224921This case is kind similar to Van Kush v. Facebook and Diem
Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc. et al 1:2020cv03590 (ND CA)
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2009cv05443/221703Plaintiff alleged that Defendants utilized social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace to lure unsuspecting consumers into signing up for services and goods that they do not want or need.This is Facebook being sued for letting people use other people in ads, and resolving it by creating new features acknowledging the phenomenon. This also gets to them trying to keep my Wife out of their Analytics system
Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et al.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2011cv01726/239253/368/They used Private messages inviting ambassadors and explaining Color schemes, etc. and Public Ads, to then propel their business interests while attacking ours
Davis v. Facebook, Inc., No. 17-17486 (9th Cir. 2020)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-17486/17-17486-2020-04-09.htmlFacebook has lawsuits about how much they have to do to stop criminal acts, and that implies they should stop their Employees criminal actions against Customers also
Godwin v. Facebook, Inc., 2020 Ohio 4834
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4794053/godwin-v-facebook-inc/?Texas made a Law about it, we are in Texas
Senate Bill 2373
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB2373