zlacker

Call it what you like, if you can't distinguish between doctors and quacks then you shouldn't be banning people you think are quacks because you aren't qualified to do so.

>>lupusr+(OP)
If i stand up a server and host a website, I get to decide who's allowed to use my server. I don't need to be "qualified", and who would decide what "qualified" means? Should the government be forcing me to host content I find objectionable?

Facebook is no different. Just bigger.

>>steven+pc
Nobody is saying a legal right to do so doesn't exist. Only that you shouldn't and you're a jackass if you do.

Your retreat into legality and semantics is telling.

>>lupusr+Oy
Fair enough. When you said they "shouldn't be" I took that to mean they "shouldn't be allowed to", which is different than what you said. My bad.