Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

None of those people violated facebooks terms of service.

Ah, so your opinion is Facebook is making all this up. Well, neither of us truly know if they did or not, so I'm not going to address your opinion on this matter any further.

They just disagreed with the left. I see pages that literally show children being harmed and people being killed. Guess what...they still have facebook pages, as does antifa. PJW, has never done anything like that, ever

Then you have some choices:
1. Become CEO of Facebook and 'fix' it
2. Create a new platform including every point of view
3. Report the abusive content to Facebook

You can tell people how you think Facebook should be run until you're blue in the face, but that and a $1 won't even get you a cup of coffee in most places.

 

[PixieStix]

NPR? Are you freaking kidding me lol

 

[ThisIsMe]

Facebook announced Thursday that it has permanently banned a host of prominent figures it described as "dangerous" from its platform, including right-wing commentator and former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The platform said it has determined that those figures are "dangerous," and removed them under their policy barring individuals and groups that promote hateful and violent messages.

The tech giant, which has been engaged in an escalating crackdown on hate speech and fear-mongering on its platforms, also removed neo-Nazi Paul Nehlen, who previously ran for the House in Wisconsin, far-right activist Laura Loomer and conservative YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson.


Facebook bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, other 'dangerous' figures

2019 will go down as the year where it tuned on Fox News, AM talk radio, and the fringe of social media.

Censorship is dangerous.

I know I have never seen any dirty words in the Bible..

Once you start censoring speech that you personally consider "dangerous" everything that is not censored has the taint of bias on it. If you believe in democracy, you must oppose censorship of free speech no matter how well intentioned you are. Of course, in this case we are talking about a money making business, so it is more likely facebook is censoring speech because they believe it will bring in more money.

I have to agree with moon here. In a private establishment, you follow their rules, in this case, the establishment is an online presence. We have to be consistent. The right talked about the bakery and said they have the right to serve as they please. Facebook is no different.

Best we can do, if we dont like the rules is to make your own Facebook, then you can set the rules.

Of course, facebook has the right to censor any speech it doesn't like, but just as the owners of the bakery are now seen by many as bigots and their patrons are suspected of bigotry for patronizing the bakery by many, once facebook starts to censor speech it doesn't like, that speech it allows is now tainted by the presumption of bias on the part of facebook. Can you now get a full picture of the for and against arguments from reading facebook, or only one side of the argument?

Well, I personally dont use Facebook. My point was really just about consistency. My aim was to point out that, even when the situation benefits the other side, you still must adhere to the same principles, and remain consistent.

I understand that Facebook is a VERY influential platform, and pretty much every business, political platform, and private citizen uses it. A fault I fear will be more of great harm than good in the near future.

I simply was pointing out to moon that you cant deny one business then right to make their own rules, and then grant it to another when it suits your own personal ideology.

 

[Moonglow]

NPR? Are you freaking kidding me lol

Not with hot tea and crumpets. I worked at an NPR station in the later 1980's it was ok, rather laid back and mellow compared to the hairbrained stations I had worked for previously.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Liberals love to ban. They have zero tolerance for non-libtard views.

Facebook is a private corporation and may do as they please or do you think the govt. should tell them what they should and should not be doing?

I agree, but do we need to harken back to a bakery in Colorado when the left was trying to argue fair access laws and talking about how a private business should be forced into serving anyone and everyone?

I agree with you here, it's a private business and can operate as they please, but, I hope we can be consistent in this stance.

This is not like a product one creates to sell this is an open platform supported by advertisers and the advertisers interest are taken into consideration long before the users...

Ok, but overall it's a private business. To be consistent, we must agree that all private business should abide by the same rules, correct? So, a Baker, or an online social media presence should be equally have the ability to make their own rules and operate as they see fit. Do you agree?

Doesnt matter if one company makes a product for sale, or makes a program for free consumption. The overall key here is "private business".

As long as the customer reads the fine print and understands that.

Sure, most business have a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".

Is that acceptable as well?

Beyond that, however, a business doesnt give up it's right to operate on it's own terms simply because it doesnt have a fine print clause.

 

[beagle9]

Facebook announced Thursday that it has permanently banned a host of prominent figures it described as "dangerous" from its platform, including right-wing commentator and former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The platform said it has determined that those figures are "dangerous," and removed them under their policy barring individuals and groups that promote hateful and violent messages.

The tech giant, which has been engaged in an escalating crackdown on hate speech and fear-mongering on its platforms, also removed neo-Nazi Paul Nehlen, who previously ran for the House in Wisconsin, far-right activist Laura Loomer and conservative YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson.


Facebook bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, other 'dangerous' figures

2019 will go down as the year where it tuned on Fox News, AM talk radio, and the fringe of social media.

Censorship is dangerous.

I know I have never seen any dirty words in the Bible..

Once you start censoring speech that you personally consider "dangerous" everything that is not censored has the taint of bias on it. If you believe in democracy, you must oppose censorship of free speech no matter how well intentioned you are. Of course, in this case we are talking about a money making business, so it is more likely facebook is censoring speech because they believe it will bring in more money.

I have to agree with moon here. In a private establishment, you follow their rules, in this case, the establishment is an online presence. We have to be consistent. The right talked about the bakery and said they have the right to serve as they please. Facebook is no different.

Best we can do, if we dont like the rules is to make your own Facebook, then you can set the rules.

True....... What the conservative's or those agreeing with conservative principles, (i.e. who aren't your strict conservatives, but want some of the standards conservatives have or keep), uhhh don't understand, realize or well maybe they do, is that there are millions ready to get back to living what they consider as a moral decent life for them and their children, and if the platforms, radio signal strengths etc, are created or built in regards to that, then they will come by the millions seeking such a thing. Of course there will be rules and guidelines to follow, but that's what they want the most of them.

 

[Moonglow]

Facebook is a private corporation and may do as they please or do you think the govt. should tell them what they should and should not be doing?

I agree, but do we need to harken back to a bakery in Colorado when the left was trying to argue fair access laws and talking about how a private business should be forced into serving anyone and everyone?

I agree with you here, it's a private business and can operate as they please, but, I hope we can be consistent in this stance.

This is not like a product one creates to sell this is an open platform supported by advertisers and the advertisers interest are taken into consideration long before the users...

Ok, but overall it's a private business. To be consistent, we must agree that all private business should abide by the same rules, correct? So, a Baker, or an online social media presence should be equally have the ability to make their own rules and operate as they see fit. Do you agree?

Doesnt matter if one company makes a product for sale, or makes a program for free consumption. The overall key here is "private business".

As long as the customer reads the fine print and understands that.

Sure, most business have a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".

Is that acceptable as well?

I think so...

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

NPR? Are you freaking kidding me lol

When your argument is the source of the report, you really have no argument. Holy fuck, what a partisan hack you are. Here's the same story from Fox. Happy, wingertard?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree, but do we need to harken back to a bakery in Colorado when the left was trying to argue fair access laws and talking about how a private business should be forced into serving anyone and everyone?

I agree with you here, it's a private business and can operate as they please, but, I hope we can be consistent in this stance.

This is not like a product one creates to sell this is an open platform supported by advertisers and the advertisers interest are taken into consideration long before the users...

Ok, but overall it's a private business. To be consistent, we must agree that all private business should abide by the same rules, correct? So, a Baker, or an online social media presence should be equally have the ability to make their own rules and operate as they see fit. Do you agree?

Doesnt matter if one company makes a product for sale, or makes a program for free consumption. The overall key here is "private business".

As long as the customer reads the fine print and understands that.

Sure, most business have a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".

Is that acceptable as well?

I think so...

Awesome. Let this be an example to everyone else. You and I conviened in a discourse that didnt result in name calling or insults, and we came to an agreement that is both logical and consistent.

Kudos! [emoji4]

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Liberals love to ban. They have zero tolerance for non-libtard views.

Facebook is a private corporation and may do as they please or do you think the govt. should tell them what they should and should not be doing?

Then they should be regulated as a magazine or a TV channel, correct? Because FB claims now that it is just a conduit of info. like ATT and doesn’t take a view or a side.

 

[Moonglow]

Liberals love to ban. They have zero tolerance for non-libtard views.

Facebook is a private corporation and may do as they please or do you think the govt. should tell them what they should and should not be doing?

Then they should be regulated as a magazine or a TV channel, correct? Because FB claims now that it is just a conduit of info. like ATT and doesn’t take a view or a side.

I really don't give a shit since I am not a Facebook fan.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I understand that Facebook is a VERY influential platform, and pretty much every business, political platform, and private citizen uses it. A fault I fear will be more of great harm than good in the near future.

Now you're on to something. I agree. This is a new 'problem' we're responsible for based on our own content. It's popularity has blurred the lines of common sense.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Censorship is dangerous.

I know I have never seen any dirty words in the Bible..

Once you start censoring speech that you personally consider "dangerous" everything that is not censored has the taint of bias on it. If you believe in democracy, you must oppose censorship of free speech no matter how well intentioned you are. Of course, in this case we are talking about a money making business, so it is more likely facebook is censoring speech because they believe it will bring in more money.

I have to agree with moon here. In a private establishment, you follow their rules, in this case, the establishment is an online presence. We have to be consistent. The right talked about the bakery and said they have the right to serve as they please. Facebook is no different.

Best we can do, if we dont like the rules is to make your own Facebook, then you can set the rules.

Of course, facebook has the right to censor any speech it doesn't like, but just as the owners of the bakery are now seen by many as bigots and their patrons are suspected of bigotry for patronizing the bakery by many, once facebook starts to censor speech it doesn't like, that speech it allows is now tainted by the presumption of bias on the part of facebook. Can you now get a full picture of the for and against arguments from reading facebook, or only one side of the argument?

Well, I personally dont use Facebook. My point was really just about consistency. My aim was to point out that, even when the situation benefits the other side, you still must adhere to the same principles, and remain consistent.

I understand that Facebook is a VERY influential platform, and pretty much every business, political platform, and private citizen uses it. A fault I fear will be more of great harm than good in the near future.

I simply was pointing out to moon that you cant deny one business then right to make their own rules, and then grant it to another when it suits your own personal ideology.

I agree with you that as a business, facebook has every right to censor anything it wants to censor, but since facebook is only censoring speech from the extreme right and not from the extreme left, reading facebook will only give you half the story on any subject.

Consider, nearly all of our media is also made up of businesses and as such they are free to censor any speech they choose, but how can our democracy work if our media, and I include facebook here, only presents the speech they approve of. If we trust democracy, we must allow the voters to hear everything and sort it out for themselves, if we don't trust democracy, then we will have a very dark future, indeed.

Consider also, all these media sources are profit making businesses, so when they choose to censor, is it for the high minded reasons they present or because they want to appeal to a more profitable market?

 

[mdk]

Not having a Facebook account is like not having running water in my household. Or something.

Some of you are truly out of touch, if you actually think that facebook is not huge. Every business that is worth salt uses facebook to influence sales and to market it's products

Newspapers are also used for the same purpose. Should I have a right to a subscription? Not hardly.

If you pay for the subscription, yes. We pay by the ads that are allowed and also by the fact that facebook violates tons of privacy laws by selling our info

This place also runs on ads and I bet they also sell our information to third parties. Do you have a right to a USMB account? No, neither of us do.

 

[Moonglow]

Not having a Facebook account is like not having running water in my household. Or something.

Some of you are truly out of touch, if you actually think that facebook is not huge. Every business that is worth salt uses facebook to influence sales and to market it's products

Newspapers are also used for the same purpose. Should I have a right to a subscription? Not hardly.

If you pay for the subscription, yes. We pay by the ads that are allowed and also by the fact that facebook violates tons of privacy laws by selling our info

This place also runs on ads and I bet they also sell our information to third parties. Do you have a right to a USMB account? No, neither of us do.

You do have the right to be banned..

 

[mdk]

You do have the right to be banned..

Not for long. You'll never see another ban again once the government gets involved with its regulatory tentacles. Why? Because you have a right to a social media account now.

 

[skye]

Social Media is to become a Public Utility.'


BLESS.

So the govt will regulate this board?

Hey, buffoon candycorn

We are talking about Silicon Valley. Pay attention.

 

[candycorn]

Social Media is to become a Public Utility.'


BLESS.

So the govt will regulate this board?

Hey, buffoon candycorn

We are talking about Silicon Valley. Pay attention.

This is social media…. Perhaps you didn’t finish 3rd grade. You can still get your GED

 

[skye]

I agree! It's time to fight back!



Donald Trump Jr.‏Verified account @DonaldJTrumpJr
The purposeful & calculated silencing of conservatives by @facebook & the rest of the Big Tech monopoly men should terrify everyone. It appears they’re taking their censorship campaign to the next level. Ask yourself, how long before they come to purge you? We must fight back.

8:46 AM - 3 May 2019

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Liberals love to ban. They have zero tolerance for non-libtard views.

Facebook is a private corporation and may do as they please or do you think the govt. should tell them what they should and should not be doing?

Then they should be regulated as a magazine or a TV channel, correct? Because FB claims now that it is just a conduit of info. like ATT and doesn’t take a view or a side.

I really don't give a shit since I am not a Facebook fan.

You don’t give a damn because it doesn’t fit your narrative