Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

[dblack]

I wish Zuckerburg had the balls to just close up shop.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

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.

Then it is up to us to do our own due diligence to find the other half of the story. I dont view Facebook as a news source, even though many news organizations utilize it. I view Facebook as what it is, a social media platform. Again, I dont use Facebook anyway so, I dont get any information from them anyway.

However, if you do look to Facebook as a source of news, you just have to go into it with scrutiny and skepticism. They are likely to be just like any other platform, with the agenda of some sort.

In this case, however, it's not like FB was being biased. Yes, they did ban several right leaning pages, but they also banned farrakhan. What does that mean? I dont know. Perhaps trying to appear to be fair? Or maybe what they did was actually what they felt was best for their platform.

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.

Again, it should be expected that any media platform one visits would do these kinds of things. I've said it several times on usmb that i dont really trust any news or media outlet anyway. It has been seen time and time again that all media, including fox, has its biases, and it is going to spin every story to make it play out in a certain way.

It's sad, or maybe it's just all in my head, to think there isnt really any honest source of news that we can go to to find the truth. I have just watched and listened to both sides enough to see how partisan it all is, and nobody is ever going to give you an honest opinion because everyone wants their side to win.

Think of it like this: let's say you went to a grocery store and started to rant and rave, and make a scene, the manager would ask you to leave. Well, in this case, those people were kicked out of the Facebook store, and people will have to shop elsewhere to buy their wares.

It's not like their freedom of speech was censored, they can still sell their "wares" on other stores (sites), they just can no longer sell their wares in the Facebook store.

Maybe I've got it all wrong. Honestly, I'm just trying to see it from a different perspective, one that upholds the same values for everyone. Yes, Facebook does hold a great deal of influence, and this in of itself is one of the problems. People have let Facebook take over their lives, but I'm still looking at it like they should be allowed to operate as the private business they are, and make their own rules, and just like the case of the baker, if the consumer doesnt agree, they can choose to avoid that business.

I can admit that I'm being short sighted, and not seeing the bigger picture, but what is the alternative? If we say that a private business should be regulated into allowing all speech, then what happens when the next bakery refuses service to a customer?

I'm open to being corrected if im wrong, as I know I have faults, and can always stand to learn where I have error in judgment.

 

[dblack]

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]

Couple a freaking trolls.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

Also, I guess I'm just tired of arguing for partisan sake. I can see that it is an unwinnable battle, because one is never going to convince the other that they are wrong, or make them change an opinion. We are too deeply entrenched in ideology to admit when we are wrong.

Rather, I'd like to attempt to find the truth behind the argument, and argue based on what is right and what aligns with the constitution. That is my aim anyway, and I'll likely stumble along the way, but at least I'm going to give it a shot.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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]

Couple a freaking trolls.

I'm not sure I understand. What you just saw there actually happened, there was no game, and no agenda. Moon and I talked civilly and came to an agreement. I dont see where that was trolling.

Am I missing something?

 

[dblack]

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]

Couple a freaking trolls.

I'm not sure I understand. What you just saw there actually happened, there was no game, and no agenda. Moon and I talked civilly and came to an agreement. I dont see where that was trolling.

Am I missing something?

I was being silly. I actually appreciate the sane discourse.

 

[beagle9]

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?

A users license agreement is not the same as walking into a bakery....Normally walking into a bakery doesn't require you to select yes or no with the agreement to use the place of business or the product of a business like a website/program does.

That's what signs are for, but when you put them up, you quickly come under scrutiny as well. It's almost a losing situation no matter what one does these days (just can't satisfy anyone anymore). No one wins in the current volital environment's being created and then segregated afterwards along cultural lines etc, and in some cases justifiably so.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It’s always different and unfair when I am denied a service.

You still harping on about the bakery thing again?

You still sniveling about being oppressed instead of starting your own social media platform? You don't have a right to Facebook account. Deal with it.

Why couldnt the faggots start their own bakery? With dick-shaped cakes and everything!

There are bakers that specialize in that type of thing. Those particular assholes just wanted to force it on someone and/or get them a 'suit. Most likely the latter.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

He's right, you do not want the government being mods n shit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Apparently it's the former.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's too bad "liberals" don't believe in liberty. Unless someone openly, clearly advocates violence, they should get to speak. That's my version of "tolerance and inclusion." I despise Farrakhan, but I have never seen a quote attributed to him that advocates violence, and the few times I have read or listened to his speeches I have never seen him advocate violence. I would let the man speak on my platform/forum/whatever.

When you start banning speech because YOU consider it to be provocative, incendiary, inflammatory, hateful, etc., you're on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and oppression.

Liberals do believe in liberty. Social Marxists and Communo-leftists do not.

 

[skye]

This just now from The President!





Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 31m31 minutes ago


I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

3:55 PM - 3 May 2019

 

[Ambivalent1]

There are consequences to acting like an ass on social media. If you come into a restaurant and take a shit on the floor, they are likely to remove you too. Same fucking thing here. How about you act like a fucking adult, and perhaps you will have less problems.

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

You're a bright one and quite the little fascist. You don't have the power to curb anyone's speech. Freedom means having to put up with bad and enjoying the good. If you ban the "bad" NOBODY is "free".

 

[mikegriffith1]

The standard used to that you couldn't do the equivalent of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater and could not advocate violence; otherwise, you could say what you wanted to say. But, thanks to so-called "liberalism," people are getting banned from major platforms and forums just because those own the platforms/forums don't like their message. What happened to the "public accommodation" argument?

 

[Lakhota]

Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

Facebook finally did something right.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

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.

Then it is up to us to do our own due diligence to find the other half of the story. I dont view Facebook as a news source, even though many news organizations utilize it. I view Facebook as what it is, a social media platform. Again, I dont use Facebook anyway so, I dont get any information from them anyway.

However, if you do look to Facebook as a source of news, you just have to go into it with scrutiny and skepticism. They are likely to be just like any other platform, with the agenda of some sort.

In this case, however, it's not like FB was being biased. Yes, they did ban several right leaning pages, but they also banned farrakhan. What does that mean? I dont know. Perhaps trying to appear to be fair? Or maybe what they did was actually what they felt was best for their platform.

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.

Again, it should be expected that any media platform one visits would do these kinds of things. I've said it several times on usmb that i dont really trust any news or media outlet anyway. It has been seen time and time again that all media, including fox, has its biases, and it is going to spin every story to make it play out in a certain way.

It's sad, or maybe it's just all in my head, to think there isnt really any honest source of news that we can go to to find the truth. I have just watched and listened to both sides enough to see how partisan it all is, and nobody is ever going to give you an honest opinion because everyone wants their side to win.

Think of it like this: let's say you went to a grocery store and started to rant and rave, and make a scene, the manager would ask you to leave. Well, in this case, those people were kicked out of the Facebook store, and people will have to shop elsewhere to buy their wares.

It's not like their freedom of speech was censored, they can still sell their "wares" on other stores (sites), they just can no longer sell their wares in the Facebook store.

Maybe I've got it all wrong. Honestly, I'm just trying to see it from a different perspective, one that upholds the same values for everyone. Yes, Facebook does hold a great deal of influence, and this in of itself is one of the problems. People have let Facebook take over their lives, but I'm still looking at it like they should be allowed to operate as the private business they are, and make their own rules, and just like the case of the baker, if the consumer doesnt agree, they can choose to avoid that business.

I can admit that I'm being short sighted, and not seeing the bigger picture, but what is the alternative? If we say that a private business should be regulated into allowing all speech, then what happens when the next bakery refuses service to a customer?

I'm open to being corrected if im wrong, as I know I have faults, and can always stand to learn where I have error in judgment.

In my opinion, what we can do is to oppose all kinds of censorship. If facebook believed it would lose members or viewers if it censored any speech, it would not censor speech. Much of the speech on the extreme left and right is deeply offensive to me, but I believe that worse than having to see or hear that speech is for someone else to decide for what I should see or hear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Facebook finally did something right.

Facebook did something legal.

There's NOTHING right about silencing opposition. You will NEVER see me do something like that.

You are my fucking enemy. You do not deserve to share the same planet with me.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Facebook finally did something right.

Facebook did something legal.

There's NOTHING right about silencing opposition. You will NEVER see me do something like that.

You are my fucking enemy. You do not deserve to share the same planet with me.

.

I welcome all social media to shut down all hatemongers!

 

[basquebromance]

did Instagram ban Milo? who cares about facebook!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

It is Facebook right as a private company...