The Great Fakebook Purge of 2018

[bodecea]

InfoWars was only the beginning...

Now, anyone who has followed these pages for awhile and who doesn't have a pro-government, pro-corporation chip on their shoulder would be more than willing to say that these libertarian and anarchist pages were CENSORED, not removed for spam. These pages violated NO existing policies, and Facebook is LYING in order to claim otherwise.

Liberty Dissident: Facebook Bans The Free Thought Project, Press for Truth, Anti-Media and 248 Other Alternative Media Pages

Oddly, I'm starting to get a lot of unwanted far right sites on my Facebook home page. I'm having fun with them, tho.

 

[dblack]

Ahh yes. Kiss the First Amendment goodbye.

Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?


Who is laughing now, monkey boy?

Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?

Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?

Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.



And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.


But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.

Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

 

[Correll]

Not so fun when your enemies use the courts to advance their agenda, is it?


Who is laughing now, monkey boy?

Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?

Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?

Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.



And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.


But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.

Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

Regulated is not nationalized. That you felt you had to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong.


What is your true agenda?

 

[dblack]

Monkey boy? Is this just a random childish insult? Or is it supposed to mean something?

Are you happy to see the First Amendment dismissed?

Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.



And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.


But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.

Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

Regulated is not nationalized. That you felt you had to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Ahhh... forgot to use the proper euphemism. My bad.

What is your true agenda?

Freedom. Pretty diabolical, eh?

 

[Correll]

Old movie reference. You're not cool enough to get it. Pretty random, yes.



And I don't consider this move, if it happens, to be restricting speech.


But PREVENTING restrictions on speech.

Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

Regulated is not nationalized. That you felt you had to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Ahhh... forgot to use the proper euphemism. My bad.

What is your true agenda?

Freedom. Pretty diabolical, eh?

There is huge difference between telling Zuckerberg, "stop censoring conservatives you ass", and telling him, "your company is now ours, get the f**k out."


THat you are pretending otherwise, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

 

[dblack]

Ahh.. so you're in favor of completely inverting freedom of speech. Kinda like we've done with freedom of religion. Freedom means freedom from government interference. It doesn't mean that the government forces other people to do what you want.

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

Regulated is not nationalized. That you felt you had to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Ahhh... forgot to use the proper euphemism. My bad.

What is your true agenda?

Freedom. Pretty diabolical, eh?

There is huge difference between telling Zuckerberg, "stop censoring conservatives you ass", and telling him, "your company is now ours, get the f**k out."


THat you are pretending otherwise, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Your insistence that it's "different when we do it" shows you know you're an utter hypocrite. It's fine if you want that kind of government. Lot's of people do. But Trumpsters need to stop pretending.

 

[Correll]

The various social media and internet services have grown to the point that they have become, imo, a form of public utility, such as transportation or telephones.

You share this opinion with socialists. They agree with you: when a business becomes big and powerful, it should be nationalized.

They are wrong.

Regulated is not nationalized. That you felt you had to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Ahhh... forgot to use the proper euphemism. My bad.

What is your true agenda?

Freedom. Pretty diabolical, eh?

There is huge difference between telling Zuckerberg, "stop censoring conservatives you ass", and telling him, "your company is now ours, get the f**k out."


THat you are pretending otherwise, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

Your insistence that it's "different when we do it" shows you know you're an utter hypocrite. It's fine if you want that kind of government. Lot's of people do. But Trumpsters need to stop pretending.

I pointed out how the two actions you were discussing are very different.


You did not address that, so that points stands as the final word.


Your complaint is based on nothing but a dishonest equating of very reasonable regulation with nationalization.


That is dishonest and you lose.

 

[dblack]

That is dishonest and you lose.

Cornered and you don't like it. Trump isn't a conservative. He, and his idiot supporters, are no different than liberals. They want to use the power of the government to bully people they don't like - in this case Facebook. They have no regard for free markets, nor freedom, no respect for limited government.

 

[Correll]

That is dishonest and you lose.

Cornered and you don't like it. Trump isn't a conservative. He, and his idiot supporters, are no different than liberals. They want to use the power of the government to bully people they don't like - in this case Facebook. They have no regard for free markets, nor freedom, no respect for limited government.

1. I never claimed Trump was a conservative, he is a populists and a nationalist.

2. Facebook is the bully here. And government has a role in protecting the Free Speech of those Face book is censoring.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Really, I can not get one they keep wanting my name.

I have three profiles, all with fake names.

You too.

 

[MisterBeale]

More inside news from a highly reliable source.

Facebook Censorship of Alternative Media ‘Just the Beginning,’ Warns Top Neocon Insider
Facebook Censorship of Alternative Media 'Just the Beginning,' Warns Top Neocon Insider

". . . . Facebook claimed that these pages had “broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” However, sites like The Free Thought Project were verified by Facebook and widely recognized as legitimate sources of news and opinion. John Vibes, an independent reporter who contributed to Free Thought, accused Facebook of “favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices.”


In comments published here for the first time, a neoconservative Washington insider has apparently claimed a degree of credit for the recent purge — and promised more takedowns in the near future.


“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system,” remarked Jamie Fly, a senior fellow and director of the Asia program at the influential think tank the German Marshall Fund, which is funded by the U.S. government and NATO. “They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.”


Fly went on to complain that “all you need is an email” to set up a Facebook or Twitter account, lamenting the sites’ accessibility to members of the general public. He predicted a long struggle on a global scale to fix the situation, and pointed out that to do so would require constant vigilance.


Fly made these stunning comments to Jeb Sprague, who is a visiting faculty in sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara and co-author of this article. The two spoke during a lunch break at a conference on Asian security organized by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, Germany on Oct. 15 and 16. . . . "


The remarks by Fly — “we are just starting to push back” — seemed to confirm the worst fears of the alternative online media community. If he was to be believed, the latest purge was motivated by politics, not spam prevention, and was driven by powerful interests hostile to dissident views, particularly where American state violence is concerned. . . . "


Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

 

[dblack]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

 

[Correll]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

 

[dblack]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

"It's different when we do it."

Government isn't bound to a given party. Whatever power we grant the current government, will be available to the next. If we give Trump's regime the power to crack down on, er, sorry "regulate", evil lib businesses - we're giving the next liberal government the power to crack down on conservative businesses in the same way. The Dems would love to take a bite out Fox News, and you're suggesting giving them the power to do so.

 

[Correll]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

"It's different when we do it."

Government isn't bound to a given party. Whatever power we grant the current government, will be available to the next. If we give Trump's regime the power to crack down on, er, sorry "regulate", evil lib businesses - we're giving the next liberal government the power to crack down on conservative businesses in the same way. The Dems would love to take a bite out Fox News, and you're suggesting giving them the power to do so.

Sorry, we can't allow liberals to abuse their power like this. They are preventing powerful and attractive voices from being heard.


We NEED to fight back on the cultural front, or it is all over.

 

[Moonglow]

What is so big about Facebook?

 

[dblack]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

"It's different when we do it."

Government isn't bound to a given party. Whatever power we grant the current government, will be available to the next. If we give Trump's regime the power to crack down on, er, sorry "regulate", evil lib businesses - we're giving the next liberal government the power to crack down on conservative businesses in the same way. The Dems would love to take a bite out Fox News, and you're suggesting giving them the power to do so.

Sorry, we can't allow liberals to abuse their power like this. They are preventing powerful and attractive voices from being heard.


We NEED to fight back on the cultural front, or it is all over.

By giving them even more power over the culture? Think it through. Democrats will likely win again. How much more power do want to give them?

 

[Correll]

Basically, the upshot is, this article warns that the situation is more dangerous and precarious for the progressives and the left in the end than it will be for the right.

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

"It's different when we do it."

Government isn't bound to a given party. Whatever power we grant the current government, will be available to the next. If we give Trump's regime the power to crack down on, er, sorry "regulate", evil lib businesses - we're giving the next liberal government the power to crack down on conservative businesses in the same way. The Dems would love to take a bite out Fox News, and you're suggesting giving them the power to do so.

Sorry, we can't allow liberals to abuse their power like this. They are preventing powerful and attractive voices from being heard.


We NEED to fight back on the cultural front, or it is all over.

By giving them even more power over the culture? Think it through. Democrats will likely win again. How much more power do want to give them?

They already own the culture. This is them prevent us from pushing back.

 

[Moonglow]

My brother averages a month long ban from Facebookburning every 2 weeks

They're not even telling you what the "violation" was anymore....They're just leaving a notification and freezing your posting abilities....You can't even notify them anymore if you object.

This got me my last ban, which was posted in a WWII group...

View attachment 222088

It is the same on this site..

 

[dblack]

It's dangerous for anyone who values freedom. The irony is that Trumpsters are demanding that government be the solution, when - as is far too often the case - it is the problem.

Often it is the problem.


But not always. And this time it is evil lib businesses that are the problem and the solution is regulation.

"It's different when we do it."

Government isn't bound to a given party. Whatever power we grant the current government, will be available to the next. If we give Trump's regime the power to crack down on, er, sorry "regulate", evil lib businesses - we're giving the next liberal government the power to crack down on conservative businesses in the same way. The Dems would love to take a bite out Fox News, and you're suggesting giving them the power to do so.

Sorry, we can't allow liberals to abuse their power like this. They are preventing powerful and attractive voices from being heard.


We NEED to fight back on the cultural front, or it is all over.

By giving them even more power over the culture? Think it through. Democrats will likely win again. How much more power do want to give them?

They already own the culture. This is them prevent us from pushing back.

The people own the culture, not the government.