Facebook Upholds Trump Ban

[progressive hunter]

This could be the issue that will have the greatest impact on America's future. Trump is being rejected and is without a soapbox from which to peddle his lies.

A wise decision by Facebook in being able to separate hate speech from the right to free speech.

WH: Social Media Platforms Should Block More 'Untrustworthy Content'

The White House said President Joe Biden supported social media companies banning more content considered "untrustworthy" on their platforms.

www.breitbart.com

supporting free speech is about speech you disagree with,,,

That exact concept: supporting free speech entails holding the door open for even the speech you personally disagree was hard for me to grasp a few years back. A KKK rally was going to be in an area where I had a trip planned. I squawked for days about how those losers would be there, almost enjoying my fury lol...well almost if it didn't involve such hate...but anyway..had someone point that out to me...point black "Hey, you say you support free speech so that means supporting the right of speech by all groups." The hard part is defining the line between free speech and hate speech. When exactly do words that contain fiery rhetoric turn into hateful rhetoric? That has yet to be ironed out obviously and maybe in another 10 to 20 years for the US, hard to measure.

The real problem is during political rallies you'll often have at least a small group of haters...full to their gills in hate...varying age groups, and they know little else. They will show off and one-up the others in rhetoric, try to incite a fire or do some type of damage. Stepping onto the next step of hate speech is to actively encourage others to target the homes and families of their "opposition". That is crossing the line, although the defense will insist it was strictly a matter of expressing free speech and things maybe, got out of hand but that no hate crimes were commited. Venomous hate speech cannot be left unchecked. Really, it's pretty sad to think the US needs to decide in 2021 what should have been cut and dry decades ago...surely the 60's gave cause for defining the two in clear terms. Here we are 60 years later still trying to figure that out.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,

I will politely disagree. Miniscule example, but an example. As a kid I played softball. One game I clearly recall during the playoffs. Now, many claim girls sports should not matter to anyone, mostly because they don't think they are important imo. Anyway, it can be a big deal to some girls. So, this game turned into one of those things that are now filmed instantly from the crowd. The fans were loud and mostly yelling at the umpires. There wer bad calls, so one man who must have had absolutely no life other than his daughter's success playing softball went overboard in words and deeds. That guy had no business going ballistic, cussing the umps, getting on the field, and starting a fight-which he did. All I clearly remember about that guy was his size...I have him around 7 ft 280 lol when he was maybe normal height for a male just heavy set. Point is had that angry guy not been there, there would have been no chaos, no fist fights on the field (around 15 jumped in from both sides)-parents not the players, and mayhem commenced. Police were only 5 minutes away but it took that...over girls softball! There are people in this world who will act regardless of consequence. They just don't care, and I want to make them care one way or the other I guess. People like that only care about beating up on weaker people when they can and cry foul at any occasion.

thats just speech you hated,,

I hated his hate speech yes

according to your criteria thats hate speech,,,

Either I'm not following you or we just have a different take. To be fair to my younger self, my capability for hate speech was minimal...although I was pretty good about stomping up the stairs on occasion at home as a typical teen ha.

Are you meaning posting my thoughts about that could be considered hate speech by my standards? Or, are you saying my definition of hate speech (words incite others intentionally...not by chance...not by accident...not by some crack pot saying "OH, I thought he meant X even though he said Y" but stating "We need to kill those bastards now!" Yes, I would consider that hateful and with intent...intent matters in all cases..

theres no such thing as hate speech,, only speech you hate,,

what we call people like you is pussys that cant handle words,,,

 

[ClaireH]

This could be the issue that will have the greatest impact on America's future. Trump is being rejected and is without a soapbox from which to peddle his lies.

A wise decision by Facebook in being able to separate hate speech from the right to free speech.

WH: Social Media Platforms Should Block More 'Untrustworthy Content'

The White House said President Joe Biden supported social media companies banning more content considered "untrustworthy" on their platforms.

www.breitbart.com

supporting free speech is about speech you disagree with,,,

That exact concept: supporting free speech entails holding the door open for even the speech you personally disagree was hard for me to grasp a few years back. A KKK rally was going to be in an area where I had a trip planned. I squawked for days about how those losers would be there, almost enjoying my fury lol...well almost if it didn't involve such hate...but anyway..had someone point that out to me...point black "Hey, you say you support free speech so that means supporting the right of speech by all groups." The hard part is defining the line between free speech and hate speech. When exactly do words that contain fiery rhetoric turn into hateful rhetoric? That has yet to be ironed out obviously and maybe in another 10 to 20 years for the US, hard to measure.

The real problem is during political rallies you'll often have at least a small group of haters...full to their gills in hate...varying age groups, and they know little else. They will show off and one-up the others in rhetoric, try to incite a fire or do some type of damage. Stepping onto the next step of hate speech is to actively encourage others to target the homes and families of their "opposition". That is crossing the line, although the defense will insist it was strictly a matter of expressing free speech and things maybe, got out of hand but that no hate crimes were commited. Venomous hate speech cannot be left unchecked. Really, it's pretty sad to think the US needs to decide in 2021 what should have been cut and dry decades ago...surely the 60's gave cause for defining the two in clear terms. Here we are 60 years later still trying to figure that out.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,

I will politely disagree. Miniscule example, but an example. As a kid I played softball. One game I clearly recall during the playoffs. Now, many claim girls sports should not matter to anyone, mostly because they don't think they are important imo. Anyway, it can be a big deal to some girls. So, this game turned into one of those things that are now filmed instantly from the crowd. The fans were loud and mostly yelling at the umpires. There wer bad calls, so one man who must have had absolutely no life other than his daughter's success playing softball went overboard in words and deeds. That guy had no business going ballistic, cussing the umps, getting on the field, and starting a fight-which he did. All I clearly remember about that guy was his size...I have him around 7 ft 280 lol when he was maybe normal height for a male just heavy set. Point is had that angry guy not been there, there would have been no chaos, no fist fights on the field (around 15 jumped in from both sides)-parents not the players, and mayhem commenced. Police were only 5 minutes away but it took that...over girls softball! There are people in this world who will act regardless of consequence. They just don't care, and I want to make them care one way or the other I guess. People like that only care about beating up on weaker people when they can and cry foul at any occasion.

thats just speech you hated,,

I hated his hate speech yes

according to your criteria thats hate speech,,,

Either I'm not following you or we just have a different take. To be fair to my younger self, my capability for hate speech was minimal...although I was pretty good about stomping up the stairs on occasion at home as a typical teen ha.

Are you meaning posting my thoughts about that could be considered hate speech by my standards? Or, are you saying my definition of hate speech (words incite others intentionally...not by chance...not by accident...not by some crack pot saying "OH, I thought he meant X even though he said Y" but stating "We need to kill those bastards now!" Yes, I would consider that hateful and with intent...intent matters in all cases..

theres no such thing as hate speech,, only speech you hate,,

what we call people like you is pussys that cant handle words,,,You are welcome to call me whatever you want. I'll take the high road by choice, but it wasn't my first choice ha So, you claim to know how I am affected..get a grip...the discussion, to have value, should be beyond your take or mine. That's why I come on this board, to compare and consider views outside of my own. One constant I have is expecting that people be held accountable. Always. I am well-versed in the psychological tactics of warfare if you'd like to go a few rounds, but you've already given away your hand with your last post. You got nothing. lol

 

[progressive hunter]

This could be the issue that will have the greatest impact on America's future. Trump is being rejected and is without a soapbox from which to peddle his lies.

A wise decision by Facebook in being able to separate hate speech from the right to free speech.

WH: Social Media Platforms Should Block More 'Untrustworthy Content'

The White House said President Joe Biden supported social media companies banning more content considered "untrustworthy" on their platforms.

www.breitbart.com

supporting free speech is about speech you disagree with,,,

That exact concept: supporting free speech entails holding the door open for even the speech you personally disagree was hard for me to grasp a few years back. A KKK rally was going to be in an area where I had a trip planned. I squawked for days about how those losers would be there, almost enjoying my fury lol...well almost if it didn't involve such hate...but anyway..had someone point that out to me...point black "Hey, you say you support free speech so that means supporting the right of speech by all groups." The hard part is defining the line between free speech and hate speech. When exactly do words that contain fiery rhetoric turn into hateful rhetoric? That has yet to be ironed out obviously and maybe in another 10 to 20 years for the US, hard to measure.

The real problem is during political rallies you'll often have at least a small group of haters...full to their gills in hate...varying age groups, and they know little else. They will show off and one-up the others in rhetoric, try to incite a fire or do some type of damage. Stepping onto the next step of hate speech is to actively encourage others to target the homes and families of their "opposition". That is crossing the line, although the defense will insist it was strictly a matter of expressing free speech and things maybe, got out of hand but that no hate crimes were commited. Venomous hate speech cannot be left unchecked. Really, it's pretty sad to think the US needs to decide in 2021 what should have been cut and dry decades ago...surely the 60's gave cause for defining the two in clear terms. Here we are 60 years later still trying to figure that out.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,

I will politely disagree. Miniscule example, but an example. As a kid I played softball. One game I clearly recall during the playoffs. Now, many claim girls sports should not matter to anyone, mostly because they don't think they are important imo. Anyway, it can be a big deal to some girls. So, this game turned into one of those things that are now filmed instantly from the crowd. The fans were loud and mostly yelling at the umpires. There wer bad calls, so one man who must have had absolutely no life other than his daughter's success playing softball went overboard in words and deeds. That guy had no business going ballistic, cussing the umps, getting on the field, and starting a fight-which he did. All I clearly remember about that guy was his size...I have him around 7 ft 280 lol when he was maybe normal height for a male just heavy set. Point is had that angry guy not been there, there would have been no chaos, no fist fights on the field (around 15 jumped in from both sides)-parents not the players, and mayhem commenced. Police were only 5 minutes away but it took that...over girls softball! There are people in this world who will act regardless of consequence. They just don't care, and I want to make them care one way or the other I guess. People like that only care about beating up on weaker people when they can and cry foul at any occasion.

thats just speech you hated,,

I hated his hate speech yes

according to your criteria thats hate speech,,,

Either I'm not following you or we just have a different take. To be fair to my younger self, my capability for hate speech was minimal...although I was pretty good about stomping up the stairs on occasion at home as a typical teen ha.

Are you meaning posting my thoughts about that could be considered hate speech by my standards? Or, are you saying my definition of hate speech (words incite others intentionally...not by chance...not by accident...not by some crack pot saying "OH, I thought he meant X even though he said Y" but stating "We need to kill those bastards now!" Yes, I would consider that hateful and with intent...intent matters in all cases..

theres no such thing as hate speech,, only speech you hate,,

what we call people like you is pussys that cant handle words,,,You are welcome to call me whatever you want. I'll take the high road by choice, but it wasn't my first choice ha So, you claim to know how I am affected..get a grip...the discussion, to have value, should be beyond your take or mine. That's why I come on this board, to compare and consider views outside of my own. One constant I have is expecting that people be held accountable. Always. I am well-versed in the psychological tactics of warfare if you'd like to go a few rounds, but you've already given away your hand with your last post. You got nothing. lol

I got thicker skin than you and dont run around crying like a little bitch about people saying mean things to me,,,

now go bother someone else little girl,,

 

[ClaireH]

This could be the issue that will have the greatest impact on America's future. Trump is being rejected and is without a soapbox from which to peddle his lies.

A wise decision by Facebook in being able to separate hate speech from the right to free speech.

WH: Social Media Platforms Should Block More 'Untrustworthy Content'

The White House said President Joe Biden supported social media companies banning more content considered "untrustworthy" on their platforms.

www.breitbart.com

supporting free speech is about speech you disagree with,,,

That exact concept: supporting free speech entails holding the door open for even the speech you personally disagree was hard for me to grasp a few years back. A KKK rally was going to be in an area where I had a trip planned. I squawked for days about how those losers would be there, almost enjoying my fury lol...well almost if it didn't involve such hate...but anyway..had someone point that out to me...point black "Hey, you say you support free speech so that means supporting the right of speech by all groups." The hard part is defining the line between free speech and hate speech. When exactly do words that contain fiery rhetoric turn into hateful rhetoric? That has yet to be ironed out obviously and maybe in another 10 to 20 years for the US, hard to measure.

The real problem is during political rallies you'll often have at least a small group of haters...full to their gills in hate...varying age groups, and they know little else. They will show off and one-up the others in rhetoric, try to incite a fire or do some type of damage. Stepping onto the next step of hate speech is to actively encourage others to target the homes and families of their "opposition". That is crossing the line, although the defense will insist it was strictly a matter of expressing free speech and things maybe, got out of hand but that no hate crimes were commited. Venomous hate speech cannot be left unchecked. Really, it's pretty sad to think the US needs to decide in 2021 what should have been cut and dry decades ago...surely the 60's gave cause for defining the two in clear terms. Here we are 60 years later still trying to figure that out.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,

I will politely disagree. Miniscule example, but an example. As a kid I played softball. One game I clearly recall during the playoffs. Now, many claim girls sports should not matter to anyone, mostly because they don't think they are important imo. Anyway, it can be a big deal to some girls. So, this game turned into one of those things that are now filmed instantly from the crowd. The fans were loud and mostly yelling at the umpires. There wer bad calls, so one man who must have had absolutely no life other than his daughter's success playing softball went overboard in words and deeds. That guy had no business going ballistic, cussing the umps, getting on the field, and starting a fight-which he did. All I clearly remember about that guy was his size...I have him around 7 ft 280 lol when he was maybe normal height for a male just heavy set. Point is had that angry guy not been there, there would have been no chaos, no fist fights on the field (around 15 jumped in from both sides)-parents not the players, and mayhem commenced. Police were only 5 minutes away but it took that...over girls softball! There are people in this world who will act regardless of consequence. They just don't care, and I want to make them care one way or the other I guess. People like that only care about beating up on weaker people when they can and cry foul at any occasion.

thats just speech you hated,,

I hated his hate speech yes

according to your criteria thats hate speech,,,

Either I'm not following you or we just have a different take. To be fair to my younger self, my capability for hate speech was minimal...although I was pretty good about stomping up the stairs on occasion at home as a typical teen ha.

Are you meaning posting my thoughts about that could be considered hate speech by my standards? Or, are you saying my definition of hate speech (words incite others intentionally...not by chance...not by accident...not by some crack pot saying "OH, I thought he meant X even though he said Y" but stating "We need to kill those bastards now!" Yes, I would consider that hateful and with intent...intent matters in all cases..

theres no such thing as hate speech,, only speech you hate,,

what we call people like you is pussys that cant handle words,,,You are welcome to call me whatever you want. I'll take the high road by choice, but it wasn't my first choice ha So, you claim to know how I am affected..get a grip...the discussion, to have value, should be beyond your take or mine. That's why I come on this board, to compare and consider views outside of my own. One constant I have is expecting that people be held accountable. Always. I am well-versed in the psychological tactics of warfare if you'd like to go a few rounds, but you've already given away your hand with your last post. You got nothing. lol

I got thicker skin than you and dont run around crying like a little bitch about people saying mean things to me,,,

now go bother someone else little girl,,

Ah, I think you're just trying to get me to use hate speech. Not happening.

Yes, that hurts being called a little girl. Whimpers away...barely able to carry on now after such a tongue lashing. lol Last response you'll get from me because of wasting everyone elses screenspace, but feel free to consider it's really because I am too weak to hold my head up now from your cruel words

 

[OldLady]

They announced it this morning. trump can't go back to Facebook.

They have the right to decide who can be on their site. trump violated the rules over and over again. He made very bad choices so he should take personal responsibility, bad consequences comes with bad choices. He should have been taught that as a child.

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

Good, this will hurt Facebook. Im surprised they were dumb enough to do it, but you lefties are as dumb as they get.

Yeah, how dare a private firm decide what's in their best interest. Private enterprise...bah humbug.

I guess that doesn't apply to bakeries though if they happen to be Christian. And I never knew a business where it was "in their interest" to ban millions of accounts from speaking an opinion in a free society-- -- -- especially one that not one of them can prove is wrong.

You don't like that the law that bans bakeries from discriminating against a group of citizens? What part of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution don't you get? And no...banning Rump isn't discrimination. Look up the term.

Right-wingers are so funny. They scream night and day that they love the Constitution and the laws of the land until it goes against them! LOL

It wasn't against the law for CITIZENS (key word) to not want to conduct their private property as they see fit.
In fact, PA laws trample on several constitutional rights for CITIZENS (again, key word)
Do you understand now?

facebook isnt private property,, its a public accommodation,,,

Whats the difference

my house is private property,, facebook is open to the public my house isnt,,

Public accommodations. ie a horseshit excuse for government intervention.

well corps. are a creation of government,,

Yes, yes. "You didn't build that". We all owe our left nut to the government. Sorry, no.

when did I say that??

when you sign a contract with the government there are strings attached,,

thats why I like the free market system better and have worked in it for 30 yrs,,

You're parroting the same excuses liberals use when they try to justify government intervention. If you don't like the corporate charter, we can talk. That can be changed. But for fuck's sake don't use it as an excuse for Big Brother.

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

For those who don't remember what the ban was about,

In 2015 when he was still only a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Trump posted a video calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
Facebook refused to take it down and created the “newsworthiness” policy that allowed posts which broke their own guidelines to remain up because of public interest.
During 2020 Mr Trump used Facebook to post a string of misleading information about Covid-19 and attacked racial justice protesters as “thugs.”
With criticism of the company’s approach to Mr Trump deepening, Facebook announced in June 2020 that it would put labels on posts that violated hate speech and other policies, even if they were from politicians such as Mr Trump.
And they committed to remove any posts which incited violence or voter suppression, regardless of newsworthiness.

But it was Mr Trump’s response to his own supporters attacking the Capitol on 6 January, in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, that finally brought about his ban.

Five people, including a police officer died, in the MAGA riot, and Mr Trump eventually posted a video on Facebook and Instagram urging his supporters to leave the Capitol and go home.

But infamously Mr Trump also took the opportunity to tell them: “We love you, you’re very special.”
After the video was posted, Facebook immediately suspended Mr Trump for 24 hours, and Mr Zuckerberg announced on 7 January that the ban was indefinite.
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” he said.

What did Trump post to get himself banned from Facebook?

Facebook Oversight Board announces decision on ex-president’s access to platform

www.independent.co.uk

This is no noble fight to express your truth. T**** repeatedly violated the posting guidelines, he was warned, his posts were flagged, he responded by going to war over Section 230 of the Communications Act to get payback.

He's just an asshole troll.

 

[progressive hunter]

They announced it this morning. trump can't go back to Facebook.

They have the right to decide who can be on their site. trump violated the rules over and over again. He made very bad choices so he should take personal responsibility, bad consequences comes with bad choices. He should have been taught that as a child.

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

Good, this will hurt Facebook. Im surprised they were dumb enough to do it, but you lefties are as dumb as they get.

Yeah, how dare a private firm decide what's in their best interest. Private enterprise...bah humbug.

I guess that doesn't apply to bakeries though if they happen to be Christian. And I never knew a business where it was "in their interest" to ban millions of accounts from speaking an opinion in a free society-- -- -- especially one that not one of them can prove is wrong.

You don't like that the law that bans bakeries from discriminating against a group of citizens? What part of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution don't you get? And no...banning Rump isn't discrimination. Look up the term.

Right-wingers are so funny. They scream night and day that they love the Constitution and the laws of the land until it goes against them! LOL

It wasn't against the law for CITIZENS (key word) to not want to conduct their private property as they see fit.
In fact, PA laws trample on several constitutional rights for CITIZENS (again, key word)
Do you understand now?

facebook isnt private property,, its a public accommodation,,,

Whats the difference

my house is private property,, facebook is open to the public my house isnt,,

Public accommodations. ie a horseshit excuse for government intervention.

well corps. are a creation of government,,

Yes, yes. "You didn't build that". We all owe our left nut to the government. Sorry, no.

when did I say that??

when you sign a contract with the government there are strings attached,,

thats why I like the free market system better and have worked in it for 30 yrs,,

You're parroting the same excuses liberals use when they try to justify government intervention. If you don't like the corporate charter, we can talk. That can be changed. But for fuck's sake don't use it as an excuse for Big Brother.

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

For those who don't remember what the ban was about,

In 2015 when he was still only a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Trump posted a video calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
Facebook refused to take it down and created the “newsworthiness” policy that allowed posts which broke their own guidelines to remain up because of public interest.
During 2020 Mr Trump used Facebook to post a string of misleading information about Covid-19 and attacked racial justice protesters as “thugs.”
With criticism of the company’s approach to Mr Trump deepening, Facebook announced in June 2020 that it would put labels on posts that violated hate speech and other policies, even if they were from politicians such as Mr Trump.
And they committed to remove any posts which incited violence or voter suppression, regardless of newsworthiness.

But it was Mr Trump’s response to his own supporters attacking the Capitol on 6 January, in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, that finally brought about his ban.

Five people, including a police officer died, in the MAGA riot, and Mr Trump eventually posted a video on Facebook and Instagram urging his supporters to leave the Capitol and go home.

But infamously Mr Trump also took the opportunity to tell them: “We love you, you’re very special.”
After the video was posted, Facebook immediately suspended Mr Trump for 24 hours, and Mr Zuckerberg announced on 7 January that the ban was indefinite.
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” he said.

What did Trump post to get himself banned from Facebook?

Facebook Oversight Board announces decision on ex-president’s access to platform

www.independent.co.uk

This is no noble fight to express your truth. T**** repeatedly violated the posting guidelines, he was warned, his posts were flagged, he responded by going to war over Section 230 of the Communications Act to get payback.

He's just an asshole troll.

to be clear,, the whole facebook issue goes far beyond just trump,, they have done many things like restricted the hunter laptop story before the election to keep it from hurting biden and many other things similar,,, twitter and youtube did the same things,,

 

[OldLady]

They announced it this morning. trump can't go back to Facebook.

They have the right to decide who can be on their site. trump violated the rules over and over again. He made very bad choices so he should take personal responsibility, bad consequences comes with bad choices. He should have been taught that as a child.

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

Good, this will hurt Facebook. Im surprised they were dumb enough to do it, but you lefties are as dumb as they get.

Yeah, how dare a private firm decide what's in their best interest. Private enterprise...bah humbug.

I guess that doesn't apply to bakeries though if they happen to be Christian. And I never knew a business where it was "in their interest" to ban millions of accounts from speaking an opinion in a free society-- -- -- especially one that not one of them can prove is wrong.

You don't like that the law that bans bakeries from discriminating against a group of citizens? What part of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution don't you get? And no...banning Rump isn't discrimination. Look up the term.

Right-wingers are so funny. They scream night and day that they love the Constitution and the laws of the land until it goes against them! LOL

It wasn't against the law for CITIZENS (key word) to not want to conduct their private property as they see fit.
In fact, PA laws trample on several constitutional rights for CITIZENS (again, key word)
Do you understand now?

facebook isnt private property,, its a public accommodation,,,

Whats the difference

my house is private property,, facebook is open to the public my house isnt,,

Public accommodations. ie a horseshit excuse for government intervention.

well corps. are a creation of government,,

Yes, yes. "You didn't build that". We all owe our left nut to the government. Sorry, no.

when did I say that??

when you sign a contract with the government there are strings attached,,

thats why I like the free market system better and have worked in it for 30 yrs,,

You're parroting the same excuses liberals use when they try to justify government intervention. If you don't like the corporate charter, we can talk. That can be changed. But for fuck's sake don't use it as an excuse for Big Brother.

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

For those who don't remember what the ban was about,

In 2015 when he was still only a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Trump posted a video calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
Facebook refused to take it down and created the “newsworthiness” policy that allowed posts which broke their own guidelines to remain up because of public interest.
During 2020 Mr Trump used Facebook to post a string of misleading information about Covid-19 and attacked racial justice protesters as “thugs.”
With criticism of the company’s approach to Mr Trump deepening, Facebook announced in June 2020 that it would put labels on posts that violated hate speech and other policies, even if they were from politicians such as Mr Trump.
And they committed to remove any posts which incited violence or voter suppression, regardless of newsworthiness.

But it was Mr Trump’s response to his own supporters attacking the Capitol on 6 January, in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, that finally brought about his ban.

Five people, including a police officer died, in the MAGA riot, and Mr Trump eventually posted a video on Facebook and Instagram urging his supporters to leave the Capitol and go home.

But infamously Mr Trump also took the opportunity to tell them: “We love you, you’re very special.”
After the video was posted, Facebook immediately suspended Mr Trump for 24 hours, and Mr Zuckerberg announced on 7 January that the ban was indefinite.
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” he said.

What did Trump post to get himself banned from Facebook?

Facebook Oversight Board announces decision on ex-president’s access to platform

www.independent.co.uk

This is no noble fight to express your truth. T**** repeatedly violated the posting guidelines, he was warned, his posts were flagged, he responded by going to war over Section 230 of the Communications Act to get payback.

He's just an asshole troll.

to be clear,, the whole facebook issue goes far beyond just trump,, they have done many things like restricted the hunter laptop story before the election to keep it from hurting biden and many other things similar,,, twitter and youtube did the same things,,

That crap Rudy got from the Russians for a bargain? Nothing suspicious about that story. LOL

 

[toobfreak]

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

In 2015 when he was still only a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Trump posted a video calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
Facebook refused to take it down and created the “newsworthiness” policy that allowed posts which broke their own guidelines to remain up because of public interest.
During 2020 Mr Trump used Facebook to post a string of misleading information about Covid-19 and attacked racial justice protesters as “thugs.”
With criticism of the company’s approach to Mr Trump deepening, Facebook announced in June 2020 that it would put labels on posts that violated hate speech and other policies, even if they were from politicians such as Mr Trump.
And they committed to remove any posts which incited violence or voter suppression, regardless of newsworthiness.

But it was Mr Trump’s response to his own supporters attacking the Capitol on 6 January, in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, that finally brought about his ban.

In that case, OddLady, all FB really needs to do is put a disclaimer over Trump's messages saying that some of his comments have been found wrong, or that they don't agree with them, or put Trump in a special section. There still is no justification for banning the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for saying things you can't even prove are false while you have enemies from terrorist nations there posting freely. Trump was banned for one reason alone: THEY FEARED HIS POWER.

Five people, including a police officer died, in the MAGA riot

Is that the OFFICIAL name to the event now, OddLady? The MAGA Riots? Are we now to suspend THREE MONTHS of information we have gleaned since that day? And ONE PERSON died at the Capitol, murdered by the police for no good reason and he will be charged in court. The other four were later and circumstantial.

BUT THANKS FOR REMINDING US OF ALL THE HURT, PAIN, COST AND MADNESS CAUSED BY A GROUP OF LEFT-WING ORGANIZATIONS HELLBENT ON SWINGING THE ELECTION TO ENSURE A BIDEN VICTORY, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, AT ANY COST.

 

[the other mike]

Facebook is gonna lose a ton of people over this.

 

[progressive hunter]

They announced it this morning. trump can't go back to Facebook.

They have the right to decide who can be on their site. trump violated the rules over and over again. He made very bad choices so he should take personal responsibility, bad consequences comes with bad choices. He should have been taught that as a child.

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

Good, this will hurt Facebook. Im surprised they were dumb enough to do it, but you lefties are as dumb as they get.

Yeah, how dare a private firm decide what's in their best interest. Private enterprise...bah humbug.

I guess that doesn't apply to bakeries though if they happen to be Christian. And I never knew a business where it was "in their interest" to ban millions of accounts from speaking an opinion in a free society-- -- -- especially one that not one of them can prove is wrong.

You don't like that the law that bans bakeries from discriminating against a group of citizens? What part of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution don't you get? And no...banning Rump isn't discrimination. Look up the term.

Right-wingers are so funny. They scream night and day that they love the Constitution and the laws of the land until it goes against them! LOL

It wasn't against the law for CITIZENS (key word) to not want to conduct their private property as they see fit.
In fact, PA laws trample on several constitutional rights for CITIZENS (again, key word)
Do you understand now?

facebook isnt private property,, its a public accommodation,,,

Whats the difference

my house is private property,, facebook is open to the public my house isnt,,

Public accommodations. ie a horseshit excuse for government intervention.

well corps. are a creation of government,,

Yes, yes. "You didn't build that". We all owe our left nut to the government. Sorry, no.

when did I say that??

when you sign a contract with the government there are strings attached,,

thats why I like the free market system better and have worked in it for 30 yrs,,

You're parroting the same excuses liberals use when they try to justify government intervention. If you don't like the corporate charter, we can talk. That can be changed. But for fuck's sake don't use it as an excuse for Big Brother.

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

For those who don't remember what the ban was about,

In 2015 when he was still only a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Trump posted a video calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US.
Facebook refused to take it down and created the “newsworthiness” policy that allowed posts which broke their own guidelines to remain up because of public interest.
During 2020 Mr Trump used Facebook to post a string of misleading information about Covid-19 and attacked racial justice protesters as “thugs.”
With criticism of the company’s approach to Mr Trump deepening, Facebook announced in June 2020 that it would put labels on posts that violated hate speech and other policies, even if they were from politicians such as Mr Trump.
And they committed to remove any posts which incited violence or voter suppression, regardless of newsworthiness.

But it was Mr Trump’s response to his own supporters attacking the Capitol on 6 January, in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, that finally brought about his ban.

Five people, including a police officer died, in the MAGA riot, and Mr Trump eventually posted a video on Facebook and Instagram urging his supporters to leave the Capitol and go home.

But infamously Mr Trump also took the opportunity to tell them: “We love you, you’re very special.”
After the video was posted, Facebook immediately suspended Mr Trump for 24 hours, and Mr Zuckerberg announced on 7 January that the ban was indefinite.
“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” he said.

What did Trump post to get himself banned from Facebook?

Facebook Oversight Board announces decision on ex-president’s access to platform

www.independent.co.uk

This is no noble fight to express your truth. T**** repeatedly violated the posting guidelines, he was warned, his posts were flagged, he responded by going to war over Section 230 of the Communications Act to get payback.

He's just an asshole troll.

to be clear,, the whole facebook issue goes far beyond just trump,, they have done many things like restricted the hunter laptop story before the election to keep it from hurting biden and many other things similar,,, twitter and youtube did the same things,,

That crap Rudy got from the Russians for a bargain? Nothing suspicious about that story. LOL

are you talking about the laptop?? if so sorry to burst your cherry but it was proven true and was hunters laptop,,,

 

[the other mike]

They announced it this morning. trump can't go back to Facebook.

They have the right to decide who can be on their site. trump violated the rules over and over again. He made very bad choices so he should take personal responsibility, bad consequences comes with bad choices. He should have been taught that as a child.

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

Good, this will hurt Facebook. Im surprised they were dumb enough to do it, but you lefties are as dumb as they get.

Yeah, how dare a private firm decide what's in their best interest. Private enterprise...bah humbug.

I guess that doesn't apply to bakeries though if they happen to be Christian. And I never knew a business where it was "in their interest" to ban millions of accounts from speaking an opinion in a free society-- -- -- especially one that not one of them can prove is wrong.

You don't like that the law that bans bakeries from discriminating against a group of citizens? What part of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution don't you get? And no...banning Rump isn't discrimination. Look up the term.

Right-wingers are so funny. They scream night and day that they love the Constitution and the laws of the land until it goes against them! LOL

It wasn't against the law for CITIZENS (key word) to not want to conduct their private property as they see fit.
In fact, PA laws trample on several constitutional rights for CITIZENS (again, key word)
Do you understand now?

facebook isnt private property,, its a public accommodation,,,

Whats the difference

my house is private property,, facebook is open to the public my house isnt,,

Public accommodations. ie a horseshit excuse for government intervention.

well corps. are a creation of government,,

Yes, yes. "You didn't build that". We all owe our left nut to the government. Sorry, no.

when did I say that??

when you sign a contract with the government there are strings attached,,

thats why I like the free market system better and have worked in it for 30 yrs,,

You're parroting the same excuses liberals use when they try to justify government intervention. If you don't like the corporate charter, we can talk. That can be changed. But for fuck's sake don't use it as an excuse for Big Brother.

I'd rather not have government intervention,, if FB would say they dont allow conservative POV then I would be fine with it,, but even their own people said they violated their own rules in banning trump,,

T****

TDS is only 3 letters

 

[toobfreak]

That crap Rudy got from the Russians for a bargain? Nothing suspicious about that story. LOL

are you talking about the laptop?? if so sorry to burst your cherry but it was proven true and was hunters laptop,,,

Not to worry, PH, OddLady's cherry was busted about 73 years ago!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

 

[DrLove]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

Don’t play dumb please

 

[Toro]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

He violated the Community Standards of Facebook, specifically those that relate to the incitement of violence.

Violence and Incitement | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions

www.facebook.com

 

[DrLove]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

He violated the Community Standards of Facebook, specifically those that relate to the incitement of violence.

Violence and Incitement | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions

www.facebook.com

Not to mention COVID disinformation and election lies.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He's just an asshole troll.

If this is simply your way of arguing that you should be banned from facebook, I have to say no.

Just because you are an asshole and just because you are a troll, that does not mean you should be prevented from voicing your opinion. Now, I realize that you absolutely DESPISE liberal values, but the thing about Free speech is recognizing that you need to protect the speech you don't like and not just the speech you do.

Were you simply asleep all through those formitive years when you should have been learning civics, of were you just unable to comprehend any of it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

He violated the Community Standards of Facebook, specifically those that relate to the incitement of violence.

Violence and Incitement | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions

www.facebook.com

It should be an easy matter for you, or any of the other anti-liberal authoritarians to quote his ivocations to violence, then, shouldn't it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was happy when I first heard this. Now I’m not so sure. This puts him back in the news, which is what he wants.
Might have been better just to let him spew his hate, sow his discord and break FB’s rules ...
THEN hit him with the perma-ban so we can be done with the issue for good.

O.K., but were you as happy as you were when you received your first participation award?


What "rules" did he break, BTW?

Don’t play dumb please

You accusing ANYBODY of playing dumb is like Miley Cyrus accusing somebody of being slutty.

 

[dblack]

If this is simply your way of arguing that you should be banned from facebook, I have to say no.

Just because you are an asshole and just because you are a troll, that does not mean you should be prevented from voicing your opinion. Now, I realize that you absolutely DESPISE liberal values, but the thing about Free speech is recognizing that you need to protect the speech you don't like and not just the speech you do.

So, during an election, do you have bumper stickers for both candidates on your car? So you're not silencing the opposition?