• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

Is that a right wing characteristic? :lamo
It's definitely a conservative one. The number of rich liberal pro-choice pastors is non-existent. It doesn't really pay to be liberal and have religion as a business.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
It's definitely a conservative one. The number of rich liberal pro-choice pastors is non-existent. It doesn't really pay to be liberal and have religion as a business.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.

The ****. There are plenty of Democratic pastors that wear expensive suits.
 
I can't see the rantings of Alex Jones where he says faux-patriotic things like "Don't Tread on my freedoms bro or we're coming for you" as rising to the legal level of a "Imminent lawless action".

He's done far worse: pushing pizzagate and Sandy Hook conspiracies that have driven people into violent action, and their victims into hiding.
 
No.

As a global public forum, they have an obligation to honor free speech.

Did you just claim that a private enterprise has a social obligation? That sounds like a liberal belief! ;)
 
Unlike Facebook, the U.S. Constitution does not have a terms of service page or community standards page. These are the conditions to which each user agrees to before they are allowed to open an account on Facebook.

The Constitution prohibits government, and government only, from restricting free speech.
 
Did you just claim that a private enterprise has a social obligation? That sounds like a liberal belief! ;)

One might think so but the social obligation is hate.
 
Last edited:
The ****. There are plenty of Democratic pastors that wear expensive suits.
Sure, they're vastly outnumbered. For every Creflow, there are 10 Graham's.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
Heya, Winston. :)

Ultimately the consumer has the power to go to another website. If FB steps too far out of line, they will lose their market. I think that's as complicated as it is, and should be.

But they can't. Because of the way the internet functions, there will never be another Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter at this point. Maybe in the early days, when a small percentage of the population was online, it would be possible for a platform to outcompete another because the amount of people who were making social media accounts dwarfed those who already had an account. This is how Facebook overtook Myspace. But the market is very, very different today; pretty much everyone in America who is going to be online is online now, with exception of children (who can never upset the balance) and old people who will die soon. These big platforms completely dominate their niches, and if anyone starts a new 'free speech' site it will be so completely dominated by Nazis and cranks who have been banned elsewhere that it will kill it in the cradle; there is no big reserve if normal, well-adjusted people looking to sign up to a smaller competitor nowadays.

You also have their business model entirely backwards. They aren't selling you a product, you aren't the consumer, you are the product. Facebook's consumers are advertisers; at this point they don't care about connecting people or giving a good user experience per se, but only about giving you an addictive, if pleasant, experience in order to harvest information and sell it to their real customers. Because a large userbase is what makes a social network attractive, their size gives them an unassailable position as far as market is concerned, and allows them to do pretty much whatever they like; they're coasting on insurmountable inertia.

The problem with this scenario is that the PURPOSE of freedom of speech, the spirit of the law, is to protect speech in the commons, because of various enlightenment principles. Free speech is primarily about the right to decide what you hear, and to come to your own conclusions about it, even more so than it is about the right to physically speak. More and more, the commons are moving online, and even if the commons are privately owned free speech still applies. It's why company towns can't ban things like religious proselytization on sidewalks which they legally own, having lost supreme court cases to that effect. These social media sites also should worry very much about whether they are platforms or publishers; their actions put them in very murky waters.
 
Incorrect.

no, correct. If you sign up for a service, that service is allowed to put rules into place. Break the rules then it is bye bye, that is what is happening here. Facebook's rules are being violated and thus the extremist idiots are kicked off. Facebook does not have to comply with total and utter freedom of speech as is customary in public in the US (where the government has to allow any idiot to say just about anything, and yes, I am talking about nazi rallies, KKK rallies, Antifa rallies).
 
At the end of the day these are private, voluntary services that you are under no obligation to use and who are under no obligation to provide you their platform.

Now there is something to be said for the argument that they are so pervasive methods of communication that by restricting someone’s use of these platforms it could be construed as an infringement of free speech... There is something to be said for that but I’ll say that if the Supreme Court has said that businesses can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because they believe in a sky zombie son of a all powerful being well... good luck arguing that.

I see it as being kicked out of a bar for causing problems. No more, no less.
 
I don't want to see any hate mongers banned.

I want to know what they are up to.

I want the general public to see how vile these people are.
 
Get over your facebook addiction and drop it. Simple as that. I don't use that trash. So as far as you deep concern for why you think its so embedded in your life...

Yeah... thoughts and prayers. :lol:

I don't use Facebook either, so why the attack?


I guess I'll just put your name in the column of people who don't mind having their rights removed.
 
Now Snoop is mad and says he's gonna keep posting Farrakhan quotes on his FB.
Thats gonna be interesting, will FB now ban Snoop as well??

*slippery slope*



"BAN ME MUTHAF*CKAS" -Snoop Dogg Slams Facebook Censors After Louis Farrakhan Is Banned

BAN ME MUTHAF*CKAS” -Snoop Dogg Slams Facebook Censors After Louis Farrakhan Is Banned

“So Facebook and Instagram just banned Louis Farrakhan, I want to know for what?” Snoop asked. “All he ever do was to tell the truth. But y’all gonna ban him though.”

“What if we ban y’all? What if we stop ****in’ with y’all Facebook and Instagram? How the **** you gonna ban Minister Louis Farrakhan for putting truth out there?” he went on in his angry clip. “I stand with him…ban me mutha****a. Ban me. I’ma keep posting his ****. I’ma keep putting Louis Farrakhan out there. That’s my dear brother. **** y’all that got a problem with him.”

“Sorry Minister, I had to bang for ya. I know you don’t permit that. But that ain’t right. It’s not right,” Snoop added.

“There’s a bunch of mutha****as you can ban, but y’all chose Minister Louis Farrakhan,” he concluded before addressing “As-Salam-u-Alaikum” to Minister Farrakhan
 
You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.
.

Not will be consequences but there "can be consequences" Hamas is still going strong on facebook. People have a problem with facebook selectively applying the rules. These online debate forums have been doing that since their inception.
 
This is a restriction of free speech by a private company which has established an enormous open forum.

It is both wrong and unconstitutional.

Absolute garbage and nonsense. Wrong with every word...congrats.
 
FB has obligations to honor free speech
Legally they don't.

In fact they can boot off whomever they want from Facebook, they dont even need a legit reason.

I'm not saying I agree with them though, I think its childish and stupid to censor political opponents
 
But they can't. Because of the way the internet functions, there will never be another Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter at this point. Maybe in the early days, when a small percentage of the population was online, it would be possible for a platform to outcompete another because the amount of people who were making social media accounts dwarfed those who already had an account. This is how Facebook overtook Myspace. But the market is very, very different today; pretty much everyone in America who is going to be online is online now, with exception of children (who can never upset the balance) and old people who will die soon. These big platforms completely dominate their niches, and if anyone starts a new 'free speech' site it will be so completely dominated by Nazis and cranks who have been banned elsewhere that it will kill it in the cradle; there is no big reserve if normal, well-adjusted people looking to sign up to a smaller competitor nowadays.

You also have their business model entirely backwards. They aren't selling you a product, you aren't the consumer, you are the product. Facebook's consumers are advertisers; at this point they don't care about connecting people or giving a good user experience per se, but only about giving you an addictive, if pleasant, experience in order to harvest information and sell it to their real customers. Because a large userbase is what makes a social network attractive, their size gives them an unassailable position as far as market is concerned, and allows them to do pretty much whatever they like; they're coasting on insurmountable inertia.

The problem with this scenario is that the PURPOSE of freedom of speech, the spirit of the law, is to protect speech in the commons, because of various enlightenment principles. Free speech is primarily about the right to decide what you hear, and to come to your own conclusions about it, even more so than it is about the right to physically speak. More and more, the commons are moving online, and even if the commons are privately owned free speech still applies. It's why company towns can't ban things like religious proselytization on sidewalks which they legally own, having lost supreme court cases to that effect. These social media sites also should worry very much about whether they are platforms or publishers; their actions put them in very murky waters.

With respect, since you seem to come with the same, I disagree entirely.

Never is a long time... The notion that there will never be another {fill in the blank} is refuted by pretty much every step forward we've taken in history. I mean, FB is already being rejected by the next generation. My nephew called me old for asking him to send me something over FB... So, I think you might be overstating the importance and monopoly of FB a bit.

Regarding their business model, no, I understand how it work. :) Whether their members are consumers or consumed (or, most accurately, both), FB doesn't exist without them.

I would be interested to hear your comment regarding the post I made around compelled speech further in the thread. In the meantime, however, given that are an endless number of platforms for someone to get their opinion out on, FB, being a private corporation, cannot hope to silence anyone. I mean, let's just say FB was out to infringe upon these people's freedom of speech...that it was all some big conspiracy. So, they ban a few users from their pages. Now what? Do the users give up? Do the users not seek out other venues? If they do, is there anything FB can do to stop them? Of course not.

If you're concerned about "the commons" moving online, then be an advocate for the government to run a non profit, tax funded social media site with no TOS. Saying FB can't dictate what they host on their servers is the same as saying the local hardware cannot paint over last night's graffiti.
 
I think the bald fact is that FB can do whatever the hell they want.
They have published rules of conduct and some people break them.
Hell I get in trouble in here regularly. All one can do is hope the administration of sites like this, and FB, are even and fair with the implementation of their rules. The Internet can be a dangerous medium. People, being what they are, can be convinced of all sorts of silly notions by the slight of suggestion. Take the social media campaigns against Hillary during the election. I bet allot of what was posted, was taken as pure nonsense by most. But some people believed the nonsense. Or the nonsense stayed with them in some fashion, affecting how they might cast their votes.

The Internet has been "weaponized" because allot of people are gullible. There's a sucker born every minute.
If the inherent and somewhat valued "freedom" of the Internet bothers people...maybe the access and content of the Internet should be legislated and acted upon?
Or...maybe we can just accept that allot of people are gullible?
 
Back
Top Bottom