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

[Crusader13]

Though Alex Jones, Luis Farrakhan and the like have a right to free speech, Facebook has no obligation to give them a platform from which to speak.

Try posting hate speech here on DP and see how far you get. You may have a First Amendment right to speak, but no one has an obligation to give you a pulpit.

Hate speech isn't real. It's a made up system to denote anything an individual doesn't like. Thankfully, DP does not enforce bogus subjective systems like this.

This is by far the most lenient online platform I've ever been on - and I've been on hundreds. Facebook, Reddit, and countless others will ban you for expressing views they don't like. I've openly and proudly debated on here that I think homosexuality is wrong, Islam should be banned, white culture is historically better than black culture, there are only 2 genders, and a bunch of other ideas many groups hate hearing. I've only ever been moderated once or so and that was for directly saying something mean about another poster. Short of that, DP does not regulate ideas they don't like. They let people express them and then let the people who disagree express that disagreement. That's called debating - which is true to the name of the site. It's also where progress and innovation comes from. Shame other online platforms can't learn the same thing.

Facebook's attempt to restrict 'offensive' content is rife with irony given that their platform was inspired by the infamous FaceMash - something Mark Zuckerberg invented to offend the people he didn't like. Here he have an organization built off the freedom to express dislike for others banning others from disliking people.

 

[tres borrachos]

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

What's the slippery slope? He disagrees with Farrakhan being banned and screamed like a buffoon about it. How is that in any way comparable to the valid reasons someone like Farrakhan was banned by FB for his dangerous words? What's dangerous about saying "I'm mad that you banned him"?

 

[Phys251]

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.

We don't need the constant reminders. Drive their filth underground where it belongs.

Facebook has a LONG way to go to clean up its **** but this is a step in the right direction.

 

[ecofarm]

The tears of the ain't-gotta-serve-black-people "libertarian" sect are yummy. I could drink them all day.

 

[Crusader13]

We don't need the constant reminders. Drive their filth underground where it belongs.

Facebook has a LONG way to go to clean up its **** but this is a step in the right direction.

Yeah, hide bad ideas deep underground where they're safe from criticism, improvement, or destruction and where they're left to freely ferment into even worse ideas.

That never steered us wrong before. Never. Not even a little bit.

 

[Phys251]

Yeah, hide bad ideas deep underground where they're safe from criticism, improvement, or destruction and where they're left to freely ferment into even worse ideas.

That never steered us wrong before. Never. Not even a little bit.

Your opinion is misguided. Terms of Service allow for a private entity such as Facebook to censor whatever they want. I thought you conservatives were in favor of a corporation's rights to do as it pleased?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Incorrect regarding Facebook.

DP, however, is a different matter - you're correct there.

You think Facebook has an obligation to give them a platform? Why?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Hate speech isn't real. It's a made up system to denote anything an individual doesn't like. Thankfully, DP does not enforce bogus subjective systems like this.

This is by far the most lenient online platform I've ever been on - and I've been on hundreds. Facebook, Reddit, and countless others will ban you for expressing views they don't like. I've openly and proudly debated on here that I think homosexuality is wrong, Islam should be banned, white culture is historically better than black culture, there are only 2 genders, and a bunch of other ideas many groups hate hearing. I've only ever been moderated once or so and that was for directly saying something mean about another poster. Short of that, DP does not regulate ideas they don't like. They let people express them and then let the people who disagree express that disagreement. That's called debating - which is true to the name of the site. It's also where progress and innovation comes from. Shame other online platforms can't learn the same thing.

Facebook's attempt to restrict 'offensive' content is rife with irony given that their platform was inspired by the infamous FaceMash - something Mark Zuckerberg invented to offend the people he didn't like. Here he have an organization built off the freedom to express dislike for others banning others from disliking people.

There's a big difference between speech that someone hates because they strongly disagree, and hate speech.

 

[NeverTrump]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?




Well, they are certainly free to do as they please. But, these social media giants are definitely gatekeepers to information in this day & age. I'm of the belief that when you start banning people it's against the principle of Free Speech. I say let them stay. Let them stay and let the fake news stay too. I'd rather have an atmosphere on Facebook that was Wild Wild West style. Here's a ton of information and then you the user have to sift through what is verifiable and accurate and what is fake news.

"promoting hate speech and violence" sounds like a copout for getting away with an easy ban of despised public figures. I don't agree with censoring hate speech, I tend to agree the KKK can say what they damn well please, but, the left will be there to push back on their hatred. Promoting violence is a legitimate reason for banning an account. Facebook needs to establish some guidelines for what constitutes promoting violence on Facebook. 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".

Given that's the government's standard for protected and unprotected speech, shouldn't it be Facebook's as well? Or, should it not?

Thoughts and Prayers. :2wave:

 

[calamity]

Hate speech isn't real. It's a made up system to denote anything an individual doesn't like. Thankfully, DP does not enforce bogus subjective systems like this.

This is by far the most lenient online platform I've ever been on - and I've been on hundreds. Facebook, Reddit, and countless others will ban you for expressing views they don't like. I've openly and proudly debated on here that I think homosexuality is wrong, Islam should be banned, white culture is historically better than black culture, there are only 2 genders, and a bunch of other ideas many groups hate hearing. I've only ever been moderated once or so and that was for directly saying something mean about another poster. Short of that, DP does not regulate ideas they don't like. They let people express them and then let the people who disagree express that disagreement. That's called debating - which is true to the name of the site. It's also where progress and innovation comes from. Shame other online platforms can't learn the same thing.

Facebook's attempt to restrict 'offensive' content is rife with irony given that their platform was inspired by the infamous FaceMash - something Mark Zuckerberg invented to offend the people he didn't like. Here he have an organization built off the freedom to express dislike for others banning others from disliking people.

Yes, you are free to post all sorts of stupid ideas here. I am glad to hear you appreciate being given that opportunity.

 

[SheWolf]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?




Well, they are certainly free to do as they please. But, these social media giants are definitely gatekeepers to information in this day & age. I'm of the belief that when you start banning people it's against the principle of Free Speech. I say let them stay. Let them stay and let the fake news stay too. I'd rather have an atmosphere on Facebook that was Wild Wild West style. Here's a ton of information and then you the user have to sift through what is verifiable and accurate and what is fake news.

"promoting hate speech and violence" sounds like a copout for getting away with an easy ban of despised public figures. I don't agree with censoring hate speech, I tend to agree the KKK can say what they damn well please, but, the left will be there to push back on their hatred. Promoting violence is a legitimate reason for banning an account. Facebook needs to establish some guidelines for what constitutes promoting violence on Facebook. 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".

Given that's the government's standard for protected and unprotected speech, shouldn't it be Facebook's as well? Or, should it not?

The issue that these people spread fake news and violence, Alex Jones especially. I don't think it should be Wild West. I don't think Isis and hate groups should use platforms to radicalized, recruit, and promote violence.

 

[SheWolf]

That belief does not square with the US Constitution, however.

The principle of Free Speech as protected by the First Amendment applies only to criminality of speech. Facebook is not making or enforcing any criminal law.

Isis accounts should also be shut down. They also run YouTube channels. This is long overdue because it is an actual danger.

 

[SheWolf]

Yeah, I get it, I just think that #1 against the principle of free speech. And #2 I haven't seen this so called hate speech and violence. I think if we allow Facebook to start banning people for whatever they want to call hate speech, they are going to come for the left friend. The left are the real enemies of the oligarchy, not the Right. Use your head!

Again, it's not a debate about posting something you disagree with when we are talking about Isis or Alex Jones spreading conspiracies that land him in court and cause armed people to go after a pizza palor. There is an issue of danger and violence, and FB is within their rights. Thus website even has rules about what to say. Do you think DP is wrong? Are you paranoid DP is going to overreach and violate your ability to express yourself

 

[Jetboogieman]

Because of their enormous scale and reach, as well as global platform status, Facebook cannot arbitrarily deny free speech rights.

Yes they can... it’s a private company.

Take it to court if you feel so strongly about it but don’t expect it to go your way.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Seems you just didn't understand it.:doh

No, you don't understand the argument.

That was easy.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Isis accounts should also be shut down. They also run YouTube channels. This is long overdue because it is an actual danger.

No disagreement here.

 

[Bucky]

We don't need the constant reminders. Drive their filth underground where it belongs.

Facebook has a LONG way to go to clean up its **** but this is a step in the right direction.

I believe in the goodness of people and there ability to police themselves.

It is only a step in the right direction because you do not like the people that were banned. If it were people that you liked, outrage.

 

[Phys251]

I believe in the goodness of people and there ability to police themselves.

Then I assume you support anarchism.

It is only a step in the right direction because you do not like the people that were banned. If it were people that you liked, outrage.

Right back at you!

 

[dixon01767]

There's a big difference between speech that someone hates because they strongly disagree, and hate speech.

Not to those who label others speech as hate speech. The US has no legal definition of hate speech. And for facebook it seems it depends who you are hating on.

 

[ecofarm]

Your opinion is misguided. Terms of Service allow for a private entity such as Facebook to censor whatever they want. I thought you conservatives were in favor of a corporation's rights to do as it pleased?

You're confusing conservative economic philosophy and pro hate rhetoric.

Nothing is buried and no history is erased; that's an illegitimate claim.

 

[upsideguy]

No.

FB has obligations to honor free speech.

Why? They are a private company. They offer a service that allows people to connect. They never held themselves out to be any more than that. If you choose to behave on their platform in a manner that is inconsistent with their purpose, why do they not have a right to ban you? Facebook is not Hyde Park (or any public park).

Debate Politics is actually established for the purpose of free expression.... but, it has "uninvited" lots of posters that did not behave consistent with its established (and delineated) norms, including making extreme political statements. Is DP a threat to free speech? No, like FaceBook, they are a private service that is happy to have you participate as long as you do so consistent with the norms of the underlying community; and happy to usher you out when you do not.

 

[Phys251]

You're confusing conservative economic philosophy and pro hate rhetoric.

Nothing is buried and no history is erased; that's an illegitimate claim.

You're late to the party. Those two camps are in bed with each other now.

 

[ecofarm]

You're late to the party. Those two camps are in bed with each other now.

I see a difference. Those of conservative economic philosophy want decentralization and privatization. Hate mongers want centralization and mainstreaming, to magnify as opposed to fracture.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

FB and Twitter are pretty open ended with their TOS, so it take a real talent to breach their rules.

FB and YT warned Jones and Milo that condoning and promoting political violence would not be tolerated. They made the choice to disobey those rules and give the finger to the administrators, and finally the sites said "enough is enough", and followed through with consequences.

I, for one, applaud them for taking a stand against the promotion of violence.

I cannot understand why people think it is wrong to ban persons or groups that call for genocide, ethnic cleansing, open violence, "second amendment solutions in the face of electoral defeat", private armies, armed overthrows, intimidation and assault.

But as has already been said, it's all in the TOS when you sign up for membership on these social media platforms.
Don't **** up, it's just that simple.

 

[Phys251]

I see a difference. Those of conservative economic philosophy want decentralization and privatization. Hate mongers want centralization and mainstreaming, to magnify as opposed to fracture. That transcends econ rhetoric for both.

Classically yes. But again you fail to recognize that the two camps have merged, and the boundary between them is almost indecipherable now.