• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

ponderingturtle said:
Show your sources then.


Yes I know lots of people who get into trouble all the time for posting pictures of themselves that facebook decides are indecent. And Mumbles point was that these groups were being banned for a long time before they came for the nazis. So why didn't you care about the censorship then and now only when nazis are a target it becomes a problem?
Click to expand...

Am I failing in communicating my position?

I used to hold absolute free speech as a value, thinking that open debate would expose bad ideas.
I've recently changed my position because I now see that there is always a small minority of idiots to adhere to any idea. Nazis, Nation of Islam, healing crystals, anti-vax, unironically liking Rick Astley, doesn't matter. if you expose 2 billion people to an idea, a small number will fall for it and make it their identity. Case in point: Flat Earth Society.

These small minorities of people have negative consequences disproportionate to their numbers.
In addition to that, I go beyond the usual talking point that these companies have the right to ban certain speech and think that it is inevitable that they will ban certain speech for simple reasons of corporate responsibility and fear of damage to their brand.

Lastly, I predict that the constant process of curating user-generated content will be messy and imperfect. As an example: your constant schtick of impersonating right-wing idiots would be indistinguishable from an actual right-wing idiot to an algorithm.
 
Baylor said:
Please ask one question per post. People reply to me with these-string-of question posts frequently and it gets annoying
Click to expand...

What an odd response.

Since at least two of those questions were rhetorical, this post is probably best interpreted as 'I don't want to-answer-your questions'.
 
TofuFighter said:
What an odd response.

Since at least two of those questions were rhetorical, this post is probably best interpreted as 'I don't want to-answer-your questions'.
Click to expand...

That'd be a wrong interpretation. If he'd ask just one well-thought out question, I'd be happy to answer it.
 
I Am The Scum said:
If someone labels themselves as a nazi, then I am going to treat them as though they are a nazi.

If you have any objections to my behavior in this regard, state your case.
Click to expand...

Go get 'em, Tiger!

JEetytK.png
 
Baylor said:
That'd be a wrong interpretation. If he'd ask just one well-thought out question, I'd be happy to answer it.
Click to expand...

Your original complaint was that there were too many questions. Is your new, or amended, complaint that the questions were unclear? Or that they do not meet your quality requirements?
 
Eddie Dane said:
People are so willing to believe anything negative about the "other" that some troll can just cook up a social media account and play the role of black radical, radical feminist, Trumper etc and get major exposure through social sharing.

It is ridiculously easy. As you mentioned 4Chan has managed to do some absolutely insane social experiments. Freebleeding, recasting the OK sign as a White-power symbol. This is so successful that actual white nationalist are now using it as a symbol AND media companies are now seeing it like the Hitler salute.

The impact of a small group of teenagers having actual real-life effects should alert us to the dangers of organised trolling.
Click to expand...

Looked up what "freebleeding" is, thinking it was some 4chan BS I missed. I was imagining a supposed "challenge" where people have to cut themselves and drip blood on camera or something. Click on the first hit - Wikipedia? Weird. This must have been a big meme, how did I not hear about it on Snopes? Started as reaction to the dangers of Toxic Shock Syndrome huh? *reads a little more*

Oh.
 
isissxn said:
Looked up what "freebleeding" is, thinking it was some 4chan BS I missed. I was imagining a supposed "challenge" where people have to cut themselves and drip blood on camera or something. Click on the first hit - Wikipedia? Weird. This must have been a big meme, how did I not hear about it on Snopes? Started as reaction to the dangers of Toxic Shock Syndrome huh? *reads a little more*

Oh.
Click to expand...

Just had a quick look on my phone. This may have had a precursor in radfem circles in the seventies. As I recall, it was an organised attempt by 4Chan to get women to stop using female hygiene products as a form of protest against patriarchal oppression.

I remember it getting some traction and media exposure, to the amusement of many a teenage troll.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Just had a quick look on my phone. This may have had a precursor in radfem circles in the seventies. As I recall, it was an organised attempt by 4Chan to get women to stop using female hygiene products as a form of protest against patriarchal oppression.

I remember it getting some traction and media exposure, to the amusement of many a teenage troll.
Click to expand...

Oh! Haha, yeah, apparently it was a real thing at one time.

I can't imagine too many people got down with it either time. If there were no men in a society whatsoever, women still wouldn't want to bleed all over themselves. It's the same reason I don't just piss on myself when I'm alone.

4chan is strange. (I mean the parts that make these pranks, before anyone not-all-4chans me.)
 
Baylor said:
Go get 'em, Tiger!

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/JEetytK.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Do you realise the difference between a tasteless fancy dress choice (for which the prince was rightly criticised) and actually espousing Nazi ideology?

Or are you implying that the Charlottesville marchers were in fancy dress and weren't neo Nazis?

If not, what are you implying, and what is the point of you posting that image?
 
Ziggurat said:
Just say that you don't believe in free speech. It's shorter, and more accurate.
Click to expand...

He doesn't believe in YOUR version of free speech.

When you have to misconstrue an argument about a thing as being the other person not believe in that thing, then you're really just conceding that argument. If you can't support your stance, then bow out; don't use pubnlic shaming to try to get your way by putting the other person on the defensive. That's childish.

For what it's worth, I understand the concerns about the slippery slope. But when talking about laws, make very specific ones; and when talking about private soapboxes, so what? If I want to kick you out of my restaurant for flipping tables and being loud and obnoxious, I can do that.
 
Baylor said:
Please ask one question per post. People reply to me with these-string-of question posts frequently and it gets annoying
Click to expand...
You're being facetious I take it, or more likely intentionally obstructive. Just answer the question if there is any religious qualification for being Dutch, if you will.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it doesn’t work that way. Voting for an actual communist doesn’t make you a communist, but supporting Israel makes you a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Well you would have to work very hard to make your right-wing bias any more evident than in the above. No one ever said that supporting Israel makes you a Nazi. Also, no one said that supporting an actual communist doesn't make you a communist. Disagreeing that the person you're supporting is a communist is quite a bit different.

But you know that.
 
theprestige said:
Jesus Christ. I keep warning you. But does anyone listen? No. The pants-on-head-retarded arguments multiply without end.

As is Cassandra to the fall of Troy, so am I to the argument by analogy.
Click to expand...

This whole crusade you've started against analogies is the dumbest hill anyone's decided to die defending on this board in a long time, and that's saying something.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I really don't see the problem here. If Facebook heads into a situation where they start banning anyone that even seems to suggest racist or separatism of anything else for that matter, then, so so what?

At the end of the day they will just be reducing their customer base, and that will hurt them, and you know what, it gives someone else that chance to come forward and pick up people kicked out of Facebook, and for them to build up a new platform.
Click to expand...

Oh, my! You just pitted the idea of free speech against the concept of the free market. Like James T Kirk talking a computer to death, you might make some libertarian heads explode, here.

I Am The Scum said:
I think some people have fallen so hard for the "pro-free speech for nazis" argument that they have begun to empathize with any inconvenience an avowed nazi might face. It even leads them to set aside rational moral consideration and instead lash out at their perceived opponents, which is... communists, I guess?
Click to expand...

It is indeed very interesting that those who are defending the Nazis from being thrown out of the restaurant are asking why the communists are allowed in there in the first place. Very historically interesting.
 
Belz... said:
If I want to kick you out of my restaurant for flipping tables and being loud and obnoxious, I can do that.
Click to expand...
It wasn't so long ago that everybody in this forum was condemning a baker for refusing to write a pro-gay message on a wedding cake.

Apparently the right to refuse to provide a soapbox for somebody only applies when politically incorrect views are concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom