• 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

sadhatter said:
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Click to expand...

No, it couldn't. 'Say' is not 'be' no matter how you dance around. Xkcd is saying that you can't claim free speech when you aren't allowed to use someone's venue to speak, not that you somehow can't claim free speech (?) when someone bars you for what you are (race). What exactly do drinking fountains have to do with speech?
 
sadhatter said:
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Click to expand...

Why do you think race and speech are equivalent?
 
sadhatter said:
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "
Click to expand...

Nope, that's wrong; read TragicMonkey's latest post on this thread to see why.
 
sadhatter said:
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the same. :rolleyes:

We hit the "You're oppressing me by not letting me oppress other people!" stage quicker and quicker each discussion.

Now let's have a 20 page discussion where we explain the "Paradox of Tolerance" to people as if it's not something we've already been over.
 
The problem seems to be that 70% of people are stupid enough to get their news from Facebook and Google, or hang out on either site at all. If that number is really true it explains a lot.
 
ahhell said:
Facebook is a private organization so for the most part they get to decide who gets to use their platform.....
Click to expand...
Isn't that their free speech right?

Sure would be nice if Fox News was sued for denying free speech to sane people.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not a house. It's not even equivalent to a house. Houses are privileged, even compared to most physical private property.

That's a dodge.
Click to expand...
No one is dodging you, Zig, but it does appear you are dodging addressing FB's freedom of speech because you don't like how big and influential they are.
 
mgidm86 said:
The problem seems to be that 70% of people are stupid enough to get their news from Facebook and Google, or hang out on either site at all. If that number is really true it explains a lot.
Click to expand...

Where do you get news from?
 
Ziggurat said:
If you don't care about the criteria they use to discriminate, then stop hiding behind claims of racism.

And I care what Facebook does because of the disproportionate power they hold, and the way they routinely violate user privacy. The combination is dangerous.
Click to expand...
You would love what they are doing with that domination in China.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I'd be fascinated if someone could satisfactorily write a rule that would ban e.g. Mein Kampf, but not the Koran without special pleading.

And that's my problem with these kinds of bans: they're bound to be arbitrary at some point. I know Facebook is a private entity, but that's not the point. Of course they have the right to ban whomever they like, but should they?
Click to expand...
Yeah, they should.

I would hope they are also banning ISIS and like-minded groups.
 
I'm totally lost here. If an organization become more powerful and influential is become more vitally important that racist have access to it? That seems backwards to me.
 
sadhatter said:
Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.
Click to expand...
Segregation itself was addressed for many important reasons. While people argued private property, laws banning segregation superseded those property rights in that case.

If someone wants to deprive FB of their rights, it has to be for more than free speech for hate groups.
 
Facebook execs have made a business decision about who they will and won't allow to use their platform.

They have no obligation to abide by the US constitution's 1st amendment. They're not a government controlled/endorsed/supported entity.

The internet is bursting at the seams with far too many self-entitled people assuming they have the 'right' to liberally use a free internet service in any way they damn well please.

Newsflash to all the speshul little cupcakes out there: You don't have that right.

End of story.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one is dodging you, Zig, but it does appear you are dodging addressing FB's freedom of speech because you don't like how big and influential they are.
Click to expand...

Have I called for legal sanction against Facebook? No, I haven't. So what the hell are you getting your panties in a bunch for? Do you not like me using my freedom of speech to criticize them?
 
AnonyMoose said:
They have no obligation to abide by the US constitution's 1st amendment. They're not a government controlled/endorsed/supported entity.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has argued that they've violated the 1st amendment. But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think some of us are conflating two separate things: being something and behaving some way. A store cannot refuse to serve customers who are a particular ethnicity. It certainly can refuse to serve customers who are shouting loudly. As I understand it, Facebook is disallowing pages for groups that advocate behaviors but isn't then deactivating the personal pages of all those belonging to the group regardless of what's on those pages. So Grandma Confederacy is still on Facebook talking about her rich heritage and Paula Deen recipes, but her group page for Belle No: League of Southern Ladies for Repealing Emancipation will no longer be up. She's not being discriminated against for being what she is, she's being prevented from doing what she does.
Click to expand...
Are the repercussions as you explain above applied the same for closed or open groups?
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think anyone has argued that they've violated the 1st amendment. But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom