Facebook bans far right groups

[Stout]

Your point isn't much of one. Perhaps if instead of irrelevant examples you posted examples of things FB has banned that you don't think they should have?

Is that it ? Is that the only thing you can come up with to defend this incitement to mass murder ? No "It was a holocaust joke" ? No "it's OK because it's coming from the left and we're all oppressed and fighting back with the meager weapons we have at our disposal" ? Nothing about NAZIS !!!111!!1! ?

Damn, I'm disappointed.

We'll just chalk that up as another vote to gas the people you perceive as racists then.

 

[smartcooky]

@Stout

If you are familiar with uke2se's posting style, then you'll know that "the final solution to the racist question" is pretty obviously his dark humour coming to the fore - again.


Your poutrage is just another example of the duplicity of the right, where they are only ever "just joking"^TM when they are called on their crap, but the left never are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Poutrage" I love it.

 

[Stout]

So a vote for "just joking" and dark humour. Good, good.

It's getting kind of hard to maintain that moral superiority angle though, with jokes like that being excused but if all I need to do to get away with telling Holocaust jokes is put on a Che Guevara T-shirt then I might just have a new standup routine.

 

[sadhatter]

Because in "Free Speech Racist" world there is no nuance. From the point of view of scumbag racists, bigots and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, a privately owned platform deciding that they no longer want to host them = censorship.

To racists, bigots and conspiracy theorists, "Censorship" means any reduction their Deity-given right to say what they like, where they like, when they like, and to spread their vile filth.

Reverse the targets and your post is shockingly Jones esque.

You don't mind people kicking folk in the nuts, you just want to be the one kicking.

 

[psionl0]

If you are familiar with uke2se's posting style, then you'll know that "the final solution to the racist question" is pretty obviously his dark humour coming to the fore - again.

I suspected that "final solution" was dark humour but I wasn't aware that uke2se was fond of Poe'ing.

Ironically, that kind of posting might not pass muster on Facebook. In fact, it might even see him subjected to a "final solution" himself if some posters here had their way. Then again, probably not since it only matters who the hatred is directed against around here.

 

[Giz]

Reverse the targets and your post is shockingly Jones esque.

You don't mind people kicking folk in the nuts, you just want to be the one kicking.

This.

The lack of self awareness of some posters is amazing. They have abandoned universal values for tribalism, and yet tell themselves that they are the good guys.

 

[smartcooky]

Reverse the targets and your post is shockingly Jones esque.

Horsecock! The targets are the same, left or right.

I'm just has happy to see Louis Farrakhan and Antifa deplatformed as am to see Alex Jones and Nazis deplatformed. I'm politically left of centre - I regard the extreme loony left as counterproductive and an embarrassment.

You don't mind people kicking folk in the nuts, you just want to be the one kicking.

You think "Facebook doesn't want to host your vile racism = Facebook kicking you in the nuts"

Got it!

 

[uke2se]

Looks like a couple of racists got triggered by my little joke. How drole.

ETA: For those who need the joke explained, I used a Nazi-expression to demand the wholesale murder of all racists in an expression of what the Nazi-apologists would call free speech. As we can see, they didn't like it much. The difference between me and Nazis who use the expression to demand the murder of minorities is that I was joking.

 

[Eddie Dane]

This.

The lack of self awareness of some posters is amazing. They have abandoned universal values for tribalism, and yet tell themselves that they are the good guys.

What choice is there, really?

For argument's sake, let's say you have a not-so-original business idea and buy a digital billboard on Times Square. You then let people put messages on the billboard via a website, interspersed with commercials.

I start posting MY content on YOUR platform, Giz Inc.

Only, my content is Holocaust denial, the charge that the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors (along with their addresses) and that Rocco's Pizza place is holding kids captive in the basement (with address) and that Martin Luther King was a Jewish pawn.

What company policy are you as CEO of Giz Inc going to implement?

On the one hand, you own some of the most prominent advertising space in the country and it plays a big role in the national conversation. So you feel you should stick to principles of free speech. And people love the drama of the argument-counterargument that is giving your billboard a lot of attention.

On the other hand, some mentally ill person seems to have just shot up Rocco's Pizza with an M-16 while ranting about paedophiles and your billboard. And the phones are ringing off the hook with lawyers and what not, and your receptionist really, really, really wants you to take this call from this CNN producer and the whole office is staring at you, wondering how you're going to handle this.

 

[Mumbles]

Horsecock! The targets are the same, left or right.

I'm just has happy to see Louis Farrakhan and Antifa deplatformed as am to see Alex Jones and Nazis deplatformed. I'm politically left of centre - I regard the extreme loony left as counterproductive and an embarrassment.

sigh...

Yet again.

Louis Farrakhan. Very racist. Very anti-Semitic. Also strongly anti-LGBT. Anti-abortion. Backs all of the above through conspiracy theory. Strongly religious. Favors a rigidly, de jure patriarchal state where women stay at home and follow the instructions of the men in their lives. Loudly champions business ownership. Con man with many land ownings. Prone to telling lies. Fantasies about returning to an entirely mythical previous state before "those people" (whites, controlled by the Jews - because it's always the Jews with these sorts) ruined everything.

Make him a dimwitted white slob, and you've basically got the current US president, or possibly Alex Jones. The guy's actually far right.

(It's harder to discuss Antifa, since they aren't actually an organized group, but rather a bunch of groups and individuals with wildly differing goals, in a momentary marriage of convenience.)

 

[psionl0]

On the other hand, some mentally ill person seems to have just shot up Rocco's Pizza with an M-16 while ranting about paedophiles and your billboard.

Although uke2se is obviously doing a Poe, you seem to actually believe what you are posting. Are you really running with the idea that if we sanitize free speech enough, nobody will do wrong?

Have you considered the possibility that while some might be influenced to do wrong when reading the "wrong" opinions, others who might have done wrong could be influenced to change their mind about doing wrong because of exposure to counter opinions?

 

[Stout]

Looks like a couple of racists got triggered by my little joke. How drole.

ETA: For those who need the joke explained, I used a Nazi-expression to demand the wholesale murder of all racists in an expression of what the Nazi-apologists would call free speech. As we can see, they didn't like it much. The difference between me and Nazis who use the expression to demand the murder of minorities is that I was joking.

It was a pretty funny joke, just not in the way it was intended to be.

But fear not, Count Dankula made a Holocaust joke too, which everybody found hilarious. Everybody that is, except the UK government.

What we really need to do is toss all the SJWs into the gulag. We could put cameras all over the place and televise the place in a kind of Atheism+ meets Survivor type of show.

Damn, this type of humour is contagious

 

[smartcooky]

Although uke2se is obviously doing a Poe...

Good to see you've woken up to/changed your mind about that.

...you seem to actually believe what you are posting. Are you really running with the idea that if we sanitize free speech enough, nobody will do wrong?

You are arguing like a pro-gun lobbyist - that if a solution is not a 100% guaranteed, gold-plated, silver bullet certainty to completely solve the problem, then don't implement it at all. IMO, if a solution can solve even as little as 5% of a problem, its a start and its worth implementing as part of a plan to attack the other 95%.

If we sanitise free speech enough LESS people will do wrong, there is LESS likelihood that a nutcase potential spree-killer will be triggered into murdering a couple of dozen people.

Have you considered the possibility that while some might be influenced to do wrong when reading the "wrong" opinions, others who might have done wrong could be influenced to change their mind about doing wrong because of exposure to counter opinions?

Can you show us an example of this happening?

 

[psionl0]

Good to see you've woken up to/changed your mind about that.

Huh? Is there a post where I took "final solution" seriously?

If we sanitise free speech enough LESS people will do wrong, there is LESS likelihood that a nutcase potential spree-killer will be triggered into murdering a couple of dozen people.

That's like saying that if we crack down on drugs enough there will be LESS people doing drugs, LESS drug related crime and LESS people dying of drug overdoses.

Can you show us an example of this happening?

More to the point, can you show that cracking down on "wrong" opinions will do what you claim?

Terror related activities are more about religious motivation and less about people watching YouTube and thinking "terrorism is a good idea". To the extent that somebody decides to go on a gun rampage, they are more likely to be influenced by media reports of others doing the same thing (maybe we should suppress those as well) than by seeing somebody they didn't seek out preaching messages of hate.

Society was outwardly much more puritanical in years gone by. That doesn't mean that crimes related to sex/gambling/etc were less prevalent. They were just more well hidden. In fact, this secrecy enabled sex crimes to flourish in churches and institutions.

How do you think that racist attitudes of the past were changed? Was it because one day the government suddenly decided to change things? No! It was because the free exchange of ideas made this change possible. And now you want to suppress freedom of expression?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Although uke2se is obviously doing a Poe, you seem to actually believe what you are posting. Are you really running with the idea that if we sanitize free speech enough, nobody will do wrong?

Have you considered the possibility that while some might be influenced to do wrong when reading the "wrong" opinions, others who might have done wrong could be influenced to change their mind about doing wrong because of exposure to counter opinions?

Yes. I have myself changed opinions radically on receiving new information.

I have also gone down the rabbit hole on several occasions. Notably, becoming a borderline Truther and really went down the rabbit hole on Peak Oil. It's been more than ten years, but I remember being convinced that modern society was about to go off a cliff with famine, population contraction and resource wars, as not a fun time. I have some empathy for people who fall into cults or wholeheartedly believe narratives.

And you are right, I got out of those things because I seek out information and test my convictions.

These information rabbit-holes exist by omitting counter-arguments and blatant dishonest arguing.
Simply presenting argument and counter-argument is not enough (Today on Geraldo; The Holocaust, did it happen or not? Find out after the break!).

The matter is often framed as:

The argument for censorship: These are private companies, they can choose what they let on their platforms
The argument against censorship: These platforms are so big that they are now where public discourse takes place, and should thus be seen as public utilities and we can invoke the US constitutional right to free speech.

But the more I think about this, and place myself in the shoes of the platforms; Can we even reasonably ask for-profit companies to broadcast certain forms of speech? Can we really demand a corporation make itself complicit in a possible mass shooting or lynching?
Hence my billboard example.

Alex Jones is a good example. Can you have some dude constantly blast professionally produced blood-libel against "the elite" into the public consciousness and then, when one of his fans shoots Gabrielle Gifford, throw up your hands and claim innocence?

Unless we make laws that force platforms to spread (possible) hate-speech, thereby making them immune to legal repercussions, it is inevitable that the platforms will try to protect themselves and will ban certain speech.

 

[Eddie Dane]

sigh...

Yet again.

Louis Farrakhan. Very racist. Very anti-Semitic. Also strongly anti-LGBT. Anti-abortion. Backs all of the above through conspiracy theory. Strongly religious. Favors a rigidly, de jure patriarchal state where women stay at home and follow the instructions of the men in their lives. Loudly champions business ownership. Con man with many land ownings. Prone to telling lies. Fantasies about returning to an entirely mythical previous state before "those people" (whites, controlled by the Jews - because it's always the Jews with these sorts) ruined everything.

Make him a dimwitted white slob, and you've basically got the current US president, or possibly Alex Jones. The guy's actually far right.

(It's harder to discuss Antifa, since they aren't actually an organized group, but rather a bunch of groups and individuals with wildly differing goals, in a momentary marriage of convenience.)

I have to admit that kind of like the aesthetic Nation Of Islam has going. The whole smart suit with bowtie look really works. Although X wore it best.

Trump is a ridiculously bad dresser. Why can't he just get a suit that fits and not wear his tie hanging down to his scrotum?

 

[psionl0]

These information rabbit-holes exist by omitting counter-arguments and blatant dishonest arguing.
Simply presenting argument and counter-argument is not enough (Today on Geraldo; The Holocaust, did it happen or not? Find out after the break!).

Those two sentences contradict each other.

The matter is often framed as:

The argument for censorship: These are private companies, they can choose what they let on their platforms
The argument against censorship: These platforms are so big that they are now where public discourse takes place, and should thus be seen as public utilities and we can invoke the US constitutional right to free speech.

You are arguing for a case that you are not advocating. The question is not whether private media companies should be forced to permit radical views on their platforms. Private companies should be free to set their own policies on what they will or not permit on their platforms.

However, you are only arguing for this if they set the "correct" policies. In reality, you want to force them to prohibit "incorrect" views from their platforms.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Those two sentences contradict each other.


You are arguing for a case that you are not advocating. The question is not whether private media companies should be forced to permit radical views on their platforms. Private companies should be free to set their own policies on what they will or not permit on their platforms.

However, you are only arguing for this if they set the "correct" policies. In reality, you want to force them to prohibit "incorrect" views from their platforms.

No contradiction, I'm just bad at writing.

I got sucked into echo chambers before Facebook was a thing.

Now Social media platforms are showing that which gets the most clicks. they could change that and present both sides of every argument. So people who like Alex Jones also get 'of course the Globalists aren't drinking children's blood, you silly idiot' to bance their information diet.

Social Media platforms are free to host any content they like. they are also free to block any content they like.

I'm simply making the observation that if my platform was used to dox the parents of school-shooting victims, I'd run the **** away from that.

 

[Myriad]

"Computer, identify the farthest-right Facebook group, and ban it."

COMPLETED

"Loop previous instruction."

WORKING...
WORKING...
NO GROUPS FOUND