• 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

So are we including Twitter in this discussion? I could put this in the Mueller thread but is seems broader than that. Or maybe it needs a new thread altogether.

Boing Boing: Twitter kills network of 5,000 pro-Trump bots linked to Saudi propaganda
The bot network repeatedly denounced the Mueller report as a 'RussiaGate hoax.'

The social networking service Twitter says it has shut down some 5,000 accounts that were acting as automated pro-Trump propaganda bots. Before they were doing this, they were spewing Saudi propaganda, so they're presumed to be linked to the Saudi state.


Sean Gallagher at Ars Technica reports that one of the tweets the bot network distributed read, "The people screaming about Trump working for Russia are the same people demanding social media censor 'misinformation', Stop listening to these people."
Click to expand...

It's linked to Saudi propaganda because that's what the bot network pushed previously. I'm not sure who is behind the network, and neither is Twitter apparently.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Sexual orientation is protected. Being a Nazi isn't.
Click to expand...

More correctly, political affiliation is usually not protected (it is under California employment law, but not federal). That includes being a Democrat or a Republican, BTW. You can be discriminated against for that as well. So, yay! I guess?
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Muslims of middle Eastern ethnicity are not Dutch any more than George Orwell was Indian or Richard Dawkins is Kenyan.
 
jimbob said:
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?
Click to expand...

The point is the people on this forum have no conviction in what they say. When physically assaulting a "Nazi" requires sacrifice, even possibly loss of life, suddenly the tough guys aren't so tough.
 
Ziggurat said:
More correctly, political affiliation is usually not protected (it is under California employment law, but not federal). That includes being a Democrat or a Republican, BTW. You can be discriminated against for that as well. So, yay! I guess?
Click to expand...

What about freedom of association? That was what the baker in Colorado was arguing was at risk in his case; he did not want his products associated with something he felt was morally wrong. As I see it, that same right applies to Facebook. It's why I think private universities are on solid ground banning whomever they want to from speaking, while public (because they are public) universities don't have that option.

As a practical matter, what do you think should be done from here? Should the far-right groups sue Facebook for access? Should the courts rule in their favor? I'm even more uncomfortable with that than I would be with Facebook deciding to ban all Republicans and conservatives.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
The highlighted never happened.
Click to expand...


Sorry, the passage of time has dulled my memory. The case was about refusing to bake a cake.
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

There was also a thread here about a baker who refused to include anti-gay messages on a cake.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291345
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy
Click to expand...
Not even close. Few people here would object to a statement like "SWMs are evil" but change that word to "gays" and all hell breaks loose.

As I have posted before, inciting violence is not on but that should not extend to mere opinion. Even being a member of a Nazi club is not in itself proof that somebody is inciting violence nor intends to do so of their own accord.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
As a practical matter, what do you think should be done from here? Should the far-right groups sue Facebook for access? Should the courts rule in their favor? I'm even more uncomfortable with that than I would be with Facebook deciding to ban all Republicans and conservatives.
Click to expand...

I think they only have grounds to sue Facebook if they didn’t violate Facebook’s written terms of service. I don’t know if that is the case here or not. It’s entirely possible they did, there are bad people out there who write bad things. But Facebook has is the past taken action against people who didn’t violate terms of service, so it’s possible they did so again here. If so, I’d be happy for Facebook to get sued and lose, but the legal basis would be a contract violation, not free speech.

More generally, Facebook should be shamed for its bias. I also wouldn’t mind the government breaking them up over their privacy abuses, and that might incidentally help with their bias, but that’s still a different matter.
 
psionl0 said:
Not even close. Few people here would object to a statement like "SWMs are evil" but change that word to "gays" and all hell breaks loose.

As I have posted before, inciting violence is not on but that should not extend to mere opinion. Even being a member of a Nazi club is not in itself proof that somebody is inciting violence nor intends to do so of their own accord.
Click to expand...

I see inciting violence as the basis for banning people/closing accounts.

In addition bot accounts and amplified propaganda is being addressed as it should be.

Others in this discussion claim it's ideology that is the basis of the deleted material.

Prove it. Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts.
 
Here, I'll make it easy for people. Media Matters has complied a list. See if you can find the accounts FB is banning that are innocent little right-wingers.

Facebook says it is [deleted to fix the link] white nationalism. Here are some places it can start.

The problem as I see it is white nationalism as it is currently manifested, sucks. So is that the problem? The posters here who are objecting to FB policies essentially don't like to see white nationalism groups censored?

Might have to give up some of that white male privilege. I can see the problem.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Here, I'll make it easy for people. Media Matters has complied a list. See if you can find the accounts FB is banning that are innocent little right-wingers.

Facebook says it is [deleted to fix the link] white nationalism. Here are some places it can start.

The problem as I see it is white nationalism as it is currently manifested, sucks. So is that the problem? The posters here who are objecting to FB policies essentially don't like to see white nationalism groups censored?

Might have to give up some of that white male privilege. I can see the problem.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with any of those groups being barred from FB, YT twitter etc.

I also find it deeply disturbing that Jeanine Pirro was a Judge and a DA. How does a white nationalist, racist piece of scum like Pirro get on the bench?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So are we including Twitter in this discussion? I could put this in the Mueller thread but is seems broader than that. Or maybe it needs a new thread altogether.

Boing Boing: Twitter kills network of 5,000 pro-Trump bots linked to Saudi propaganda

It's linked to Saudi propaganda because that's what the bot network pushed previously. I'm not sure who is behind the network, and neither is Twitter apparently.
Click to expand...

Twitter has improved as far as bans against anti-racists go, at least. They aren't as aggressive at banning people for calling someone a Nazi (especially when responding to pictures of Pepe in an SS uniform throwing people into gas chambers), and I haven't seen anyone get a flood of slurs and insults after criticising, say, Bernie Sanders - there's still hostility, but there's no "Bitch this, N-word that." in the responses. And people like Richard Spencer, who at least know how to put on a non-violent public face (trust that he *would* turn genocidal given the chance) were still there last I checked.

Their competitor, Gab, is a great example of why you *want* to kick that sort of person out - in theory, it's a place where almost any speech is allowed to flourish. In reality, it's the place where neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other obnoxious hateful people go when they get kicked off of Twitter - and where they spend all their time metaphorically knifing one another, because that's what people who are addicted to hatred end up doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom