It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Facebook has started blocking alternative media websites

page: 3
47
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   


it's fine for Liberal business to block whomever they don't like for any reason. Too bad it's not the same story when a Conservative business blocks whomever they don't like for whatever reason


You could argue that the news is being censored for the public good (preventing shootings, etc), while conservatives block people just for being different than them, which has no benefit to society.




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra




I am not sure it is because FB doesn't want you or the recipient to see that particular site, possibly it is on a list of sites with malware. FB will receive a list of thousands of these daily from whatever company does that for them.


Nothing to do with malware. Have you been watching whats been happening the last month on the internet. It is censorship. Soon many of these sites will be unaccesable..

The nazis use to burn books.

We just block website..



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
also very angry at facebook for censoring user content.

the fact that they spy on users and now use it openly to manipulate people is no surprise.
to me the owner of facebook seemed to be a quite nice fellow at first but i can see now that he is on the wrong track.

i admit that it is tough to leave that website. for personal and business reasons.
i postponed the decision to the new year.

on a side-note i just received an e-mail from Avaaz - asking for money to support "white helmets" in Syria ...
i almost puked on my screen.
a blank e-mail to unsubscribe@avaaz.org was my answer.



edit on 17-12-2016 by glowdog because: (no reason given)


XL5

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Every one is using a private internet service provider, it is their right to block any and all web sites if they wanted to. If all of the internet providers did this, it would be their right. It would however not be right, but I'm sure there would STILL be some who defend that kind of action.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes. I think politicians should have to be honest or face consequences. Good call.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I wonder if they blocked The Onion.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I refuse to use Facebook. Why any alternative news sites would use it is beyond me. They know the dangers and risks of Facebook -- because they've reported on it. Even HuffPo made an article about how it's not good for your mental health. m.huffpost.com...

Twitter is also garbage. Not only do they restrict what you can say, they also confine you to 140 characters or less, making it impossible to rant without vaguely stating your complaint and making yourself look like a fool.

Technology is killing us by making us lazy and complacent. I've met more decent people in dive bars than I have on social media. Get off of it. Use the internet for what it's supposed to be used for: information.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct

I have already left facebook.

I will no longer use it.

I quit because i knew immediately what sites they would go after.

You should quit as well.


(post by CB328 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
FB is the site that needs to be blocked.


It's a major source of fake news and general propaganda.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I just put up a "Before it's news" story about scientists unleashing biblical beasts ....
Guess they haven't started yet.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
If you were truly awake, you wouldn't use FB for any god damn thing.


The problem with the extreme censoring is that there would not be a chance to wake up those who are already mesmerized by FaceBook.

I never had a FB account and never will.
Family and friends keep trying to lure me in, sometimes even attempting to use guilt.
But I will never fall for the cult indoctrination.

I see it as evil for so many reasons.
Information about every single factor of people's lives is collected on there.
People determine their self worth by the amount of virtual "friends" they have and by how those friends respond to their posts.
It is creating a narcissistic society of people who actually think that everyone else needs to know where they are and what they are doing every minute of every day.
It results in misunderstandings, feuds, and divorces.
Young people no longer know how to communicate in real life.
The whole thing is artificial, yet it is the most real thing in the lives of many people.

The site is also full of scammers.

And now that they have most of the population addicted to it, they will use it to further control what people know and think.

The Democrats know what they did this election.
They tried very hard to control the message that voters were getting by controlling MSM.
They underestimated the information spread on alternate news sites and social media.
They are going to be working VERY hard for the next 4 years to change that.
They want total control over what people believe.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: GiulXainx

I know, and I totally would if it wasn't the only (easy) option to stay in touch with most of the people I met during my travels. Phone numbers and (e-mail) addresses often change, but with FB that issue doesn't really exist. Even though I am against almost everything FB stands for and is doing, I choose to keep it for the reason I just mentioned. Hypocritical? Maybe a bit, but that's my take on it.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Excellent post, thank you for elucidating the problem so eloquently & succinctly.

We should start a 'share revolution' on these social media sites, as a means of not offending the procliviyies of those who are tasked with reviewing questionable posts which indirectly reference 'banned' sites.. I'm thinking perhaps posting instructions regarding how to find an 'alternative perspective' source of information, with such sites/ videos/ articles not readily available on the standard sites used by the masses. By not directly sharing the links to these sites & their reporting on a particular issue of concern, it might be possible to shimmy around the censorhip, as mentioned above, without causing offence to the owners/ operators of the popular sites which are utilised by the 'ordinary' citizens (though of course, simple keyword monitoring programs will probably flag the comments as being in need of review by site staff). By promoting the active searching of the internet for the particular articles or videos that you wish to draw attention to, you are actually giving the people you share with a chance to more effectively learn how to craft the phraseology of a web search, enabling friends, colleagues, neighbours & acquaintances to be alive to the existence of non-mainstream opinions & ideas, of thoughtful discourse on matters of pure philosophy & ethics - and by so doing, perhaps our sharing would, in time, stimulate all those who are currently trapped (unknowingly) in a web which is crafted to hold them fixated on issues which have nothing to do with the reall matters of importance in our days.

We would assist in generating the possibility of a more 'au fait', comfortable relationship with the ways in which one can find information independently on the internet - meaning that the internet has now become a genuine information superhighway, instead of a sticky, ensnaring & corrupting web of lies (pun most certainly intended).

In my humble opinion, this action (that of sharing a general comment, regarding a particular source of info offering an alternate perspective, with instructions on how to find the article/ video, rather than sharing a direct weblink) - as a response to the rise of 'de facto' censorship on corporately controlled popular social networks - would perhaps increase the likelihood that important issues are brought to the attention of potentially millions more people, who have a right to know, ensuring that items of genuine concern are not totally buried by the vested interests who would rather nobody had access to alternative sources of information.






edit on DecemberSaturday16012CST08America/Chicago-060013 by FlyInTheOintment because: clarification, phraseology



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Just going to leave this here for now, thank you and goodnight.

www.zerohedge.com...

edit on 17-12-2016 by cruddas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: cruddas
a reply to: Krakatoa

Just going to leave this here for now, thank you and goodnight.

www.zerohedge.com...


I fail to see how that proves the U.S. government is involved? George Soros, yes, and his left-leaning democratic party ties sure. But, the democratic party is NOT the U.S. government. Heck, they don't even control even one of the branches of government at this time.

Not buying this as proof of U.S. government involvement.....nope...not at all.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

George Soros is worse than the government.
He and those he represent want to control world events.
They have realized that controlling FaceBook is part of their plan.

That's very concerning.
It's frightening actually.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: snchrnct


Again Soros has funded it , he doesn't like to loose.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Krakatoa

George Soros is worse than the government.
He and those he represent want to control world events.
They have realized that controlling FaceBook is part of their plan.

That's very concerning.
It's frightening actually.


That may all be true. But my point is, that the U.S. government is not controlling this and censoring free speech. Deflect all you want, but it does not change the facts to date. In addition, George Soros is not bound by the 1st Amendment either since he is a private person and not the U.S. government.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


He's not American and he's trying to influence the election results. I smell double standards here.




top topics



 
47
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join