Facebooks censorship purge

www.cnn.com...

New York (CNN Business)Facebook announced Thursday afternoon that it had designated some high-profile people, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who's notorious for using anti-Semitic language, and right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as "dangerous" and said it will be purging them from its platforms.

Jones and his media outlet InfoWars had previously been banned from Facebook (FB) in August 2018, but had maintained a presence on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. On Thursday, Jones and InfoWars will be barred from Instagram as well.

Other people banned on Thursday included Paul Nehlen, an anti-Semite who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2016 and 2018, and fringe right-wing media personalities Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson.

"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement provided to CNN Business. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."

Bold is mine.



So Facebook gets to decide what is violent and hateful.

Not us.

Facebook has become Big Brother.

a reply to: DBCowboy

" New York (CNN Business)Facebook announced Thursday afternoon that it had designated some high-profile people, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who's notorious for using anti-Semitic language, and right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as "dangerous" and said it will be purging them from its platforms. "



So , Looie's Racism is OK , but Alex's Truth's are Verboten Now ? I Think that Pretzel Logic needs a Little More Mustard on it Bill ..........Hmm....

a reply to: DBCowboy

I wonder if they are going to boot Isis or is that a Facebook protected pet group?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, Facebook can decide what organizations it allows on its platform based on the rules and agreements and licenses in place used to create what is Facebook today.

They do not have to leave the internet, but they can't stay on Facebook.

Good riddance. Less twaddle.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook spokesperson said

So Facebook gets to decide what is violent and hateful.

Not us.

So does ATS.

Your point?

a reply to: odzeandennz

So you're okay with a private company determining for you what is violent and unworthy of reading.

Ummm. . . 'kay.

Don't get your tighty-whiteys in a snit then when you get censored.

a reply to: Liquesence

Lie.

ATS has a ban on some words.

But I have never seen a post / quote of Farrakhan banned.

Try again.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What regulations should "we" put on a private corporation in order to determine how they should do business?

Is it just social media companies that deserve more regulation or are there other sectors that can benefit from "our" oversite?

My opinion: it's 2019. At this point, anyone dumb enough to be on Facebook deserves everything they get, including being "kicked off" for negatively impacting the company's bottom line or perceived image.

That's CAAApitalism, right?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I don't think government should place regulations on business but I think we should be well aware of private business trying to shape and manipulate the narrative and to even control speech.

Doubling down on censorship after the monetary hit Google just took for that?

Jesus, their corruption goes beyond money.

Hopefully the platform dies out with the boomers- the only people I've seen really embrace it... Other than the kids, of course.

a reply to: Liquesence

" Your point? "


In the United States , that Borders on Unconstitutional Censorship Regardless of what these Websites Think they have their Own Right to Suppress . I Think President Trump will Address this Conflict of Law Before his Second Term as President is Over .

a reply to: DBCowboy

Normally, I enjoy your arguments, but this one leaves me puzzled. All private business attempts to shape and control the narrative for simple self-preservation. I thought we established all this back in 2010 or so. Did I miss a memo? This is the world we were promised, ready or not.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

If we (as a people) are aware of the manipulations of business, then it negates the impact of said business.

I'm no fan of Alex Jones, I despise Louis Farrakhan, but to arbitrarily label them as hateful while keeping up ISIS sites Antifa sites etc smacks of a manipulation we should all be aware of.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Facebook has become Big Brother.

Only if you give them access to your personal information, names of family members and friends, private conversations via their I.M. software, and your exact location.

Other than that what's the problem?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: odzeandennz

So you're okay with a private company determining for you what is violent and unworthy of reading.

Ummm. . . 'kay.

Don't get your tighty-whiteys in a snit then when you get censored.

No one is determining what's violent and unworthy.

I. Can find Alex Jones just fine, just not on Facebook anymore.

Facebook isn't silencing Jones or farrakhan, their not letting them use their free services anymore. That's all

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: odzeandennz

So you're okay with a private company determining for you what is violent and unworthy of reading.

Ummm. . . 'kay.

Don't get your tighty-whiteys in a snit then when you get censored.

No one is determining what's violent and unworthy.

Um, Facebook is.

I even bolded their spokesman statement.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: DBCowboy

Facebook has become Big Brother.

Only if you give them access to your personal information, names of family members and friends, private conversations via their I.M. software, and your exact location.

Other than that what's the problem?

I hope that was sarcasm.

a reply to: DBCowboy
yeah...it's a private site. Even ATS is a private, members only forum.

With Ts and C's, rules, an Owner, admins and mods....yes we have decorum...and is the right of the owner, Above Network and established rules they've in place to be followed.

There are other sites out there to use if...

ps: we still are an international site worldwide reaching multiple cultures, languages and belief systems. Some of our membership hasn't the freedom to post what they feel...and in their home country, they may not have the same freedom

a reply to: DBCowboy

If you Come in my House , You Can Say Anything you Want . Even Diss my Ahass if you Want to . Know Why ? It's STILL a Free Country . Don't let these A Holes Eff that Up OK People ? KEEP What You Got ! FREEDOM !

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Then perhaps I am wrong to be concerned about one of the largest social media sites arbitrarily censoring based upon their own ideological stance.

Mea Culpa.