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 bans Ukrainian ultra-right

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot

You are right, but this is corporate censorship, it’s new!

And censorship is never good.


My local church news letter won't publish porn.

Is that censorship bad?



Did it used to publish porn then stopped because of a disagreement in ideology?

If so, then you might have a point.



You said censorship is never good. Do you think church groups should have to publish porn?




posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
I support a free and independent Ukraine. And I have a special dislike for Putin & Company, vying for imperialistic techniques that might shackle Eastern Europe over such endeavors.

Putin & old KGB crew are all part of the NWO. Freedom; what freedom ?

Every world leader has their part to play whilst up on the world stage.

At present Ukraine is NOT independent thanks to NWO USA with its own puppets controlling Ukrainians policies. Putin has his own puppets to replace the West's puppets.

At the end of the day, they are all the same, as they are willingly sucking up Lucifers back-side and working towards the NWO, whether it be West or Mother Russia.

The 10 Horns will happen during the 7 Year Tribulation.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

"FBI: Neo-Nazi militia trained by U.S. military in Ukraine now training U.S. white supremacists. The training the U.S. provided to the AZOV Battalion is coming back to roost in the U.S. as the neo-Nazi group is training and radicalizing U.S. based groups with similar ideologies steeped in hatred and a belief in white racial supremacy."


Source:

www.mintpressnews.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?


Genuinely strangest definition of censorship I have ever read.

Race is a protected characteristic. Being far right isn't.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?


Genuinely strangest definition of censorship I have ever read.

Race is a protected characteristic. Being far right isn't.


So a restaurant COULD ban someone if they thought differently, they can't ban someone just for looking differently.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?


Genuinely strangest definition of censorship I have ever read.

Race is a protected characteristic. Being far right isn't.


So a restaurant COULD ban someone if they thought differently, they can't ban someone just for looking differently.


Restaurants can refuse service for lots of reasons. Only a few are illegal.

Just like facebook can



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?


Genuinely strangest definition of censorship I have ever read.

Race is a protected characteristic. Being far right isn't.


So a restaurant COULD ban someone if they thought differently, they can't ban someone just for looking differently.


Restaurants can refuse service for lots of reasons. Only a few are illegal.

Just like facebook can


I guess hotels, banks, airlines could also ban you if you. . . oh I don't know. . . voted for Trump or supported the Constitution as well.

If this is something you support, as someone who IS for free expression, then it is your right to claim as much.

I do not support censorship, regardless if it's "legal".



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot


How many porn sites has your church banned?


Facebook hasn't banned any sites either. They don't have that power. They have closed accounts of groups that breech their t&cs.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer about church groups having to publish porn? Is it ok for them to censor or not?


It's only censorship if churches USED to allow porn and now they don't.

Could a diner have T&C's that would not allow blacks to eat at their lunch counters?


Genuinely strangest definition of censorship I have ever read.

Race is a protected characteristic. Being far right isn't.


So a restaurant COULD ban someone if they thought differently, they can't ban someone just for looking differently.


Restaurants can refuse service for lots of reasons. Only a few are illegal.

Just like facebook can


I guess hotels, banks, airlines could also ban you if you. . . oh I don't know. . . voted for Trump or supported the Constitution as well.

If this is something you support, as someone who IS for free expression, then it is your right to claim as much.

I do not support censorship, regardless if it's "legal".


Legally yes. Why they would want to or if they would be right to do so is different

See if you can work out why those examples are different from say Facebook.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Facebook has access to 2 billion people and over 1/3rd to 1/2 of adults in the US.

When FB censors someone for having certain opinions, what they are actually doing is social engineering and meddling in the governmental processes of otherwise free societies, i.e. election meddling.

edit on 8 7 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot

Facebook has access to 2 billion people and over 1/3rd of adults in the US.

When FB censors someone for having certain opinions, what they are actually doing is social engineering and meddling in the governmental processes of otherwise free societies, i.e. election meddling.


I agree that Facebook has way too much influence.

The way to deal with that is reducing their monopoly. Not forcing private companies to publish views they disagree with



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

If they make themselves the gatekeepers of democracy then market arguments are no longer valid.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot

If they make themselves the gatekeepers of democracy then market arguments are no longer valid.


So you would mandate private companies publish opinions they disagree with. Sounds a bit authoritarian.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Speakers Corner near Regents Park. Does it still exist?

It would be boring and defeat the purpose if they just allowed one ideology to speak.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




So you would mandate private companies publish opinions they disagree with. Sounds a bit authoritarian.



This is oversimplifying the problem here.

It is also oversimplifying how much power FANGs have.

The same old arguments made for the free market will NOT work here. There's never been anything nearly as large and politically powerful as FANGs.

One thing right-wingers were definitely wrong about was Citizen's United case. Corporate personhood doctrine has finally started to bite us in the ass. Here I am, counted among those who were wrong, telling you now that we are suffering the consequences of that ruling and the pervasiveness of corporate power can now proceed unchecked.

This is about a lot more than just censoring right-wingers.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Speakers Corner near Regents Park. Does it still exist?

It would be boring and defeat the purpose if they just allowed one ideology to speak.


Speakers corner isn't privately owned.

Would you mandate that private companies have publish opinions they disagree with?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot




So you would mandate private companies publish opinions they disagree with. Sounds a bit authoritarian.



This is oversimplifying the problem here.

It is also oversimplifying how much power FANGs have.

The same old arguments made for the free market will NOT work here. There's never been anything nearly as large and politically powerful as FANGs.

One thing right-wingers were definitely wrong about was Citizen's United case. Corporate personhood doctrine has finally started to bite us in the ass. Here I am, counted among those who were wrong, telling you now that we are suffering the consequences of that ruling and the pervasiveness of corporate power can now proceed unchecked.

This is about a lot more than just censoring right-wingers.


It's pointing out that the problem is a limited number of private companies having too much market share and influence.

Dealing with that seems a better solution than infringing people's rights by making then publish opinions they disagree with.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot

Speakers Corner near Regents Park. Does it still exist?

It would be boring and defeat the purpose if they just allowed one ideology to speak.


Speakers corner isn't privately owned.

Would you mandate that private companies have publish opinions they disagree with?


No.

I'm not an authoritarian douche like those companies.

I prefer to fight speech in which I disagree with, with more speech, not less.

But I will use my free expression to point out and illustrate the hypocrisy and fascism being promoted and defended on the internet.





top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join