Facebook gives ok to make death threats

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: underwerks

What kind of a poet are you that you let people silence you like that? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering. I've had entire rooms walk out.

Yeah, but now I am under threat of violence for not walking on enough eggshells.

I was always pretty controversial but I was never willing to hurt people over it. These people were willing to hurt me to get their "point" across. It was almost a really bad night where people were gonna get hurt and it wasn't gonna be me. So I left.

I've never experienced that anywhere. But I believe you. That's messed up. Not trying to knock you, but a bunch of people from poetry night would never stop me from saying what I had to say.

Where was this at?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, if a group is proven to be dangerous, like say Hitlers Nazi's, or Mao, you can smack talk them.

You also seem to ignore the myriad of other DO NO POST stuff tied to it.

Talking smack is one thing

Issuing severe threats that could lead to death? That insane to say you allow in your t and c

And again, you say it’s ok for nazis to be threatened

Well we know that many media people say trump is a Nazi lime fascist, so I guess he and his Nazi supporters are fair game according to Facebook

a reply to: Grambler

I meant literal nazis.

And the rest of the do not post terms and conditions basically make the ones you highlighted bill anyways. Like I said Facebook has their ass covered.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

I meant literal nazis.

And the rest of the do not post terms and conditions basically make the ones you highlighted bill anyways. Like I said Facebook has their ass covered.

The rest of the do not Post points are irrelevant

Here’s an example

Do not eat the food in the fridge

By this I mean

1. Don’t eat the fruit

2. Don’t eat the meat (unless you are really hungry)

3. Don’t eat the vegetables

So yes, you can’t eat fruit or vegetables

But those two points are irrelevant to the fact you can eat the meat of hungry

It says and over it’s ok to have calls for high level violence is ok if the person or group meets a certain criteria

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

I meant literal nazis.

And the rest of the do not post terms and conditions basically make the ones you highlighted bill anyways. Like I said Facebook has their ass covered.

And your interpretation of literal Nazis is also irrelevant

Many people think trump is a literal Nazi

The fact is this t and c of Facebook says that it’s ok to issue severe threats of violence to people if they meet certain criteria, like being named violent by the media

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

Go ahead, sort it out. What will the US do from Facebook being a global enterprise?

An easy sort out, since Facebook is a US-based company.

~Pats you on the melon head~

a reply to: underwerks

Reno, NV.

but a bunch of people from poetry night would never stop me from saying what I had to say.

When I was younger and not a parent I would have agreed. In this case, I didn't want to wreck the place over the attitude problems of an egotistical douche.

Free speech is being eroded and it's playing out in the community in a lot of places. Companies like Facebook enable this by ensuring that there is no debate online, only one side is heard, and when a those who remain in the echo chamber make contact with real life the reaction is violence.

It's violence at the expense of free speech. This space has been taken over by people who LOOK like the poets, punk rockers, and artists I used to perform with and create with, but it is a thin disguise for the fascism they accuse others of engaging in.

I do agree that the 'unless' part of making threats is troubling.

So why would Facebook have such a policy? Does facebook get swamped by people making threats when a high profile name is exposed in the media? Is there just too many people with turrets syndrome that cannot control themselves and just rant how they feel about stuff? Is facebook worried about losing too many people if the T & C did provide a common standard of decency and morality with their online presence?

It is natural for people to feel angry when injustices have been done, having a good rant to vent out the frustrations is a good thing.

Sounds like the censorship challenges of social media is still ongoing.

a reply to: strongfp

What planet are you from?

Is there even any intelligent life there?

a reply to: Grambler

How long has this policy existed? I get the feeling it cannot be an old policy and it wont last very long... if they really want to uphold those policies I'd like to see people such as Tommy Robinson get a Facebook account where they're allowed to call for violence against Muslim grooming gangs and people linked to terrorist groups, not that I think he would call for violence. The T&C clearly say both of those groups are fair game, and I have very little empathy for such groups... however the issue clearly goes deeper than that, by allowing threats of violence to be made in the first place you set a very dangerous precedent because it's clear liberals and conservatives have a different idea of which groups are dangerous. Moreover, I don't think such a policy would help promote calm civil discussions, it could only cause issues.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, if a group is proven to be dangerous, like say Hitlers Nazi's, or Mao, you can smack talk them.

You also seem to ignore the myriad of other DO NO POST stuff tied to it.

Talking smack is one thing

Issuing severe threats that could lead to death? That insane to say you allow in your t and c

And again, you say it’s ok for nazis to be threatened

Well we know that many media people say trump is a Nazi lime fascist, so I guess he and his Nazi supporters are fair game according to Facebook

We both know that fp and the left in general, do agree that it's OK to beat up innocent people if they feel they are nazis. they don't even need evidence, just one of the pack to yell nazi, and it's on. Like a good ol' lynching.

no need to ask a hypothetical, it's a given they think it's fine to beat strangers, hospitalise them, steal their phones, etc..

And with the way things are going, soon they'll be able to state such desires openly, and the stigma of being a barbaric moron who should feel shame at being such an ignorant twat, will be removed allowing them free reign to act as the jackboot thugs for the new communist world.

originally posted by: kwakakev
I do agree that the 'unless' part of making threats is troubling.

So why would Facebook have such a policy? Does facebook get swamped by people making threats when a high profile name is exposed in the media? Is there just too many people with turrets syndrome that cannot control themselves and just rant how they feel about stuff? Is facebook worried about losing too many people if the T & C did provide a common standard of decency and morality with their online presence?

It is natural for people to feel angry when injustices have been done, having a good rant to vent out the frustrations is a good thing.

Sounds like the censorship challenges of social media is still ongoing.

I would assume it's to cover 'ISIS should be shot on sight' or 'paedophiles should be lynched' type comments. The rightness or wrongness of which can be debated but few would probably want banned.

However its very badly worded and sounds like it's ok to call for specific acts of vigilantism in certain circumstances.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Well it says these threats are ok against people the media has identified as dangerous individuals

And many in the media say maga hats are a hate symbol that is violence against minorities

So it’s ok to issue death threats to maga hat wearers in Facebook

Facebook needs "Blowback" on this. Time to take them out!

Hope you guys have all deleted your profiles then.

No point complaining if you still use that #.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It sounds like facebook don't really know how to deal with it, so it is left to fall into a bit of a gray zone and let the media take the lead. Facebook is global and in this world one man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. For now we have people doing the moderation and people training the machine learning algorithms to automate another job out of existence. The people involved with moderation will have their own individual bias show with how they draw the line between a pass or fail. Context, interpretation and culture all combine to how we define what is offensive.

A lot of the moderator jobs have been shipped around the world, India is big here. Looks like most here agree that supporting violence and murder is not a socially accepted discourse. When America has a large part of its economy based on war, another head banning gray zone...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, if a group is proven to be dangerous, like say Hitlers Nazi's, or Mao, you can smack talk them.

I don't use Facebook and I never really have... but I get the feeling, if I were to make a page dedicated to dissing Communism, Marxism, Maoism, covering the censorship in China, dismantling the logic of collectivists, etc... basically many of the threads I make on ATS, would Facebook really have no issue with such a page? And that's not even considering threats of violence.

a reply to: Grambler

The sooner people vito facebook and wake up to themselves the sooner censorship on facebook will take the correct path.

I never understood the attraction are people really that nosey that they want to know so much about everything.

a reply to: Grambler

The thing is,this is facebook "policing"there own site.
But they are not the real cops or the real law.

So,whatever anyone may think about hate crime laws/free speech censorship they are now in many places the law of the land.

Now facebook it seems to me are activley encoraging people to break these laws by threatening harm/violence/death to anyone whom facebook doesn't agree with idealogically.

So I am wondering-If someone gets beat up or worse by someone who was encoraged by others on FB-then is FB liable in any way?
As they allowed the encoragement of violence as part of their policy..

From the same mindset that brings us social media influencers which is said to be some meaningful contribution to society that should be rewarded with free stuff.

When you can justify violence against someone for a belief, you can justify violence against anyone. If you can justify violence against anyone, your threshold for what requires violence begins to lessen.


Justifying violence for whatever reason, is a bad practice.