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 Now Suspending Accounts Which Question Mainstream Media Reporting/Account of Events

page: 6
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by HIWATT


That has nothing to do with this thread. It's about Facebook.

As far as I can see, they broke their own Terms here (unless there is more to the story) and the OP has a right to confront them on it.

I get angry when I see people (especially those who are part of large corporations or those with lost of $$$$) break their own rules and get away with it.
You have a right not to.



No, that's what you were led to believe by someone who posted something saying it happened. He/She could have made the whole thing up, maybe it never happened at all. Have you considered that? Of course not. You just automatically saw something you didn't like and jumped right on the bandwagon. You don't have any facts, you didn't experience any of it, you don't even have observations to back up what you are trying to say. All you have is heresay provided by the OP.

That's not critical thinking, that's acting like a lemming. Someone shouts "look, follow me, I'm mad at somebody" and you jumped right in behind them and are angry and arguing about it even though you have been shown by at least 4 other people that there are holes in it as well as being shown the direct statement from facebook saying they had the right to remove what they see fit.

Who is really denying ignorance here and who is embracing it? I'll give you a hint, me, Foodstamp and a few others have been denying it. You can figure out the rest. Or maybe you can't.



Maybe you should learn to read?





posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
Good, that stuff doesn't belong on facebook. Facebook is not a conspiracy website.


And WHO are you to tell people WHAT they can post on their personal FB page?
And who are you to say what does and doesn't belong on FB? JHC.

I post all kinds of "conspiracy" related topics to my FB even ATS links.



I'm not the one that took it down, facebook is. I'm just defending their right to do so according to the terms they set forth as provided here by another poster.
It wasn't my choice, it was facebook's choice. It was their choice to make, they made it. Pretty cut and dry.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well OP, I reposted it on my wall, and had ten of my likeminded friends post it as well. Let's see if we get the same treatment you did.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT



Maybe you should learn to read?



I read quite well thank you, however, you seem to have issues with it. The policy was provided to you several times and you are still failing to comprehend it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


You so full of hot air it's ridiculous.

Back up that last post with your version of the shooting... Please do! Let the people decide how much is fact and how much is fiction. I could pick apart the conspiracy theory all day like I have with previous posts based on evidence to the contrary. So don't keep pointing the finger at me like I don't base anything on evidence. Cause you haven't said one thing yet based on anything....yet....So be my guess... The floor is yours... Or will you choose to sidestep the whole issue? You decide....



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by HIWATT



Maybe you should learn to read?



I read quite well thank you, however, you seem to have issues with it. The policy was provided to you several times and you are still failing to comprehend it.


What should we expect really? He's gonna "think critically?" Lol..He's gonna look up evidence our "weigh" conflicting news reports? Or verify sources of questionable news quotes? Heh, no my friend..That would be critical thinking and denying ignorance... The same thing he accuses US of not doing! Lol

Let's see how much he talks when it's time to give his version of the shooting...
edit on 12/17/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mattdel
 


Good for Facebook in this case. The "photo" you posted also has text in it which would appear to be at the least very questionable, and possibly even libelous.

You know for a fact that Adam Lanza was autistic and that he never fired a gun before; the latter claim contradicts all that I have seen. And you say he went out of state to do this? I thought he lived in CT. And it is just very tasteless posting the guy's picture in conjunction with this text so soon after this tragedy. No class.

I'm all for Facebook putting the kabosh on false information. It is their website, so they have ultimate authority with it. Start you're own website if you want to publish irresponsible lies.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mattdel
 


Well that meme is about as inaccurate as it gets, but yeah, you shouldn't have been banned for it. I wasn't aware they had a "too soon bro" policy over at facebook.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp


What should we expect really? He's gonna "think critically?" Lol..He's gonna look up evidence our "weigh" conflicting news reports? Or verify sources of questionable news quotes? Heh, no my friend..That would be critical thinking and denying ignorance... The same thing he accuses US of not doing! Lol

Let's see how much he talks when it's time to give his version of the shooting...
edit on 12/17/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)


Good point, I'll wait patiently with you for him to answer. Don't want to give him any way to get "sidetracked" and skip over answering the question you asked



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by mattdel
 


Good for Facebook in this case. The "photo" you posted also has text in it which would appear to be at the least very questionable, and possibly even libelous.

You know for a fact that Adam Lanza was autistic and that he never fired a gun before; the latter claim contradicts all that I have seen. And you say he went out of state to do this? I thought he lived in CT. And it is just very tasteless posting the guy's picture in conjunction with this text so soon after this tragedy. No class.

I'm all for Facebook putting the kabosh on false information. It is their website, so they have ultimate authority with it. Start you're own website if you want to publish irresponsible lies.


Yes, there was a great deal of mis-information contained in it. That alone would be grounds for removing it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Facebook is a publicly traded company that answers to shareholders and can be prosecuted for its content. When there's possible financial liability, It is hardly shocking that they would enforce policies to protect the company legally. All it takes is one of YOUR friends to report a post or image...which is what happened. They aren't sitting there waiting for you to post something. They sift through "reported" content. Someone ratted you out.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Well OP, I reposted it on my wall, and had ten of my likeminded friends post it as well. Let's see if we get the same treatment you did.

I reposted it too on my wall. I'm not sure if all the info in the pic is accurate but it's my right to post as I see fit. If facebook wants to ban their own customers then it's their financial loss.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
You have a fb account? Well that is fail number one. That you are upset that you are prevented from using it is fail number two. The fact that their behavior surprises you is fail number three. You are basically pwnd by Facebook.

Hang your head in shame.

In shame.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ


Yes, there was a great deal of mis-information contained in it. That alone would be grounds for removing it.


Why? Not like that murderer can sue for libel.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I have read the policies of Facebook, and there are many, several times over the years. I am wondering what kind of violation did this image actually break? It could be seen as libel because the police have not released an official report on the events of that twisted day in 21st century American history.

If it was deemed to be a possible case of libel SOMEONE must have contacted Facebook and complained that the statement in the image was not true; thus grounds for libel. Facebook does not want to get involved in any more libel cases then it already has in the past. If someone complains to Facebook that a statement, video or image posted by a user is grounds for libel, you can bet your bottom dollar that FB will remove it and give the poster a few days of being blocked just to let things cool down a little. They block the user to protect FB and the user from even more trouble if the user does it again right after a removal has taken place.

Yeah, it is no fun at all to get blocked but there is a logical reason for it which is not about freedom of the press but more about protection from getting sued. They remove what was posted, block you for a few days, and hope the person who complained of libel forgets about it. Seems like the smart way to go.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ


Yes, there was a great deal of mis-information contained in it. That alone would be grounds for removing it.


Why? Not like that murderer can sue for libel.


His father can. His family can. The news source they altered the picture from can. The victim's families can. There's a whole slew of people who could sue over it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
Yes, there was a great deal of mis-information contained in it. That alone would be grounds for removing it.

Who's to determine what is and isn't "mis-information"? When you decide to only allow what is "factual" you're really only allowing what one person or group decided is "factual"; an official story that no one can disagree with. A free and open society in which everything can be questioned is more conducive to truth prevailing than a society in which information is strictly controlled from the top.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
Yes, there was a great deal of mis-information contained in it. That alone would be grounds for removing it.

Who's to determine what is and isn't "mis-information"? When you decide to only allow what is "factual" you're really only allowing what one person or group decided is "factual"; an official story that no one can disagree with. A free and open society in which everything can be questioned is more conducive to truth prevailing than a society in which information is strictly controlled from the top.


Looks like facebook is who determines it since they took it down



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Someone could have reported you siting copyright violations. Facebook seems to be in the habit of assuming the copyright claims as true, leaving it up to you to prove them wrong. I put a lot of my own personal paintings and artwork up regularly, and had some assface report a few of the pieces they didn't like and taken down. I had to give evidence that it was in fact my own before they would put it back up.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I don't see libel or copyright infringment as the issue. Could the photo and even the text be protected under something like Fair Use?

That being said, in spite of the TOS agreement, FB is under NO obligation to let anyone and everyone post any damn thing they want. It disappoints me that they would ban someone for posting this, especially in light of the many things I've seen on there which are much more tasteless and offensive...but, as someone else said, it is their site and they can basically make up the rules as they go along.

But back on the other hand again, while I won't presume to say with any certainty that there is a conspiracy, I don't think it is EVER too early to start asking questions. If things don't add up or if it doesn't feel right in your gut, ask away. People are way too sensitive. We all have a right to question the official stories we are fed, whatever the issue.

You can't really argue freedom of speech though, anymore than you could if your boss prevented you from hanging up an erotic photo in your office. Sure, you have every right to express your opinions, but if you are in a privately owned home/business/etc or on a website owned and operated by someone else, you basically have to abide by whatever rules they decide.

Time to fire up the printing press. Or build your own site.




top topics



 
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join