Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

{Gun Control} Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


IDC about that. I am all for people getting support and contacting their families.

The rest of your post is right though. It monitors the population and is immensely useful in controlling popular opinion - not only that people post every detail on there.

Not to mention the criminals. If someone wants to hurt you or your family all they need is your FB.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by glassspider
Comments,threads and users get deleted on here all of the time same as facebook because it has been reported for breaking T&C. Is ATS evil too or censoring us working fir the government . i don't understand why every single thing has to be some big conspiracy.
i could have reported that because i found it offensive or if they had used an image i had the rights to or even just because the comments made by other users in response and therefor printed in the same place were abusive or offensive (which is likely when it comes to the gun issues some americans get pretty rabid on both sides of that argument)
it could have been the last complaint of many for things printed on their page and just the straw that broke the camels back. i assume that all the people who reposted it didnt get deleted too so maybe we arent getting the full story. i dont think facebook is without its faults but with the massive amount of varied opinions and pages on there i dont think theyre obsessively censoring anything they disagree with either.


Just to point out 1 more time: to compare ATS to FB is to compare apples to pea gravel. ATS, while huge, is miniscule in scope when compared to FB.

FB might have crossed a threshold where it is considered more akin to "public space".



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 



I contact and communicate with family all the time. And all without a FB account.

Society actually was able to coherently exist before Zuckerberg was ever even born. Believe it or not.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Im saying you get banned from any and all websites that you dont own if you break the rules. So just keep repeating that ats is different to facebook to anybody who doesnt share your beliefs it wasnt the point.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by glassspider
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Im saying you get banned from any and all websites that you dont own if you break the rules. So just keep repeating that ats is different to facebook to anybody who doesnt share your beliefs it wasnt the point.


Well....there you have it.

No need to consider what I am saying, because it doesn't support your point.

LOL, carry on then.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


right on, man....some one please put on the pic of the famous..."Godzilla facepalm"



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
phone is playing up will reply on comp later
edit on 29-12-2012 by glassspider because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
We can argue about Gandhi's beliefs regarding weapon ownership, and self-defence, until the cow's come home. It doesn't change the FACT that when Gandhi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" he was referring to the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the World War I.

The full quote, as it appears in part 5, of chapter 27, of Gandhi's autobiography is as follows:

"I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Gandhi's autobiography specifies the aforementioned leaflets were part of a recruiting campaign urging Indians to serve with the British Army in World War I, while simultaneously playing a role in his campaign to discredit the British. Arguably, the former was merely a cover for the latter.
edit on 29-12-2012 by 101Force because: Spelling.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I brought up the topic on Facebook, but was careful to not reference Gandhi or the quote it self to attach the moderators of Facebook. I've found ATS guilty of doing this atrocity also, so...ehh...POLICE STATE!



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Facebook has always been this totalitarian. Why are you surprised! I'm not, that's why I never made an account with those assholes. Anybody using facebook is a chump. Anybody still using facebook wants to be censored.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


You know when Facebook was first coming up and Myspace was still in the lead, I heard the urban myth that Facebook was backed by the government, or even part-owned, like maybe those initial investors that Zuckerberg pulled in were reps of the government. Although suspicious, I never bought into it, but with all the actions they have been doing as of late, I'm beginning to wonder.

We already know they have deep ties through lobbying. They have an office of lobbyists in Washington and one of the missions it to strengthen ties with the intelligence community. Why the intelligence community?

Does it actually go further than an office of lobbyists? Why would Facebook go after accounts that are supportive of the 2nd amendment? What's in it for them? It's not to protect anybody because as the Natural News story says, you can post a call for the murder of the head of the NRA, so this clearly demonstrates that Facebook has chosen a side, the side of the Obama Admin.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Gandhi was right BTW...

These are the same mass murderers who control the world TODAY.

Government killed 262 million people in the 20th century




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I quoted this earier today and it is still there.
Will let you know if this changes.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Facebook is the secret goverment spying program......
I mean Thats it.....
read what you are agreeing to when you sign up.....
From what you give them, they can get the rest with ease....plus your other web participations as well.....
Its a natural, and who would ever believe it?
call me Krazy



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Sorry but I call BS - not at the OP - but at the info.

I have more GUN RIGHTS THIS and GUN RIGHTS THAT on my FB than I can shake a stick at.
Nothing has been removed.

I also have a ton of stuff about Sandy Hook - NOTHING has been removed.

Just sayin...

peace



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jameliel
 



Originally posted by Jameliel
Im going to quote it on Facebook and see what happens.


Let us know what happens. I'd like to see this verified also.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
This very own site is being discussed on another site, as this site also removes whole threads and bans for certain discussions. So Meh. Whats worse, this site or FB. Both seem the same to me.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by NarrowGate
 



I contact and communicate with family all the time. And all without a FB account.

Society actually was able to coherently exist before Zuckerberg was ever even born. Believe it or not.


I agree, and I do not use FB. I am supportive of people contacting family and getting support - and they should be able to do so easily.

That said, Facebook is not necessary for that.

The thing is, you said you are not sentimental enough for it, as if that were a requirement for uh...something.

I know you were being somewhat sarcastic, just explaining my response that's all. Maybe the reason for the confusion is a misinterpreted of what I already thought you intended to be a gray area of your statement.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
I'm starting to understand now how "they" are getting rid of the first amendment. They aren't going to get rid of it at all, they are just going to circumvent it by corporatizing all forms of information propagation, and get all of society to become solely dependent on those communication channels. Then they will fall back on the BS claim that "well it's private so we can censor all we want." Pure evil genius.


That is not possible if we are talking about internet sites. You may have a point if we apply this logic to corporate ISPs or internet cables themselves, and indeed preventing this kind of censorship is the aim of net neutrality laws. However, if Facebook bans you, you can always communicate using different sites.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


I did too, lol. Even left them a little comment.



Suck it boys in suits. You don't scare me.


By the way; don't troll me guys about being able to google that quote so it show up on Facebook. I don't care if they know me or not.

They don't scare me. I'm looking forward to the day some G-man shows up at my door, thinking he is gonna tell me how # is run. Mr. Eskrima say otherwise
edit on 29-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join