Facebook censors again

AJ is a conservatard conspiracy nutbag douchebag who was encouraging extremism and fake conspiracy theories. Has he gotten anyone killed yet? He came close once, but it's only a matter of time. Anyway, that's why he was banned. Good riddance to bad trash I say.

I have no problem with silencing extremists, just like I have no problem barring extremists from entering my country.

If freedom of speech of speech is used and abused by people like Alex Jones, then he should be ignored and curtailed by society. We have already been beyond patient with the "performance artist" who goes by the name Alex Jones.

The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

en.wikipedia.org...

As far as curtailing FOS, blame Alex Jones. He's the one abusing it. He and others need to stop hiding behind FOS to be horrible, trashy, human beings. He needs to stop being a deplorable. And stop lying constantly. And stop spreading fake news. Stop being, frankly, dangerous. Then your god damn FOS will live on. The stability of our society, which is increasingly in tatters, "trumps" his need to use and abuse FOS.

This would never have happened if conservitards and deplorables actually stood up to AJ. So someone else did because you lot of people were obviously incapable. Now it's all "muh FREEDUMBZ!", "muh LEFTISTS", "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", "muh partisan douchebags". If you're reading this. It's your fault. And it's OPs fault.

Impression of people against banning Alex Jones. Make sure to turn your volume up to maximum before playing.

And funny how it's the same people here who were defending the right of a business to not serve gay couples, are now blaming the rights of a business for not serving someone who is dangerous.

Hypocrites.

Apparently it's better to not serve gay people than to ban Alex Jones.

Without being homophobic, can any one of you actually explain that to me?

Also who is really a partisan douchebag here?

Those banning someone like Alex "Performance Artist" Jones.

Or those who are turning this into a partisan issue when it shouldn't be partisan issue?

OP is simply trying to rally you guys against so called "leftists", there is ample evidence that social media is biased for right wing and conservative viewpoints, as proven time and time again.

originally posted by: C0bzz
And funny how it's the same people here who were defending the right of a business to not serve gay couples, are now blaming a business for not serving someone who is dangerous.

Hypocrites.

Apparently it's better to not serve gay people than to ban Alex Jones.

Without being homophobic, can any one of you actually explain that to me?

Who determines who is dangerous? It seems that the entire media industry, online and in print, is moving toward a monopoly and anti-trust laws should come into play.

As to the baker, he has religious beliefs that prevent him from making gay wedding cakes. The two aggrieved individuals drove many miles to target him as part of a political stunt to punish those who are not PC. He should have baked a "Praying Hands" cake for them.

a reply to: C0bzz

Why can't you just come out and say you are for conditional speech and not free speech?

It'd save everyone a lot of time.

Peter Thiel is on the board of directors for Facebook. Peter Thiel was also the co-founder of Paypal (who also recently banned AJ). Does anyone here think Peter Thiel is a leftist? He's the guy who sued and basically destroyed Gawker.

Reality:

Facebook, Paypal, and others are trying to make money for their shareholders. Naturally they would like less regulation. Not more. Anyone want to guess which political party is for less regulation?

The fact is that Alex Jones is a threat to the future of Facebook. He constantly violated Facebook’s hate speech rules, letting him stay reflects poorly on the company. In case highlighted by the OP, he mentioned AJ and got banned.

No partisan issue, except hypocrites who state:

But can people at least be honest now and say that the social media giants are leftist partisan douchebags?

a reply to: pteridine

Who determines who is dangerous? It seems that the entire media industry, online and in print, is moving toward a monopoly and anti-trust laws should come into play.

I completely agree that this is a very real issue that you have highlighted here. I also agree that banning people can quickly become a slippery slope.

a reply to: pteridine

As to the baker, he has religious beliefs that prevent him from making gay wedding cakes. The two aggrieved individuals drove many miles to target him as part of a political stunt to punish those who are not PC. He should have baked a "Praying Hands" cake for them.

Also for the record, if that's the case then I am okay with it, just like I am okay with FB from banning AJ.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why don't you just come out and say you are for hate speech?

Or are you against businesses from managing their own business?

Or are you just using this to be partisan?

It'd save everyone a lot of time.

(I can play this game just as well as you can, although perhaps I don't have the time to make an average of 27 posts per day).

And yes. I am intolerant of intolerance, otherwise society will destroy itself. You probably have similar views, just don't apply them to FOS.

Got any proof there skippy? It’s not that I don’t believe you, but one things is as sure as the sun rise. Right wingers lie. They lie all the time. It’s what they do.

a reply to: C0bzz

Hate speech is free speech.

It's obvious you are just for nice speech.


I'm also for public accommodation for business, any business that offers it's services to the public.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I edited this into my last post but I'll add it here.

Yes. I am intolerant of intolerance, otherwise society will destroy itself. I am aware this is a paradox. You probably have similar views, just don't apply them to FOS.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: DBCowboy

I edited this into my last post but I'll add it here.

Yes. I am intolerant of intolerance, otherwise society will destroy itself. You probably have similar views, just don't apply them to FOS.

Then you aren't for free speech.

If you can't tolerate opposing views, or even offensive views, then you are intolerant and don't want or support free speech.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, I am for banning hate speech from communities that I am part of. Hate speech is also banned on so called "intolerant" websites such as ATS - which doesn't mean ATS is partisan.

If you are against communities or businesses deciding to ban hate speech, then you are being intolerant. (This actually proves a point I made earlier, that you're simply applying your own intolerance in a different way, which incidentally means you have no leg to stand on).

AJ is perfectly welcome to spout hate speech in his own part of the internet.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, I am for banning hate speech.

So apparently the reason Alex Jones was banned was because facebook users started mass reporting AJ. Maybe this had political motivations or maybe they were just fed up with his hate speech. But from the position of facebook, this puts them under a lot of pressure. Here are some questions facebook would have had to ask itself:

- Do they allow themselves to get manipulated and ban AJ?
- Do they not allow themselves to get manipulated and keep AJ?
- Do they punish those who decided to mass report?
- Do they look at his posts and decide it was hate speed, then ban AJ?
- Do they automatically ban those who mention AJ or create events with AJ?

(Perhaps FB should have warned AJ a long time ago, but we cannot go back in time).

Anyway, this is a very clear lesson. Even if you think you can get away with breaking terms and conditions or the law. Even if you think you can be unethical. Or have nasty secrets. And even if you get away with it for some time. Then the truth will simply be waiting for someone to reveal or threaten to reveal when it suits them, so they can use it against you.

That allows them to manipulate you. Have kompromat on you. That allows them to hold you hostage. Or silence or extort you.

Don't. #ing. Do. It.

And if it has happened and you cannot change the past, then don't put yourself in a position where it can be used to manipulate, silence you, or otherwise screw you over.

I don't understand why this has to happen so many times before people quiet get the message.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Leftist partisan waste of space douche bag doesn't begin to describe these scum sucking bottom feeders

I am surprised anybody still uses those wasteful services. All they do is steal your information and sell it to others at your expense.

a reply to: C0bzz

- Do they allow themselves to get manipulated and ban AJ?
- Do they not allow themselves to get manipulated and keep AJ?
- Do they punish those who decided to mass report?
- Do they look at his posts and decide it was hate speed, then ban AJ?
- Do they automatically ban those who mention AJ or create events with AJ?

1) No, that is what weak minded pansies do.
2) Yes, that would be the smart/right thing to do.
3) Yes, and expose the source who arranged the mass-action
4) No, hate speech doesn't exist in the United States: there is only free speech.
5) No. Again that is what pansies do. Real Americans don't run from opposing view points like those Betas on DU.

A bunch of oversensitive leftist sissies are running those tech giants if you ask me. Too much Soy or something I suppose. Ah well, BETA soy boys will be beta soy boys.... Look at Zuckerberg, you can tell he's a fruitcake just by looking at him and his vampire-pale complexion. Too much time on the PC, not enough time meeting real people and living an actual meaningful life.

a reply to: JBurns

Well its good to know your not one of those oversensitive sissies... Like you say, "real Americans don't run from opposing view points like those Betas"...

So, I suppose it would be totally cool with you if I got myself all liquored up... rocked around to your house, made myself at home...then start ranting on about how I honestly feel about Trump supporters & conservative ideology in general?

You'd be cool with that, right?

You know... free speech and all!

a reply to: JBurns

4) No, hate speech doesn't exist in the United States: there is only free speech

Here's the definition of hate speech:

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Yes, hate speech exists in the United States, it's just protected by free speech.

But protection of free speech doesn't apply to Facebook, as it's not a pubic space. Facebook has its own terms and conditions and community standards which you must adhere to. The same goes for ATS. Maybe you can call them names for limiting free speech, but unless you propose government regulations correcting this or boycotting FB, there's nothing you can do.

Three further points I want to make:

i. The best online communities are generally the ones with strict moderation.
ii. The most loyal Donald Trump fanbases are known for banning anyone who has any criticism.
iii. I am curious as to how you feel about, for example, libel and slander. Should they be legal because freedom of speech?

1) No, that is what weak minded pansies do.
2) Yes, that would be the smart/right thing to do.
5) No. Again that is what pansies do. Real Americans don't run from opposing view points like those Betas on DU.

The correct route would be to investigate Alex Jones and Infowars to determine if a breach of the community guidelines and/or terms and conditions had been made. Based on those the results of that investigation, correct action should be taken.

They ask harder questions that what I just asked in McDonalds interviews...

3) Yes, and expose the source who arranged the mass-action

On what basis?

weak minded pansies do.

"Anyone who disagrees with me is weak minded".

Real Americans don't run from opposing view points like those Betas on DU.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Also gate-keeping.

Look at Zuckerberg, you can tell he's a fruitcake just by looking at him and his vampire-pale complexion. Too much time on the PC, not enough time meeting real people

Zuckerberg is a fruitcake because he has light skin and decided to ban Alex Jones, the man who comes up with bizarre school shooting conspiracy theories and constantly spreads hate speech, from his own website?

and living an actual meaningful life.

Zukerberg started the worlds largest social media website. 2.2 billion users. 40 billion in revenue. He makes you. And me. Look like betas. Doesn't matter if he is a scumbag or isn't.

Anyway, Alex Jones is a bigger scumbag and broke the rules of the websites he signed up to. Good riddance. I don't understand why it's a partisan issue, I think you guys want to make it a partisan issue validate your own opinions and rally your base.

All this whining about how Jones is being censored coming from the Right. But isn't the Right the party of less government and unrestrained Capitalism/Free Enterprise? Because that's what this is plain and simple. Jones was/is bad for business and in a Capitalist system, that means he must go. It's pretty simple really, you can't have it both ways. We either let Capitalism do it's thing un-restrained or the Fed Gov interferes with the free market and forces social media sites to allow all forms of free speech.

Does anyone on the Right think that the Government should interfere?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Mark Zucks Well Trained Covert Cat ...............