4 ms·
This is tinfoil-hat rubbish - all it shows is someone who was a) banned from posting from Facebook, b) posted some conspiracy gobbledigook, then assuming b) was
by mattbee 10y ago
This is tinfoil-hat rubbish - all it shows is someone who was a) banned from posting from Facebook, b) posted some conspiracy gobbledigook, then assuming b) was the reason for a).
The banned user could have been posting racism, abuse, publicy, privately ... without knowing all of her previous conduct it's impossible hard to tell. But unless lots of other people corroborate their own posting bans with "talking about censorship" it's not really convincing.
(This story written by the woman who thought Twitter's search autocomplete was a reflection of what was posted on Twitter, rather than her own muck-raking search history! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/louise-mensch-blames-corbyn-supporters-for-anti-semitism-turns-out-its-her-own-offensive-search-10466928.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/louise-mensch-blame...)
- daveguy 10y agoIf you take out the tinfoil hat rubbish jab this is an informative post. There's no reason to bias the reader against your opinion before they read it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cjensen 10y agoEDIT: It looks like some people are not seeing the screenshots that really explain the ban. If they are not showing up for you, then I apologize for assuming you didn't read the post. If you'll RTFM, you'll see that the "abusive" posting was quoted and is plainly not offensive. The block is also quoted and is an automated system that blocks based on the number of individual posts which get blocked. Yes, the user may be a troll who has previously said bad things. But in this instance, that is plainly untrue. The fault is obviously in having automated systems for dealing with abusive posts with no controls in place. Would be nice if Facebook had a look at abuses of the abuse system like this, and banned users from reporting abuse if they have abused the abuse system.