3 ms·

The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its on

The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.

gridlockd 8y ago
> "many anti-war voices" Care to name some names?
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten-sites/ https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten...
  - gridlockd 8y ago
    It doesn't really say why these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds. As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says: "Facebook is again being called out for purging political accounts too far left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers. Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the company said." That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well. To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative media" outlets, but I can imagine why those may have been banned.
    - StanislavPetrov 8y ago
      You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or "left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech platform, to use restrictive policies (that are selectively enforced) to ban alternative policies on "service grounds". You could try googling some more information about this, but Google has likewise deranked and delisted alternative voices. Everyone interested in freedom of speech and freedom of thought should be horrified by this assault on free discource - it leads to only one place. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/
      - gridlockd 8y ago
        I don't think your source supports your claims. Anyway, I don't think you should be downvoted.
3131s 8y ago
It's alarming. I feel like the common sentiment on censorship, and many other issues, among my in-group has shifted under my feet. We have existing laws against harassment and terroristic threats, and in the case of Alex Jones it seems to me that those legal avenues are being pursued properly, so de-platforming serves only to create a dangerous precedent. As an anti-war leftist, I know that my group is next on the chopping block if it's not there already. Yes these are private platforms, but that line of reasoning ignores the extent of the coordination between governments and these corporations. Do any of you Americans ever think how this kind of precedent will play out in smaller countries, where Facebook blindly does the bidding of corrupt governments? The internet and social media networks are the telephone and mail systems of the 21st century. At least until it is more feasible to have an online presence without going through multiple corporations as intermediaries, I think we need to be more diligent about protecting even the ugliest forms of speech on private platforms.

gridlockd 8y ago

> "many anti-war voices" Care to name some names?

StanislavPetrov 8y ago
Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten-sites/ https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten...
- gridlockd 8y ago
  It doesn't really say why these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds. As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says: "Facebook is again being called out for purging political accounts too far left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers. Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the company said." That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well. To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative media" outlets, but I can imagine why those may have been banned.
  - StanislavPetrov 8y ago
    You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or "left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech platform, to use restrictive policies (that are selectively enforced) to ban alternative policies on "service grounds". You could try googling some more information about this, but Google has likewise deranked and delisted alternative voices. Everyone interested in freedom of speech and freedom of thought should be horrified by this assault on free discource - it leads to only one place. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/
    - gridlockd 8y ago
      I don't think your source supports your claims. Anyway, I don't think you should be downvoted.

3131s 8y ago

It's alarming. I feel like the common sentiment on censorship, and many other issues, among my in-group has shifted under my feet. We have existing laws against harassment and terroristic threats, and in the case of Alex Jones it seems to me that those legal avenues are being pursued properly, so de-platforming serves only to create a dangerous precedent. As an anti-war leftist, I know that my group is next on the chopping block if it's not there already. Yes these are private platforms, but that line of reasoning ignores the extent of the coordination between governments and these corporations. Do any of you Americans ever think how this kind of precedent will play out in smaller countries, where Facebook blindly does the bidding of corrupt governments? The internet and social media networks are the telephone and mail systems of the 21st century. At least until it is more feasible to have an online presence without going through multiple corporations as intermediaries, I think we need to be more diligent about protecting even the ugliest forms of speech on private platforms.