5 ms·
It's hypocrisy that Facebook allows religious groups, but doesn't allow conspiracy theory groups. Conspiracy theory is a belief system. Whether it's true or not
by jondubois 6y ago
It's hypocrisy that Facebook allows religious groups, but doesn't allow conspiracy theory groups. Conspiracy theory is a belief system. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. You cannot allow religion and not allow conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories help people to make sense of the world, this is a fundamental human need.
I didn't see Facebook banning the Catholic church for its stance against contraception.
- tomc1985 6y agoThey shouldn't allow religious groups either then. Humans don't need belief, they affect nothing in the physical world and lead to division, ignorance, and holy wars
- AtlasLion 6y agototalitarian much?
- tomc1985 6y agoWhy not? Why do we even need to indulge this design flaw?
- caseysoftware 6y agoWeird flex. The entire concept of a "design flaw" depends on there being a designer.
- tomc1985 6y agoOk, how about "species flaw"
- IgorPartola 6y agoGo read Sapiens and tell me how humans don’t need beliefs. Religion is the reason us Homo sapiens and not some other species of humans are the only ones that survived. I say this as someone who is deeply against any form of organized religion, but saying they don’t affect anything in the real world is like saying that violence never solves anything.
- tomc1985 6y agoYou are referring to the things that people do that are a result of beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. I've heard theories that the sensation of early human consciousness was akin to feeling enslaved to a higher power in one's head, as a sort of summary of that person's internal drives manifesting as God. Who is to say these things would not have happened if humans simply skipped the 'internal voice equals god' conclusion?
- IgorPartola 6y agoThat theory was popularized by Westworld and is highly debated. But you can’t separate the two: you believe in things like money and corporations and ownership of property and transfer of property right? Those ar exist as fictitious and god or satan. You might believe in things like capitalism or communism: both are simply types of religion. You might believe in destiny or free will: both artificial constructs. The point is that there is subjective reality (I feel anxious), objective reality (a tiger is chasing me), and intersubjective (I am a part of a village and we share communal property). The latter is what enables us to do things like build anything that requires more than one person. Beliefs in things like money are as real as a hammer and cannot be separated from their real world effects. The book Sapiens goes into a lot of detail about this and does a much better job explaining it than I can.
- tomc1985 6y ago> you believe in things like money and corporations and ownership of property and transfer of property right? That's twisting words. Belief in some cosmic, anthropomorphic entity is nothing to do with "belief" in money or corporations. How does one "believe" in those things anyway? They are here, they exist, and they're fucking shit up right now, and we can trace much of our woes to those forces. You cannot say the same about magical beings looking down on us from the clouds
- IgorPartola 6y agoNo they don’t exist the same way a hammer exists. A corporation is nothing but a piece of paper that a high priest of our religion (Secretary of state) has brought into existence via a ritual (signing a piece of paper). That is all a corporation is. Money: it exists as a physical piece of paper. Our belief in its value is what gives it value. Not unlike our belief in the idea that consuming a communion cracker is like ingesting the body of Christ (ritual cannibalism). Most things you consider real live in the intersubjective and religion is no different.
- devmunchies 6y ago> they affect nothin in the physical world There are religions that center around worship of nature. I don’t agree that humans don’t need beliefs though. Most people today are filling that need with politics and are very fanatical about it.
- tomc1985 6y agoIt is a "need" that we as humans need to obliterate if we are going to continue to survive
- ljf 6y agoFrom the article: Reuters reports that Official Q/QAnon "crossed the line" on bullying, harassment, hate speech and the sharing of potentially harmful misinformation. The FBI last year issued a warning about "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists" and designated QAnon a potential domestic extremist threat.
- marcrosoft 6y agoIt is worth noting that major religious groups are, and continue to be, designated as domestic (extremist) threats. Quakers were "extreme". It is very dangerous to give the gov. authority to choose which beliefs are extreme and which are not.
- moomin 6y agoIndeed, "religious" facebook groups that cross that line are candidates for banning as well. Problem with conspiracy theories in general is it inevitably ends up with demonising some group or other that's "suppressing" the "truth"? Want to argue the world is flat? Fill your boots. Start to say there's a cabal of scientists with nefarious motives? You're heading toward the hate speech line. Plan breaking into prominent scientists homes to obtain evidence? The line's behind you.
- LanceH 6y agoI think the above comment isn't 100% correct and should not be allowed either.
- baby 6y agosomeone needs to read the article
- busyant 6y ago>You cannot allow religion and not allow conspiracy theories It seems like the reason for the ban is that the group "repeatedly posting content that violated our policies" I assume that if a religious group also repeatedly violated policies, it would meet the same fate. But the article doesn't clarify what policies were violated. Edit...missing words.
- LeoPanthera 6y agoIt wasn't banned because it was a conspiracy theory. It was banned because its members practiced hate speech, harassment, and bullying. You should read the article.
- TomMarius 6y agoCatholics and other religious groups do exactly that too, using 'god's wish' as their excuse.
- LeoPanthera 6y agoFacebook was responding to specific incidents from the specific people in that group. Just because some members of a particular religious or social group do bad things, doesn't mean you should ban all members of that group. If it did, all of Facebook would have to shut down. And while that might not be a bad thing - it's not the point in question here.
- TomMarius 6y agoHow come they deleted a group, then? They should've only banned the offending members. P.S. I fully agree with the removal.
- fareesh 6y agoThe rule about bullying and harassment seems to be selectively applied. It doesn't seem to matter when the target has the political views that oppose those of the Facebook employee base.
- ummonk 6y agoWhen religion-focused groups engage in bullying, harassment, or hate speech, they should be removed too (and I assume they already are).
- vlunkr 6y ago> whether it's true or not is irrelevant. For people who actually believe in conspiracy theories this is not at all true. And there are some religious people who might think this way, but I would guess it's a small minority.
- aNoob7000 6y agoIt is not fair to compare most religions to conspiracy theories. As a Catholic, I don't believe that the devil is behind everything wrong in the world, and I'm sure most rational people feel the same way. One of the biggest problems I have with conspiracy theories is that nothing can be trusted because there's always something corrupt behind it all. I believe the United States' biggest challenge right now is the lack of trust of our most fundamental institutions like the CDC and the law. I think the lack of faith is due to people in trusted positions believing and promoting some of these crazy theories.
- fareesh 6y agoFacebook is most likely pandering to their highly political employees or advertisers, and doesn't sincerely have any value or principles.