4 ms·

I wonder what the percentage of people calling for violence was. The article says there were 300k group members, and FB only said that "some" were calling for v

by dx87 6y ago

I wonder what the percentage of people calling for violence was. The article says there were 300k group members, and FB only said that "some" were calling for violence. You can find "some" people calling for violence in any group, so I'd like to know what the difference is here (regardless of whether or not the group has legitimate complaints).

op00to 6y ago
> You can find "some" people calling for violence in any group Uh, no, you can not.
disown 6y ago
Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses. Violence, hate speech, etc. They would have found whatever they were looking for. This is pretty much the standard big tech M.O. No amount of calling for "violence" will shut down pages they like. Also, doesn't this just incentivize political adversaries to join groups they don't like and make threats just to have pages shut down? Sadly, this is just going to add gasoline to the fire. It's just going to antagonize and rile up these people more than anything.
- barumi 6y ago
  > Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses. Does anyone has any problem understanding the reason why groups actively advocating for the subversion of democracy through violent means are obviously and naturally shut down in a free and democratic society?
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    In Trump, you have a candidate who acts, speaks and tries to govern like the most reviled dictators of the past 100 years, and millions of Americans enthusiastically gave him their vote. So I'd say nearly half of America is incapable of reasoning about liberty and democracy.
    - barumi 6y ago
      I took some time to try to understand why so many americans happened to vote for Trump and I was left with the impression that the problem lies more with disenfranchisement than with vilifying and even dehumanizing scapegoats. Beyond the usual conservative tropes of less state and stopping attacks on personal freedoms, I've seen Trump voters mention deescalation of wars and international tension and lower taxes. I've also seen Trump supporters criticizing what they perceive as lawlessness and pending threat of state-sponsored oppression, such as the demands to erode law enforcement. Trump supporters were also quick to point out that both Obama and Biden were behind escalation of targeted assassinations on foreign soil and also increasing attacks on privacy and personal rights doemstically. More importantly, I've seen Trump supporters state they voted for Trump in spite of his despicable personality and failings, because they see in him someone who enacts the policies they want enacted although he comes off as kind of a loudmouth moron. Yet, they also state that the public persona is also very skewed due to all the media manipulation and blatant propaganda that is targeted at him.
      - uniqueid 6y ago
        Those would normally be serious issues, but it's either historically ignorant or irrational to deal with them by supporting a leader like Trump.
        barumi 6y ago
        This is precisely the part that you fail to understand: some people prioritize not dragging the US into another war over having to endure the media overblowing tweets from a moron. Those who are able and willing to endure the propaganda barrage to get their low-taxes, not-war, pro-individual freedom policies upheld and enacted look at the bipartisan system and see that they have two choices: a candidate which is behind escalation of wars and political assassinations in foreign soil, and a candidate that brought troops home and deescalated relationships with historical enemies such as the North Korea dictatorship. Between those choices, if you value policy over tabloid propaganda and you are already quite used to see a candidate repeatedly portrayed in bad light, isn't the choice pretty clear to you?

by dx87 6y ago

op00to 6y ago

> You can find "some" people calling for violence in any group Uh, no, you can not.

disown 6y ago

Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses. Violence, hate speech, etc. They would have found whatever they were looking for. This is pretty much the standard big tech M.O. No amount of calling for "violence" will shut down pages they like. Also, doesn't this just incentivize political adversaries to join groups they don't like and make threats just to have pages shut down? Sadly, this is just going to add gasoline to the fire. It's just going to antagonize and rile up these people more than anything.

barumi 6y ago
> Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses. Does anyone has any problem understanding the reason why groups actively advocating for the subversion of democracy through violent means are obviously and naturally shut down in a free and democratic society?
- uniqueid 6y ago
  In Trump, you have a candidate who acts, speaks and tries to govern like the most reviled dictators of the past 100 years, and millions of Americans enthusiastically gave him their vote. So I'd say nearly half of America is incapable of reasoning about liberty and democracy.
  - barumi 6y ago
    I took some time to try to understand why so many americans happened to vote for Trump and I was left with the impression that the problem lies more with disenfranchisement than with vilifying and even dehumanizing scapegoats. Beyond the usual conservative tropes of less state and stopping attacks on personal freedoms, I've seen Trump voters mention deescalation of wars and international tension and lower taxes. I've also seen Trump supporters criticizing what they perceive as lawlessness and pending threat of state-sponsored oppression, such as the demands to erode law enforcement. Trump supporters were also quick to point out that both Obama and Biden were behind escalation of targeted assassinations on foreign soil and also increasing attacks on privacy and personal rights doemstically. More importantly, I've seen Trump supporters state they voted for Trump in spite of his despicable personality and failings, because they see in him someone who enacts the policies they want enacted although he comes off as kind of a loudmouth moron. Yet, they also state that the public persona is also very skewed due to all the media manipulation and blatant propaganda that is targeted at him.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      Those would normally be serious issues, but it's either historically ignorant or irrational to deal with them by supporting a leader like Trump.
      - barumi 6y ago
        This is precisely the part that you fail to understand: some people prioritize not dragging the US into another war over having to endure the media overblowing tweets from a moron. Those who are able and willing to endure the propaganda barrage to get their low-taxes, not-war, pro-individual freedom policies upheld and enacted look at the bipartisan system and see that they have two choices: a candidate which is behind escalation of wars and political assassinations in foreign soil, and a candidate that brought troops home and deescalated relationships with historical enemies such as the North Korea dictatorship. Between those choices, if you value policy over tabloid propaganda and you are already quite used to see a candidate repeatedly portrayed in bad light, isn't the choice pretty clear to you?