17 ms·
Facebook is banning leftwing users like me
- mk81 6y agoWhy are you surprised? You've outlived your usefulness. The party is always right.
- NoOneNew 6y agoWho was the Russian that escaped to Canada that talked about this? The intellectual idiots, he called them. The ones who blindly wanted the revolution. They're the first to purge after the revolution is a success.
- fwn 6y agoI think you might have thought of Yuri Bezmenov on useful idiots.
- goatinaboat 6y agoWhy are you surprised? You've outlived your usefulness. Yes. People who attacked Trump thought Biden would reward them. But actually, he can’t risk that they just enjoy attacking any government regardless.
- bzb6 6y agoAh, censorship is cool except when it happens to you! I know all about that. Sorry for the schadenfreude, but it’s just too hard to fight it.
- guerrilla 6y agoThe idea that Akin Olla thinks "censorship is cool" is unwarranted. Posts like this contribute nothing to the conversation.
- bzb6 6y agoQuoting TFA: > In August 2020, Facebook expanded its “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy”, aimed at removing the presence of far-right extremists from its website. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that, but now he thinks it’s wrong that it’s his views that are censored.
- goatcode 6y agoIt's a private company. They can do that if they want.
- guerrilla 6y agoLegally they can. That doesn't mean they should.
- commandlinefan 6y agoI think he was being ironic.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y agoI hope he was being ironic.
- goatcode 6y agoWould my being silly satisfy your hopes?
- DenisM 6y ago> Would my being silly satisfy your hopes? Now that you brought it up, it would make for a better discussion if you dialed down sarcasm. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Otherwise the conversation devolves into this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25852297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25852297
- goatcode 6y agoCool, thanks for the tip my man!
- goatcode 6y agoIt depends on what your definition of is is, or something like that.
- seattle_spring 6y agoSome of the examples in the article seem like a completely acceptable reason for a ban. There's never truth nor value in saying "<all members of (gender|race)> exhibit <extremely bad trait>". Saying that sort of thing does nothing but increase divisiveness.
- belorn 6y agoWhat is social accepted violence and social unacceptable violence depend on who the aggressor is and who the victim is. It is one of the reason why i suspect the far-right and far-left seems to use similar wording and aggressive speech when describing the other side. The more extremely culturally aligned they are to either side, the less they see the violence for what it is. What is worse, I often also see rationalization of that violence by perpetrator that their own violence is justified if it challenge status quo, if it stands up for a principle, if the other side is perceived by them as being more violent, with little regard to if the violence was needed compared to a non violent response.
- retox 6y agoWhere is the violence here? These are words in a screen.
- ttt0 6y agoI don't think anyone should be banned from saying stuff like that, but what they're essentially saying here is "it's okay when we do it". Free speech for me, but not for thee.
- airbreather 6y agoExactly, I don't care if you are left wing or right wing, if you are extreme one or the other then it seems to usually be similar (often objectionable and not inclusive) behaviours with different view points. A meme I like but never saw until recently, "But what if I told you a bird needs both wings to fly?"
- nip180 6y agoIt’s interesting in the lack of transparency Facebook provides over which groups or individuals are banned for which reasons.
- jcriddle4 6y agoIt is interesting that when Facebook and Twitter are confronted over some censorship they will often talk about needing to be more transparent over and over and over and over...
- insickness 6y ago> This is part of a long history of Facebook treating leftwing activists as if they were far-right extremists When they are on the left, they are 'activists.' When they are on the right, they are 'extremists.' > An organization which finds it so difficult to distinguish fascists from Black leftwing activists should not be trusted to make such decisions. While I disagree with Facebook banning people for their political ideology, as long as you agree with Facebook banning people for their political ideology, I will not shed a tear when Facebook bans you for your political ideology.
- justaguyOOL 6y agoIt bewilders me that a reasonable, libertarian view like this is getting flagged on here. Some folks must be shills with nothing much better to do than defending the sv corporate echo chamber. Even 10 years ago most techies were pretty hands off and fair minded.
- CurtHagenlocher 6y agoPeople are far too quick to look at things through a lens of left/right at times when they really should be looking at them through a lens of institutional/outsider. Of course a successful institution of the status quo is going to take steps to preserve the status quo regardless of whether the outsider tends left, right or batshit insane.
- bordercases 6y agoPower is temporary but identity is forever. Those lenses exist simultaneously and as a result you get different forms of radicalism to address the institutional gap, even while these forms use similar means of applying influence.
- kofejnik 6y ago> white men murdering random Black men. Funny how only certain colors are capitalized.
- orblivion 6y agoThis is in the AP style guide as of summer 2020 so it should at least not be surprising.
- ndiscussion 6y agoDon't you know that's the only Proper way (tm), straight from our press association!
- airbreather 6y agoGeez, you gotta wonder if the whole world went blind if it might not be a better place.
- 3131s 6y agoIt absolutely would be, humanity would die off in just a few weeks.
- CivBase 6y agoYou were probably "inciting violence" or engaging in "adult sexual exploitation". /s I don't think the answer is to legally regulate free speech on social media platforms. I want online platforms to have the power to moderate. However, Facebook in particular has an awful moderation process. Their knee-jerk reactions are a consequence of a platform with a ton of power and no incentive to wield it responsibly. The rest of this is copy-paste from a previous post I made, explaining why I don't want full freedom of speech on social media: Take a look at HN. HN mods do a brilliant job of moderating. We don't have 100% free speech here and the platform is better for it. The discussions here tend to be much higher quality than on similar platforms like Reddit. That's probably a big reason why you're here reading this comment thread. However... I've noticed a difference between HN and the likes of Facebook or Twitter. As far as I can tell, HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say. If you're civil, respectful, and on-topic you're seemingly allowed to present just about any idea. Meanwhile, most other social media platforms seem content to let other people be complete pricks to each other as long as they don't present any ideas which the platform have decided are wrong or "dangerous". I think the HN moderation strategy makes for a much better platform. I'd rather talk with a respectful person who I disagree with than a jerk with whom I agree.
- sneak 6y ago> I don't think the answer is to legally regulate free speech on social media platforms. I want online platforms to have the power to moderate. I'm very anti-regulation in general, but I think that regulation is absolutely needed regarding censorship of DMs on platforms like Messenger, WhatsApp, and the like. Posts and groups are one thing, but they're also censoring people's private conversations. There are entire domains that you can't even link your friends to via Messenger. This is a dangerous situation. Much of our society's only contact details for much of their social graph is via these censored platforms that can suspend you on a whim. Regulation to enforce availability of data and contacts export/takeout after suspension would be good at the very least. Saying something the platform doesn't like shouldn't cut you off from your address book.
- stonecraftwolf 6y agoThis fails spectacularly when the point of disagreement is one’s humanity, for example. I’m a lot less active here than I would be otherwise, and I know that’s the case for a lot of others who belong to groups that HN considers fair game. I largely consider it a hostile place to me and people like me, and because of this moderation attitude, it’s first mover dominance in certain areas is actively harmful. And no, I’m not going to expose myself by revealing by what aspects of my identity are regularly dehumanized on HN. Social cooling is just as much a phenomena on HN. By its very nature, it’s invisible unless it affects you directly. HN loses plenty of voices it’s never aware of.
- underseacables 6y agoI’m sorry to say but if the left is upset about Facebook censoring them, well, you kind of asked for it. I hate censorship and I don’t want them to censor anyone, but once you cheer the censoring of others you should be prepared to be censored yourself.
- pwinnski 6y agoPlease don't use terms like "the left," or paint with such an incredibly wide brush. It's not helpful, and is part of how we got to here.
- KaiserPro 6y agobut this is basically the whole thrust of the argument in the article. 'Facebook are banning "the right" and thats ok, but more worryingly they are banning people like me'
- seattle_spring 6y agoThe thing is, Facebook is banning people who incite violence, share proven false narratives, and espouse extreme racism. If that ends up describing the entirety of "the right", then I don't think the problem is with Facebook. I don't see anyone being banned for championing small government and lower taxes.
- belorn 6y agoOne of the more significant finding when dealing with conflicts between groups is the out-group homogeneity effect. The in-group is perceived as individuals with a diverse range of opinions and believes, while out-groups is generalized and seen as with no/minimal amount of diversity in opinions. A result of this is that people who incite violence in the in-group is seen as a small minority of extreme voices, while same actions will define the entirety of the out-group. Non-violent behavior, say views about small government and lower taxes, can also be discarded since it does not fit the generalization.
- 6y ago
- theandrewbailey 6y agoFirst they went after hate speech, Then they banned the nazis, Then they banned the fascists, Then they banned the free speech advocates, Then they banned me, and the platform treated me like an unperson, But I'm privileged enough to embarrass them into unbanning me.
- seattle_spring 6y agoThe examples in the article generally fall into your first 3 buckets. It's not like they continuously broadened their definition for bannable content.
- gotoeleven 6y agoJust open a history book to a random page and you'll see that the powers that be will always always always use whatever tools they have available to stay in power. Why did we hand the power to regulate speech over to powerful private monopolies? Were we sure that this time, unlike every other time in history, it would be used responsibly?
- theandrewbailey 6y ago> Why did we hand the power to regulate speech over to powerful private monopolies? I don't think we did. Social networks seized it by updating terms of use, privacy policies, and community guidelines.
- INTPenis 6y agoIt's about time. This was bound to happen sooner or later. This realization that Big Social media is not a place for free thought or discussion. We will revert back to the internet that was 15 years ago. Where if you wanted information you had to work for it, and if you wanted a good discussion you had to find it. Facebook, Twitter is now TV. One way media spoon feeding its users. Sub-cultures will grow stronger and this honeymoon phase with centralized social media is over. I'm glad.
- fuball63 6y agoI think there's also valuable side effects here. If you want to start your own community off of corporate sites, you'll have to learn a little about deploying websites, webhosting, maybe a bit of PHP. Maybe you'll learn about organizing and promotion. When you're forced to make your own thing, a lot of good can come from it. This will certainly not be a mainstream approach, but I compare it to the DIY punk ethos of the 80's, specifically in the skateboarder culture. The for-profit skateparks of the 70's closed, so people had to build their own ramps, organize contests with zines, make their own music. This was all done while promoting others to build their own scene too. It ended up revitalizing skateboarding, until it became corporate again, and waned. It's a constant cycle. I think in terms of internet communities, we currently find ourselves in the "most centralized and corporate" end; but its starting to turn.
- danaris 6y ago> We will revert back to the internet that was 15 years ago. How? What will make people—not people like us, who have eschewed Facebook for years, but those who still rely on it not just for connection to their friends and family, but for news and information—abandon Facebook, start questioning its neutrality as a platform, or generally change anything about how they have been behaving? What you suggest will only happen if we force Facebook to change. And honestly, I'm not sure if there's a way to make Facebook change that would not leave it still massively prone to manipulation, echo chambers, and bubbles, even if the people in charge genuinely want to eliminate those things.
- INTPenis 6y ago
- rurban 6y agoTwitter also went openly fascist recently. They killed off thousands of antifascist accounts. Just waiting for Google to follow. World War 3 seems pretty near with those extreme swifts to the extreme right, and economic downfall of the west.
- rndgermandude 6y agoAs somebody who protested AGAINST neo-nazis but was constantly put in harm's way because antifa decided their best course of action was open violence against the police (while largely ignoring the actual neo-nazis that were present, curiously enough), and maybe burning some shit, with me in the middle of stone-throwing antifas and police, I welcome antifa going down in flames. To me, who had the displeasure of observing antifa in action again and again, they are immature violent hooligans looking for trouble wherever they can find it and not much else.
- soco 6y agoI know those thugs very well. Some are antifa, some are football fans, some are neonazis, yet they are all the same, thugs. But please, don't generalize this experience. There's a lot of anti-nazi activism (see, I avoid using the Trump-loaded term "antifa") which has a valid place in our society, maybe nowadays even more than years ago because somehow people are forgetting who were we fighting against 70 years ago.
- rndgermandude 6y agoI know there is a lot of "anti nazi"/"anti fascism"/"anti racsim"/"social justice" activism, I was part of some of it myself, as I said. ;) Besides participating and sometimes helping to organize counter-protests to nazi protests, I was e.g. active in the EXIT project[1], an organization with the aim to help people leave nazi orgs/structures/lifestyle and find back into a life without extremsism. But the label "antifa" or "antifascist" is forever burned for me. This wasn't just some "bad eggs" or "misguided youth". I've never met a self-declared "antifa" person who wasn't either a violent asshole or supported violent assholery, and I've met quite a few. [1] https://www.exit-deutschland.de/ https://www.exit-deutschland.de/
- Person5478 6y ago> But it is also struck at left wing organizations, seeming to accept Trump’s post-Charlottesville “both sides” moral equivalency with little thought. This take needs to die in a fire. If you're able to actually listen to what he said without "trump-hate" goggles on, his point was that emotions were running high on both sides, but there were good, well-meaning people on both sides. He even acknowledged that perhaps the statues should come down and that he didn't know what the right answer was. That's an entirely reasonable thing to say or believe. As a centrist, watching the left do crap like this is as bad as it was watching the right in the 90's going after gays in the military. In the words of a single man, can't we all just get along?
- dr-smooth 6y agoI'm not sure that the way you worded it is really any different. Stating that there were good, well-meaning people in a crowd of hateful rascists after a woman was killed by a radical maniac is not a helpful statement, and it provides cover for what was, by most decent people's assessment, a despicable display of bigotry and hatred. I also do think that commentators are WAY too quick to impart meaning to Trump's words in situations like this. After observing his actions and statements for 4 years, I'm quite confident that he doesn't think much while he speaks. Words just dribble out in stupid ways "stand back and stand by" comes to mind. Trump never learned to speak or think with any discipline. So it's like he follows a Markov chain of words -- I can't say the phrase you've asked me to say ("stand down") because that makes me look weak. However, "back" and "by" follow the word "stand" with high degrees of frequency, so let's just go from "stand" to "back", and then for extra measure (because saying lots of words makes me look smarter), let's try another phrase - "stand by". No real thought of the meaning behind that. And that's one of the biggest points about this individual. Not only does he have a complete lack of empathy and a complete fixation on himself, he doesn't communicate with enough precision to provide real leadership. No wonder qanon has so much fun searching for hidden meaning in his words; it's effectively just word soup, which can lead to all kinds of interesting crazy conclusions.
- Person5478 6y ago> I'm not sure that the way you worded it is really any different. Stating that there were good, well-meaning people in a crowd of hateful rascists after a woman was killed by a radical maniac is not a helpful statement, and it provides cover for what was, by most decent people's assessment, a despicable display of bigotry and hatred. Do you know what I find most frustrating about the abortion arguments between the left and the right? If you truly truly believe life begins at conception, of course you believe it's immoral to murder the baby. if you truly truly believe life does NOT begin at conception, of course you believe it's immoral to force a woman to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. IOW, there are well-intentioned people on both sides. Does this make it ok for someone to bomb an abortion clinic? No, absolutely not, and the vast majority of pro-life people don't agree with that action, and should not be universally condemned for the actions of a few. But lets look closer at what you said. > Stating that there were good, well-meaning people in a group of __assholes who think they should be able to tell women what to do with their body__. --- It is absolutely __FRUSTRATING__ watching people like you dive headfirst into contributing to the problems this country currently has. It feels as if I have a super power for being able to converse with people from the left and the right equally. The opinions I see from the left about what the right is thinking, as if they would know when they can't even bring themselves to _SPEAK_ to the right. What I'm saying here is that YOU are a part of the problem.
- rokhayakebe 6y agoI really do not understand why people behave as if FB is an entity which belongs to the public. FB belongs (mostly) to Mark, his top execs, and his early investors. How can you possibly think that someone who owns something will always handle their property the way you wish? This FB is the best FB there will ever be. If it was in the hands of the government, it is hard to see how it could have been better. If it was in the hands of the people, you cannot be sure it would have been better (see blockchain projects). What will end up happening to these platforms will be what is happening with TV today: CNN - FOX. People need to start to think 10,20 years from now, and begin to build new platforms for communication. Or just use group email.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Carolyn Wysinger, an activist and high school teacher, posted that “White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them”. It was a reasonable response to Neeson’s remarks and the long history of white men murdering random Black men. Uh, no it wasn't. You could try to pull the privilege + prejudice argument to claim it's not strictly “racist”, but it's still completely unreasonable racial stereotyping even if you accept that argument.
- casefields 6y agoThere's a large segment of the population that has been brainwashed to believe it though. Reddit's big change to their speech rules is a good example: In the section entitled “Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability,” Reddit indicates that protection against harassment only protects “marginalized” groups. Here is Reddit’s definition of marginalized groups: “Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.” It’s the next part that’s alarming: “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.”
- sthnblllII 6y agoWhen white people become a minority that language will change to continue to single them out for exclusion.
- athms 6y agoNon-Hispanic Whites became the minority in California in 2001 and Reddit is based in this state. There are more non-Whites globally, making Whites a minority. If a White person was posting from Nigeria, would he be treated as a minority?
- happytoexplain 6y agoThe amount of gleeful sarcasm in this thread is indicative of how incredibly divisive identity politics are even in places as relatively thoughtful as HN. It's a blanket accusation of political bias that is, itself, politically biased. The implication is that if somebody criticizes something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible criticize something politically reversed, or vice versa, or the inverse: If somebody doesn't criticize something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible fail to criticize something politically reversed. Further, in any politically opposite cases where opinions do differ, there is a blanket insistence that the two cases can only be treated identically, even if the other inevitable differences between the two cases make it reasonable to treat them differently. It's perfectly possible to rationally think it's reasonable to ban Democrat A or Republican A for some infraction, but at the same time that it is unreasonable to ban Democrat B or Republican B for some other infraction. It's also perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that the platform did act with bias across the two cases, without necessitating hypocrisy to show support for one of the cases. The subject of the discussion could be about the nature of the separate cases, whether each was reasonable, and, completely separately, whether there was evidence of bias handling the two cases. But no - all that seems to matter is that at some point person A was banned and there was any support for it, and at a later point person B of opposite political identity was banned and there was any opposition to it, and, regardless of what those two people even did, that somehow means that everybody is a hypocrite. Edit: And yes, the article's author is also participating in a similar fallacy.
- slowmovintarget 6y agoThe same discussion goes for packing the courts, ending the filibuster, using Executive Orders... These things may get you what you want in the short term, but there's nothing that says they can't be employed equally well or better by someone you disagree with.
- minikites 6y agoThe Republicans have already used this strategy to great success for 40 years and they're mad because the Democrats (finally) figured it out and are playing the same game. Politics is about attaining and keeping power.
- flurdy 6y agoFirst they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they...
- flurdy 6y agoI don't think the downvoters got the Niemöller reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- justaguyOOL 6y agoAgreed 100%
- happytoexplain 6y agoThere's an absolute load of "see? now it's happening to you!" in this thread, and yet, even from a leftist point of view, the cases lamented in the article seem reasonable to me (barring cases where the article doesn't give any specifics).
- jfengel 6y agoThe specific case of “White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them” isn't the greatest cause for a deletion and a ban (albeit temporary). Far worse things are said all the time without a peep. It seems like a case for a warning rather than a block. I don't expect consistency. There's just too much to do. And for all I know the user already had at least one warning, in which case a (temporary) ban isn't unreasonable. It would shift the burden of proof to say that they're going after that kind of racism and not other kinds. I'll note that I have said similar things myself. It obviously doesn't apply to every single white male (I am one myself), but I've seen it happen so much that I've said the same hyperbole. And if they wanted to warn me, then worse when I continued, I'd accept that -- as long as I had reason to think that they were also applying at least roughly similar standards to other people.
- airbreather 6y agoMaybe if it was "Some white men", but to make a blanket, generic statement like that about a single group defined by sex and race seems pretty clearly to be hate speech to me. Just imagine another description prefixed by another color and another sex and think how that would go down.
- ScoobleDoodle 6y agoI don't think racial identity is commutive. People seem to think it's commutive where if you swap the values the classification of racism remains the same, and I disagree with that. I don't fully understand it yet, but I think it's because our society on whole (in the United States) is sufficiently racist that it invalidates the premise of the substitution being commutive. Where commutivity of addition is a + b = b + a. Commuitivity of racism would be black person called a white person something bad for behavior x which is not equivalent to white person called black person something bad for same behavior x. In this case "White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them" in response to Liam Neeson’s confession that he once roamed the streets looking for Black men to harm. Is not equivalent in a sense of the speaker being racist as "Black men are so fragile and the mere presence of a White person challenges every single thing in them" in response to (I'm making up a fictional situation to find some equivalent scenario) where let's say Denzel Washington saying a confession that he once roamed the streets looking for White men to harm. Do they have racial overtones? Yes. Are they equivalent? Absolutely not. The world Liam Neeson lives in is a white person's world where the dominant culture is white and a black person has to be searched for. He was caught in his mind demonizing black people and being racist searching for them to harm for it. In this hypothetical Denzel Washington is clearly a minority, not only targeted and put upon by white people but also other minorities. To find a white person, he only has to step outside and walk a block at best. Even the construction of this sentence seems so ridiculous: "Black men are so fragile and the mere presence of a White person challenges every single thing in them". Black people have had to deal with racism and being the odd person out due to their race since they gained social awareness as a child. They've dealt with that BS long since being alive. White people like Liam Neeson "White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them" makes sense since he's encountered so few black people and he's built up this false belief about Black people from the racist media and his social group and he has to try to find black people to hurt. :%s/white/mid_white/g :%s/black/white/g :%s/mid_white/black/g is not valid.
- nailer 6y agoArticle’s first example is an outright display of racism. These people aren’t being banned for being left wing and it’s insulting to readers to think readers would believe this.
- toomanyrichies 6y agoI’d love to see a content platform where you can only get downvoted if your content contains logical fallacies, or if your tone is hostile or disrespectful. Basically combining the civility of HN, the breadth of content of Medium, and the crowdsourced moderation and badges/point system/gamification of Stack Overflow. Something like the following: -You can post any content you want. -It must be civil in tone. -Other users can tag your logical fallacies. -If their tags are accurate, your article is downvoted. -Downvotes only happen if your article contains logical fallacies or violate the civil discussion standards. You can’t downvote someone without tagging a logical fallacy. -You explicitly cannot downvote or tag someone’s content simply because you disagree with it. You can try of course, but if your tags are found to be consistently inaccurate, you get shadow-banned or something.
- minikites 6y agoSo on your platform it would be fine to advocate for a whites-only ethnostate as long as you're polite about it?
- anm89 6y agoI love how things like this are thrown out as if the shear terror of being accused of having proximity to someone with problematic opinions is supposed to make everyone recant immediately and beg for forgiveness. So you breath air? Even though Hitler breathed air as he was murdering millions? And you're seriously willing to defend that? Monster. Yes. As a jew with immediate family who died in the holocaust, I'm willing to defend free speech, even the free speech of ethno nationalists or whatever other boogeyman you wanna throw out
- anm89 6y agoI love the coded language of the title. Hey guys, we've encouraged Facebook to ban everyone we dislike but now they are banning the people we like and this needs to be framed as problematic, and specifically because of what team I am on.
- saargrin 6y agoexactly its those same people who cried for blanket deplatforming of anybody left of Josef Stalin and now when that same tool is used against them,its too late its like the history of authoritariansm repeats itself
- kova12 6y agoWelcome to the club
- sershe 6y agoWhile the author calls for regulation (which I would support for oligopolistic corporations), his main, repeated complaints throughout the article are about "tendency to see far-left and far-right activists as the same". Support our exalted faith and suppress their primitive superstition!
- mrweasel 6y agoSo they’re mad that Facebook did the right thing and created general rules for acceptable content and applied those rules equally, regardless of political background, race, colour and gender? Facebook can’t be seen as a right or left media, that’s bad for business. They also can’t have groups and users that overly hostile towards other users, that’s also bad business. They are trying to be the Disney of social media. In general Facebook isn’t great at moderating their platform, there’s to much content and their automated systems are rubbish, according to the human moderators. The result is that the moderation that do happen can seem extremely random, and some may feel like they are unfairly targetted.
- twirlock 6y agoCool maybe now all the pamphlets for idiots will inform the idiots that this is a real problem after all.
- RickJWagner 6y ago"This is part of a long history of Facebook treating leftwing activists as if they were far-right extremists, and a pattern of silencing those who speak out against racism and fascism." I'd think leftwing activists should be treated exactly like rightwing activists.
- justaguyOOL 6y agoSorry you're getting censored. It was never about politics or truth or fair discourse. It's about acceptable narratives for our corporate overlords.