6 ms·

>We will evaluate external factors, including [...] restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. This was published today, when he is n

>We will evaluate external factors, including [...] restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. This was published today, when he is not in office. What restrictions could this refer to?

tamcap 5y ago
He got a "at least 2 years" ban, to be exact. The 2 years is the punishment for the post. Then, at the end of those 2 years, fb will evaluate the restrictions you quoted, and re-assess if further ban is necessary.
- dominotw 5y ago
  > re-assess if further ban is necessary. What will be the new factors in 2 years that aren't present now. Current ban is based on "violated Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines" I don't see what they can possibly re-assess if he isn't on their platform in the first place. They will monitor his behavior outside of their platform and deem him worthy or not?
  - trempisacent 5y ago
    Maybe he'll be dead or otherwise incapacitated by then.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > What will be the new factors in 2 years that aren't present now The location of the Overton window. Facebook is just hedging it's bets. George Bush is largely accepted by Democrats now many of whom wore F bush t-shirts a decade or so ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
    - trempisacent 5y ago
      It's disgusting how Bush managed to have his reputation laundered since then. If there was any real justice in the world, he'd be on trial for war crimes. But of course, there isn't. The best we can hope for is that Bush (and Blair) is somehow captured and beheaded by Islamists. It would be a fitting end, not to mention a rare case of terrorism hitting a legitimate and deserving target, rather than some unfortunate member of the public.
    - grawprog 5y ago
      Could possibly be because his policies have been carried on by every single president after him. It's not like the Democrats stopped the wars he started. It's not like Trump did and Biden doesn't seem to be stepping up to do so. They've all been doing essentially the same thing. The only way the parties really differ is in the lies they tell to get votes.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  What power do they think he has to restrict anything/
neither_color 5y ago
We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm confused by this line. Whose restrictions on whose peaceful assembly?, and why is it worded so that restrictions on peaceful assembly is included in the list of "markers of civil unrest"? If I recall correctly restrictions on assembly started in response to disease outbreak, and later were sometimes applied to some left wing and some right wing protests. What if it's an unjust restriction on a righteous protest, or an unsafe lack of restriction on a "riot"? Is either situation a marker of civil unrest? Sorry my literal mind is having trouble parsing this.

tamcap 5y ago

He got a "at least 2 years" ban, to be exact. The 2 years is the punishment for the post. Then, at the end of those 2 years, fb will evaluate the restrictions you quoted, and re-assess if further ban is necessary.

dominotw 5y ago
> re-assess if further ban is necessary. What will be the new factors in 2 years that aren't present now. Current ban is based on "violated Facebook’s Community Standards and Instagram’s Community Guidelines" I don't see what they can possibly re-assess if he isn't on their platform in the first place. They will monitor his behavior outside of their platform and deem him worthy or not?
- trempisacent 5y ago
  Maybe he'll be dead or otherwise incapacitated by then.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > What will be the new factors in 2 years that aren't present now The location of the Overton window. Facebook is just hedging it's bets. George Bush is largely accepted by Democrats now many of whom wore F bush t-shirts a decade or so ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
  - trempisacent 5y ago
    It's disgusting how Bush managed to have his reputation laundered since then. If there was any real justice in the world, he'd be on trial for war crimes. But of course, there isn't. The best we can hope for is that Bush (and Blair) is somehow captured and beheaded by Islamists. It would be a fitting end, not to mention a rare case of terrorism hitting a legitimate and deserving target, rather than some unfortunate member of the public.
  - grawprog 5y ago
    Could possibly be because his policies have been carried on by every single president after him. It's not like the Democrats stopped the wars he started. It's not like Trump did and Biden doesn't seem to be stepping up to do so. They've all been doing essentially the same thing. The only way the parties really differ is in the lies they tell to get votes.
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
What power do they think he has to restrict anything/

neither_color 5y ago

We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm confused by this line. Whose restrictions on whose peaceful assembly?, and why is it worded so that restrictions on peaceful assembly is included in the list of "markers of civil unrest"? If I recall correctly restrictions on assembly started in response to disease outbreak, and later were sometimes applied to some left wing and some right wing protests. What if it's an unjust restriction on a righteous protest, or an unsafe lack of restriction on a "riot"? Is either situation a marker of civil unrest? Sorry my literal mind is having trouble parsing this.