4 ms·

> I think saying you have no comment on individual groups is missing the point It's not missing the point, which is that this page/website is being hypocritic

> I think saying you have no comment on individual groups is missing the point It's not missing the point, which is that this page/website is being hypocritical (I admit that I didn't communicate this clearly in my first post). Even if I grant the article's argument that none of those particular groups should have been banned (which I do not, they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim, and they haven't satisfied it in that article), my claim of hypocrisy still stands, because this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul. > This is exactly the type of tit-for-tat "balance" argument I made it clear that I'm not making a both-sides argument. I'm not saying that left-wing violent extremism is as bad or as common as right-wing violent extremism. I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism.

lucideer 5y ago
> they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim The positive action here is the initial banning, the burden of proof lies with Facebook. The Intercept's claim is a contradictory one, and only asks for reasons from Facebook, so I don't see how it can be framed as a "positive claim". > I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism I 100% agree. I just don't see any evidence that this is an example of them doing that. > this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul That is a valid criticism; I was actually unaware of the Ron Paul story (and can't find a huge amount about it searching tbh, other than it happened - is it still in place?). Someone should probably add that to the OP separately.

lucideer 5y ago

> they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim The positive action here is the initial banning, the burden of proof lies with Facebook. The Intercept's claim is a contradictory one, and only asks for reasons from Facebook, so I don't see how it can be framed as a "positive claim". > I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism I 100% agree. I just don't see any evidence that this is an example of them doing that. > this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul That is a valid criticism; I was actually unaware of the Ron Paul story (and can't find a huge amount about it searching tbh, other than it happened - is it still in place?). Someone should probably add that to the OP separately.