Utopia Talk / Politics / Facebook bans dangerous individuals

Paramount Member	Thu May 02 15:45:10 Facebook bans 'dangerous individuals' Facebook is banning several prominent figures it regards as "dangerous individuals". The social network accused Alex Jones, host of right-wing conspiracy website InfoWars, its UK editor Paul Joseph Watson and ex-Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos of hate speech. Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has expressed anti-Semitic views, will also be excluded. Facebook has already banned anti-Islamic UK groups such Britain First. The latest ban also applies on Instagram, which Facebook owns. "We’ve always banned individuals or organisations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” the company said in a statement. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today." The banned group also includes Paul Nehlen, a white supremacist, and Laura Loomer, an anti-Islamic activist with a large social media presence. In November, Ms Loomer handcuffed herself to a Twitter building in New York in protest at being banned from that platform. However, Facebook has been criticised for giving forewarning of the bans, giving those affected a chance to redirect their followers to other services. For a brief time on Thursday, Alex Jones was broadcasting, on Facebook, about his impending ban. “I’m about to be banned," wrote Mr Yiannopoulos to his followers on Instagram. "Please sign up for my mailing list before this account disappears." A spokesperson at Facebook said the ban will apply to all types of representation of the individuals on both Facebook and Instagram. The firm said it would remove pages, groups and accounts set up to represent them, and would not allow the promotion of events when it knows the banned individual is participating. In an email, Facebook explained its rationale for banning the users: It said Alex Jones had hosted on his programme Gavin McInnes, leader of the Proud Boys, whose members are known for racist, anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Mr McInnes has been designated a "hate figure" by Facebook Facebook said this year Milo Yiannopoulos had publicly praised both Mr McInnes and English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson, both banned from the network Laura Loomer also appeared with Mr McInnes, and Facebook said she also praised another banned figure, Faith Goldy, a Canadian Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan was banned for making several anti-Semitic remarks earlier this year http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48142098
Rugian Member	Thu May 02 16:17:53 Great. I cant wait for the day where the social media giants finally go all in with this bullshit and turn their platforms into nothing but online outlets for television shows. Anyone not formally sanctioned by the MSM elite can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. In all seriousness, politicians and press whores who have prompted the gradual mass censorship of the internet are complete pieces of contemptible shit.
Rugian Member	Thu May 02 16:21:08 I'm really glad they got rid of PJP though. God knows how much damage his hateful rhetoric about how modern architecture is ugly as fuck or how San Francisco is a homeless-filled shithole have done to our fragile society.
Rugian Member	Thu May 02 16:25:56 "Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content)," Are you fucking kidding me? What in the actual fuck?!!
hood Member	Thu May 02 16:46:21 It's almost like the admitted fraud/maniac/liar/idiot has actually caused criminal actions from his bullshit. Incitement is not legal.
obaminated Member	Thu May 02 16:49:34 hood hates the bill of rights in general.
Sam Adams Member	Thu May 02 17:04:24 I like how the leftist media groups are trying to disown farrakahn.
Paramount Member	Thu May 02 17:04:40 Facebook is a private company and they have no obligation to provide you with a platform of free speech.
Forwyn Member	Thu May 02 17:12:37 Maybe if IW had been banned for the Sandy Hook nonsense, but nah: "It said Alex Jones had hosted on his programme Gavin McInnes, leader of the Proud Boys, whose members are known for racist, anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Mr McInnes has been designated a "hate figure" by Facebook" Lulz @ leftist hysteria re: Proud Boys
Rugian Member	Thu May 02 17:12:55 Paramount Member Thu May 02 17:04:40 Facebook is a private company and they have no obligation to provide you with a platform of free speech. Not an argument a rabid anti-Semite like yourself should probably be making.
Rugian Member	Thu May 02 17:14:12 "Lulz @ leftist hysteria re: Proud Boys" Yeah, anyone who's actually familiar with the background on the Proud Boys finds the mainstream media's meltdown against them hilarious. McInnes literally made that shit up as a joke.
hood Member	Thu May 02 18:09:47 If that is specifically the reason they banned Infowars, then they fucking stupid. But Jones via IW has definitely incited. mt thinks the bill of rights applies. You do realize that retardation hasn't been cute for a while now, right Audrey II?
mexicantardnado Member	Fri May 03 04:44:31 duuur im duuur expurt on duuur the constitootion duuuur
kargen Member	Sat May 04 17:33:56 Facebook has no obligation to provide a platform for free speech but they are obligated to be even handed in their removal of accounts. Antifa and BAMN are still on facebook. Yvette Felarca is still on facebook and she has called for violence. She has also actively participated in violent events. So why isn't she getting banned?
hood Member	Sat May 04 17:48:28 They aren't obligated to be even.
kargen Member	Sat May 04 18:32:00 They pretty much are because of the way Zuckerberg defined the platforms in an attempt to say they were not responsible for content.
hood Member	Sat May 04 19:58:07 No. Banning individuals (saying "we will not do business with you") is not the same as moderating content. They can be as discriminatory as they would like on bans. You're thinking of moderating content. Not remotely the same.
kargen Member	Sat May 04 20:48:38 I know exactly what I am thinking and you are way off. That aside if they were sincere in their efforts to ban hate speech why are the accounts I mentioned above still available?
hood Member	Sat May 04 21:24:09 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 This is the law that protects content hosts from liability for material published on their website by 3rd parties. The only way facebook would lose their protections is if they went through enough work to break the legal distinction of their users being 3rd parties. Banning an account has no effect on how they treat their users. Whatever else you might be thinking, it is just plain wrong. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what gives content hosts legal protection. There is nothing else. You are either wildly wrong or wrong about s230. Doesn't really matter which.
kargen Member	Sun May 05 04:06:05 and you missed again. but back to that pretending to ban hate speech. You got nothing on that?
American Democrat Member	Sun May 05 10:56:53 Or as it states, *is banning* as in still in the process of review of banning individuals. These two stuck out because of headlines. But I am sure with your intuition and prowess that sometime along the way you would figure it. Other than playing the card of "...if facebook was really banning hate speech what about..."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 07 05:48:09 Hood ”They can be as discriminatory as they would like on bans.” They have their rules and process, they can rewrite those rules as they like, but even as a company, policy and procedure is there for a reason. Too much power is now in the hands of a small circle of people. And the data is pretty clear that content moderation and bans are mostly towards right wingers and conservatives. We have or are passing the point where saying ”private company can do what it like” becomes meaningless, like saying they can turn off your electricity because of your political views. For all their attempts to be fair and improve their procedures, I think they will fail. It is an impossible job IMO, but more importantly in failing, sooner rather than later, the hammer of regulation comes down.
hood Member	Tue May 07 07:33:53 I didn't claim to agree with Facebook (except on Alex Jones). I was correcting kargen's blatantly incorrect statement that Facebook had a legal obligation to be fair. They don't. They have a very good reason to not be seen as moderators to the point of becoming a publisher, but that is not related to bannings. There is no law that requires them to be fair.
Dukhat Member	Tue May 07 07:42:41 Nimatzo is brain dead after consuming a healthy diet of right-wing propaganda. "Conservatives" get stricken down because most right-wing media has little do with the issues and reality anymore. It is not actual conservatism but mostly reactionary politics in the guise of conservatism. 99% of it is either trolling or white victimhood or denial of scientific fact. And most of it is funded by the Kochs and Mercers. All they care about is a tax cut for themselves so they could care less if the world burns or deludes themselves with conspiracy theories. All the better for profits.
kargen Member	Tue May 07 15:06:56 Vox Day has pointed out these three rules. 1. SJWs always lie. 2. SJWs always double down. 3. SJWs always project. Dukhat is solidly demonstrating number three. Just gotta change a couple of words.
Dukhat Member	Tue May 07 20:57:20 Brain-dead. You didn't have a logical response so you resorted to an ad hominem. You're better than that ... Actually you're probably not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 13 02:14:46 Hood IMO there is nothing in his post indicating he is talking about law, but "because of the way Zuckerberg defined the platforms" i.e company policy and procedure.
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon May 13 03:17:59 "We have or are passing the point where saying ”private company can do what it like” becomes meaningless, like saying they can turn off your electricity because of your political views." That is probably a poor example, since (at least in the US), electricity is typically provided as a public use utility, which means they are prevented by law from doing that. Facebook is definitely not that.
werewolf dictator Member	Mon May 13 10:28:19 when the operators of the system have hit the panic button and launched extraordinarily sophisticated psyops against the most obscure and harmless individuals [who are trying their best to remain obscure harmless and even absurd].. then it seems the operators of the system are sensing they could be facing some spectacular existential danger.. and be in one hell of a lot of trouble ["hell" perhaps taken almost literally even to the heat death of the universe]
hood Member	Mon May 13 11:32:58 Nim: Then there's literally no point to his post. Company policy is not binding and there's no need for the people in charge to be strictly fair. That was my point; there's nothing holding Facebook accountable for being fair unless you include the aforementioned law. Which doesn't apply. So bring wrong or wildly wrong is still wrong.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 15 12:47:11 I disagree. Being viewed as very partisan and unfair in the space where most of political discourse is being conducted, can be, to put it mildly damaging to your brand. I think it is fair to demand a higher standard from those that operate in what is a defacto commons where most of political discourse is being conducted, I would prefer it be done without government regulation.
hood Member	Wed May 15 12:49:40 You are arguing ideal state against current state. That's fine, but it means your arguments have no bearing on what actually is.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: