Facebook bans far right groups

You said it shouldn't extend to mere opinion. I said prove said opinion does not promote violence.
Actually you said "Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts".

Even so, this is far too broad a brush. Any opinion could be interpreted by somebody as meaning they should commit violent acts. On that basis, half the posts in ISF might have to be deleted.
 
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
Really? How does it work? You make a BS claim that FB is banning everyone with right-wing ideology and I'm supposed to prove that wrong? :rolleyes:

If Richard Spencer isn't banned, that's pretty good proof.
 
Actually you said "Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts".

Even so, this is far too broad a brush. Any opinion could be interpreted by somebody as meaning they should commit violent acts. On that basis, half the posts in ISF might have to be deleted.

What are you claiming and what is your evidence?

A lot of tap dancing going on around here and I see links in my posts, don't see any in yours or Zig's. I could have missed them, I've skipped pages because the thread is moving too fast.
 
Their competitor, Gab, is a great example of why you *want* to kick that sort of person out - in theory, it's a place where almost any speech is allowed to flourish. In reality, it's the place where neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other obnoxious hateful people go when they get kicked off of Twitter - and where they spend all their time metaphorically knifing one another, because that's what people who are addicted to hatred end up doing.


I forget the name, but I used to occasionally visit a Skeptics forum that was unmoderated. It was an absolute goldmine if you like petty infighting, incredibly crude jokes and creative insults. The average user was clearly intelligent and therefore the whole dumpster fire was quite entertaining to me.
But it was also an example of how an unmoderated space is like a train with no breaks. After a while, there was basically no productive discussion going on.

I truly don't think that GAB set out to be a Nazi site and was conceptualised as a place for open debate. But with the sudden waves of bans on the mainstream platforms caused an exodus of mostly alt-right types and the places they flee to basically turn into sewers. A similar development took place on Reddit where migration from moderated subreddits to the unmoderated ones took place. It ruined the unmoderated subreddits.

The rules for International Skeptics remain the gold standard for me. We can easily have people like Skeptic Tank (and once upon a time, Sunni Man) and debate them, as long as they follow the code of conduct.
 
Worse: all of us are idiots in some way or another.

I'm afraid you're right.

I have people in my family who think climate change is a hoax. These are people who are very accomplished in things like business.
 
Last edited:
Debate is massively overrated at this point - it is too confrontational.

All we should do is make lists of stuff people want, and then compare.
 
I'm afraid you're right.

I have people in my family who think climate change is a hoax. These are people who are very accomplished in things like business.

Oh, I have a brother in law who is a truther... he thinks it was a missile that hit the Pentagon...

I don't even try to go there.
 
Oh, I have a brother in law who is a truther... he thinks it was a missile that hit the Pentagon...

I don't even try to go there.

Believe me, I don't.

I also have a friend who's a self-made millionaire, has multiple businesses, now running a startup, offices in three countries.

Moon hoaxer.
 
Last edited:
What about freedom of association? That was what the baker in Colorado was arguing was at risk in his case; he did not want his products associated with something he felt was morally wrong. As I see it, that same right applies to Facebook.

Yet of course that right is infringed all the time, when the class of people you feel is morally wrong is a protected class. With out this kind of idea we then get back to covenants on property deeds about blacks being unable to live there(the book of mormon for example is quite clear that skin color is a mark of ones sinfulness).

So as with all of this we are getting to the principle of what should be a protected class. And clearly many conservatives want white supremacists to be one.
 
I don't have any problem with any of those groups being barred from FB, YT twitter etc.

I also find it deeply disturbing that Jeanine Pirro was a Judge and a DA. How does a white nationalist, racist piece of scum like Pirro get on the bench?

People voted for her. See how Roy Moore kept getting kicked off the alabama supreme court and getting back on it.
 
I forget the name, but I used to occasionally visit a Skeptics forum that was unmoderated. It was an absolute goldmine if you like petty infighting, incredibly crude jokes and creative insults. The average user was clearly intelligent and therefore the whole dumpster fire was quite entertaining to me.
But it was also an example of how an unmoderated space is like a train with no breaks. After a while, there was basically no productive discussion going on.

I truly don't think that GAB set out to be a Nazi site and was conceptualised as a place for open debate.

Why I thought it was well established that this cite was by the alt right for the alt right. So it really did set out to be the online home of white supremacy(the old name for the alt right).

ETA

"Gab, which was started in 2016 by a conservative programmer, Andrew Torba, who was fed up with what he saw as Silicon Valley’s left-wing censorship, was a controversial project from the start. The announcement of its introduction doubled as a broadside against political correctness, which the company said had “become a cancer on discourse and culture.” Gab, its creator said, would be a social network where all speech would be welcome, no matter how noxious or offensive."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
 
Last edited:
Why I thought it was well established that this cite was by the alt right for the alt right. So it really did set out to be the online home of white supremacy(the old name for the alt right).

ETA

"Gab, which was started in 2016 by a conservative programmer, Andrew Torba, who was fed up with what he saw as Silicon Valley’s left-wing censorship, was a controversial project from the start. The announcement of its introduction doubled as a broadside against political correctness, which the company said had “become a cancer on discourse and culture.” Gab, its creator said, would be a social network where all speech would be welcome, no matter how noxious or offensive."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html

I was wrong about GAB's origins then. I just remembered the 'all speech welcome' angle. I will say that they clearly ran with the edgy image to grow their user base for a while. I've only looked at it twice. The interface was bad and it was a racist cesspool of Muslim-hating and Jew-blaming. I did follow GAB on Twitter and that's where most of my knowledge about them comes from. At this point, the project must be doomed. They have become an Alt-Right platform, their app has been booted from app-stores and they can't possibly become advertising friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Really? How does it work? You make a BS claim that FB is banning everyone with right-wing ideology and I'm supposed to prove that wrong? :rolleyes:

I made no such claim. In fact, the post of yours I quoted wasn't even addressed to me.

If Richard Spencer isn't banned, that's pretty good proof.

Proof of what? Let me remind you what you said, with the complete nonsense part hilighted since you can't figure it out on your own:

You said it shouldn't extend to mere opinion. I said prove said opinion does not promote violence.

That's not how the burden of proof works. It's not possible to prove that an opinion does not promote violence, just like it's not possible to prove that fairies don't exist. You have to prove that some particular opinion DOES promote violence.
 
Last edited:
Didn't I tell y'all?!

Are citizens of The Hague not Dutch if they are Muslims? What is the religious qualification for being Dutch? I didn't know there was one. Do you have to be a Calvinist Protestant, or something like that?
Please ask one question per post. People reply to me with these-string-of question posts frequently and it gets annoying
I think I can answer that one for Baylor. We all know him well enough by now.

You'd have to be a white Calvininist Protestant to qualify as proper Dutch in his universe, but even so, if you're a little left-leaning, that's a dealbreaker.


The Muslims of middle Eastern ethnicity are not Dutch any more than George Orwell was Indian or Richard Dawkins is Kenyan.


We don't really need white supremacists for anything. We can just make them up.
 
Twitter hid from the same problem.

At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?

An executive responded by explaining that Twitter follows the law, and a technical employee who works on machine learning and artificial intelligence issues went up to the mic to add some context. (As Motherboard has previously reported, algorithms are the next great hope for platforms trying to moderate the posts of their hundreds of millions, or billions, of users.)

With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.

In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.
 
If you can't read my post for comprehension then what are you asking for evidence about?

So you can't say. Got it.

Neither can Zig. He fusses that FB is banning ideology and when asked to show it's ideology and not violence associated ideology he plays word games.
 
Last edited:
Twitter hid from the same problem.
...In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.
That is the root of this problem, isn't it? White supremacists are dangerously powerful at the moment. One of them is POTUS.
 
So you can't say. Got it.

Neither can Zig. He fusses that FB is banning ideology and when asked to show it's ideology and not violence associated ideology he plays word games.

What you wrote was nonsense. I called you on your nonsense. That isn'r word games.

I have explicitly stated that I don't know exactly what caused these most recent bans. And the truth is, neither do you. NOBODY in this thread has actually pointed to specific content from any banned account which triggered the ban.

But I know Facebook has unfairly banned people in the past, it's not secret knowledge, and the easiest evidence of this is that sometimes Facebook reverses those bans when it causes an uproar.
 
The Muslims of middle Eastern ethnicity are not Dutch any more than George Orwell was Indian or Richard Dawkins is Kenyan.

Nonsense.

For a start, both India and Kenya were effectively ruled by Britain at the times of the respective births of Blair and Dawkins. so the situations are not comparable. Either of them would have been entitled to claim nationality of where they were born, if they had chosen to.

By your reasoning, you're not American.
 

Damn, I had come here to post this.

Um, yes, it likely would auto-ban quite a few republicans, I agree. I also think that this is fully appropriate.

Steve King: "Why oh why was I banned from Twitter? Are you censoring conservatives?"

Jack: "Let's see...Ah, it seems you posted 'the fourteen words" repeatedly, rep. King."

Substitute Bannon, Miller, Dolt 25, whoever for King.
 
Um, yes, it likely would auto-ban quite a few republicans, I agree. I also think that this is fully appropriate.
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!

From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).
 
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.

I'm not falling for GOB's illusions. Bill Weld, Rick Wilson, Tim Scott, and Marco Rubio, to name a few, would be fine. For that matter, so would Twitter user blackrepublican, who goes into the GOP's racial problems in great detail - a lesson that many republicans desperately need.

But Steve King? Despicable Donald? They're both obviously white supremacists who post white supremacist memes and phrases, so of course they'd get caught up in any effort to ban white supremacists.
 
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!

From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).

It's not who you are, but what you do.
 
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!

Someone sure did... it was you with the tin of Valvoline and the oily rag...


From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).


"quite a few Republicans" >>>>>> "Republicans"

Indeed... looks like you have got yourself a set of motorised goalposts!
 
Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
[...]
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?
[...]
With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.
[...]
The employee argued that, on a technical level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda, he argued.
[...]
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too
 
Because as we all know, Hate Speech Laws stopped Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro and other Far Right Demagogues from winning elections. I sometimes get the impression that liberal parties, facing defeat everywhere across the planet, are getting desperate and want to freeze everything at The End of History forever. Except it's too late for that.
 
Last edited:
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.
 
Actually you said "Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts".

Even so, this is far too broad a brush. Any opinion could be interpreted by somebody as meaning they should commit violent acts. On that basis, half the posts in ISF might have to be deleted.

Imagine if the dog of the neighbour of David Berkowitz had its own facebook account. There would be deranged killers everywhere!
 
Last edited:
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.

Either you're painfully ignorant of what a slippery slope fallacy is, or you're deliberately getting it wrong. Which is it?
 
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.

Ah! Now we have a proper "slippery slope" argument! Befoire you were just yelling about something nobody said.

Now then...

I am the Scum is correct, slippery slope arguments are fallacious by their very nature. It's perfectly acceptable to autoboot white supremacists and stop right there, and leave people that are merely "sympathetic" towards genocidal hate mongers around vto explain why, exactly, they view genocidal bigots as people to sympathize with.

Who knows, maybe they're one-time bigots who recovered and want to discuss how to get people out of that garbage - these people do exist, and some have even devoted their lives to the cause of helping others out of that space.
 
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.

<snip>


The man obviously knows Republicans better than we do.

Who are we to challenge his assumption that all Republicans are White Supremacist wackos?

I'm willing to take his word for it.
 
It is only a fallacy if you say that all slopes end in hell. It is not a fallacy to say that it doesn't stop here.

Okay, it's the first option.

Educate yourself. If that doesn't work, then just drop the chicken little act and find an argument you're willing to substantiate.
 
I think I can answer that one for Baylor. We all know him well enough by now.

You'd have to be a white Calvininist Protestant to qualify as proper Dutch in his universe, but even so, if you're a little left-leaning, that's a dealbreaker.

I think you forgot the bit about something, something, childless bugmen.
 

Back
Top Bottom