Is Facebook killing freedom and liberty?

[Cunt]

Legal complications my armpit. Facebook's legal jurisdiction is California. The issue isn't the law, it's whether you think people who advocate a white ethno-state have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook. So do you?

Let me try to answer this way. In any case where facebook is found to be lying about the reasons they gave for removing an account, they should be forced to re-instate it and apologize.

If they have, and state, a good reason, then any disagreement can be brought into a relevant court (or the public eye) for review.

Public services (in Canada) are held to certain standards. You can't, for instance, run a public business and refuse to wax a ladies scrotum. You could get sued, and only if the complaintant is VERY obviously abusing the law, will you be allowed to choose.

[Brian Peacock]

Facebook is a private, for-profit business, not a public service.

If Mr Robinson feels he has been defamed or libelled he can appeal to the Californian legal system.

Do you think people like Mr Robinson, who advocates a white ethno-state, have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook and/or that Facebook has broader duties or obligations to facilitate such activities on its web-based platforms?

[Brian Peacock]

...

I don't even know what a 'white ethno-state' is, or who is advocating for it.

...

I don't believe you.

[Cunt]

Facebook is a private, for-profit business, not a public service.

If Mr Robinson feels he has been defamed or libelled he can appeal to the Californian legal system.

The offense didn't happen in the US. I don't expect you to have even the most shallow understanding though, since you can't watch his award acceptance speech.

Do you think people like Mr Robinson, who advocates a white ethno-state, have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook and/or that Facebook has broader duties or obligations to facilitate such activities on its web-based platforms?

I didn't hear him pitch a white entho-state. Can you link to the manifesto? Or is it hidden with facebooks 'evidence' of him calling for beheadings?

In short, they will do whatever the law dictates. So see local laws. For example, in Britain, they are allowed to have LOTS of hate speech on facebook, though if the account is identified, they may arrest the individual poster.

So facebook is free to publish whatever they want, with seemingly no accountability, while arrests for what they are publishing, are happening to individual writers.

I wonder if facebook is getting a profit selling ads on those 'hate-speaks'...and if THAT is legal in Britain...

You can't say what you mean by 'white ethno-state' because it would reveal your position to be nonsense. Like suggesting that facebook only has to adhere to California law.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

I don't even know what a 'white ethno-state' is, or who is advocating for it.

In that case, shut the fuck up and leave rational argument to those who are capable of it...

[Brian Peacock]

Facebook is a private, for-profit business, not a public service.

If Mr Robinson feels he has been defamed or libelled he can appeal to the Californian legal system.

The offense didn't happen in the US. I don't expect you to have even the most shallow understanding though, since you can't watch his award acceptance speech.

Facebook's HQ might be in Ireland for tax reasons but the company is constituted under Californian statutes and so the only place you can take FB to court is in California.

Do you think people like Mr Robinson, who advocates a white ethno-state, have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook and/or that Facebook has broader duties or obligations to facilitate such activities on its web-based platforms?

I didn't hear him pitch a white entho-state. Can you link to the manifesto? Or is it hidden with facebooks 'evidence' of him calling for beheadings?

So first you pretend that you have absolutely no idea what a 'white ethno-state' means, and now you feign a deeper ignorance by claiming you've never heard Robinson mention it or any other extremist views. The impression you give is the Mr Robinson is just some random guy who has been unjustly treated by a faceless corporation for no good reason - a pretence you can only maintain by completely avoiding his stated political views and his history of political activism. You're not fooling anyone.

In short, they will do whatever the law dictates. So see local laws. For example, in Britain, they are allowed to have LOTS of hate speech on facebook, though if the account is identified, they may arrest the individual poster.

So facebook is free to publish whatever they want, with seemingly no accountability, while arrests for what they are publishing, are happening to individual writers.

That's a pretty fair summary, but let's not pretend that the police are somehow singling random people out for their views rather for how they choose to express themselves on Facebook, which is primary reason why they'd end up being questioned, arrested, or prosecuted under hate-speech or terrorism laws for their FB activities.

I wonder if facebook is getting a profit selling ads on those 'hate-speaks'...and if THAT is legal in Britain...

You can't say what you mean by 'white ethno-state' because it would reveal your position to be nonsense. Like suggesting that facebook only has to adhere to California law.

And let's also not pretend that we haven't gone over this very issue many times before. Perhaps your memory isn't what it once was. If so, you can undertake a refresher via the search function at the top of the screen - or you can just keep belly-aching about a white supremacist getting a stiff-arm from a corporation. 'Sno skin off my elbow either way.

[Cunt]

You have to focus hard on my errors, because you aren't allowed to (or willing to) listen to Tommy's acceptance presentation.

Don't expect me to think you have given this issue fair assessment. I know you can't (in many countries) be caught saying anything about him other than the negative.

But the issue is around facebook, not him. He was accused by facebook of calling for beheadings. Why would you not insist on his alleged actions, rather than their failure to provide evidence?

Is this a facebook thread? Or a Tommy Robinson thread?

JimC, want to go for a jog? I hear it helps to clear the mind and mood.

[Brian Peacock]

One of the biggest questions we face is around what we allow on Facebook – and we spend a lot of time trying to get this right. This is hard and critically important. We want Facebook to be a place where you can express yourself freely and share openly with friends and family. At the same time, when people come to Facebook we always want them to feel welcome and safe.

This is something we take incredibly seriously. So when ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society – in some cases with potentially dangerous offline implications – we take action. Our public Community Standards state this sort of speech is not acceptable on Facebook – and when we become aware of it, we remove it as quickly as we can. Our rules also make clear that individuals and organizations that are engaged in “organized hate” are not allowed on the platform, and that praise or support for these figures and groups is also banned. This is true regardless of the ideology they espouse.

Tommy Robinson’s Facebook Page has repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate. As a result, in accordance with our policies, we have removed Tommy Robinson’s official Facebook Page and Instagram profile. This is not a decision we take lightly, but individuals and organizations that attack others on the basis of who they are have no place on Facebook or Instagram.

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/02/re ... -robinson/

Anyone familiar with Robinson's political views and history of political activism will understand exactly what this means, but I can understand how you wouldn't. Your feigned ignorance of his politics or history neither informs your opinion, if true, nor recommends your probity if false. However, if you want to argue that Robinson is a reformed character, or that his political views have been misrepresented by myself or others then have at it - though I suspect you'll simply dodge and dive, as is your want.

[Cunt]

Funny how they could have included the evidence so easily, yet instead chose to look like they didn't have it.

That interviewer made the facebook rep explain it very succintcly.

[Cunt]

Anyone familiar with Robinson's political views and history of political activism will understand exactly what this means, but I can understand how you wouldn't. Your feigned ignorance of his politics or history neither informs your opinion, if true, nor recommends your probity if false. However, if you want to argue that Robinson is a reformed character, or that his political views have been misrepresented by myself or others then have at it - though I suspect you'll simply dodge and dive, as is your want.

I should say, though I think I have already, that it doesn't change my opinion if he is, or is not a terrible person.

I was judging facebooks actions based on their answers about this case. Very slippery to keep focusing on him, while refusing to examine his case objecively. The interview (included in his acceptance speech presentation) was by a journalist who was NOT Tommy, and an official facebook rep.

He lied, she caught him. Plain as day.

But you can't see it, instead refering me to a source about facebook. (was it a facebook - approved source?)

[Brian Peacock]

OK, so dodge and dive it is then. I'm critical of the content of Robinson's politics, in theory and in practice - but if you want to reduce that to me saying he's a terrible person so be it. It's a lot simpler that way isn't it?

[Cunt]

OK, so dodge and dive it is then. I'm critical of the content of Robinson's politics, in theory and in practice - but if you want to reduce that to me saying he's a terrible person so be it. It's a lot simpler that way isn't it?

Now we can get somewhere. Let's agree that he is a terrible person (to simplify, as you suggest)

Now, that interviewer asked why he was banned, the made a claim. The interviewer immediately asked him for evidence.

From there, does that tell you anything about facebook killing freedom and liberty?

Or will you simply say they don't have to provide evidence, because he is so terrible?

[Brian Peacock]

The evidence of course is in what he posted to his account, which has now been removed. Facebook hold all the cards. But speaking personally, I'm quite happy to exclude violent extremists from public discourse, like white supremacists and Jihadis.

In order to justify your #OUTRAGE you'll have to argue that Robinson's views are not extremist, violent, or hateful in nature. But you can't do that because of your self-confessed ignorance of his politics and his history of political activism. I think that leaves you nowhere to take this conversation other than to the personal level. So what's your personal view about whether Facebook has some kind of social obligation to promote all ideas equally, or at least not to hamper the expression of any particular idea - no matter how threateningly or hateful it's expressed?

Basically, you and Robinson seem to be complaining that Facebook isn't 4Chan.

[Hermit]

Or will you simply say they don't have to provide evidence, because he is so terrible?

Facebooks owners make and apply the rules to suit their objective. The objective is to make money. The data extracted from people who use Facebook are the product Facebook sells to advertisers. The more people use Facebook, the more product there is to sell, the greater is the profit Facebook owners make.

Although dressed up in moral terms, the rules are about money. If it turns out that there's more money in collecting and selling data from today's stormtrooper wannabes, the same rules (prohibition of hate speech intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society and so on, and so forth) will be applied to ban social justice warriors, the 'woke' contingent and associated individuals and groups. It is a really easy thing to do. In the words attributed to Cardinal Richelieu: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

[pErvinalia]

Or will you simply say they don't have to provide evidence, because he is so terrible?

Finally you are starting to get it.