Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Milo and others as Dangerous

BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,618
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'
  https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html
«1

Comments

  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,733
    I wish they’d ban the links to lists that only have 1 item on a page.

    oh - and meundies ads
    hippiemom = goodness
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 17,161
    I wish Facebook would ban Facebook.
    (They already banned anyone younger than 35 from using it, didnt they?  ;)   )
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,340
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,297
    Slippery slope...

    I hope they ban Scientology too.
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,660
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,707
    Slippery slope...

    I hope they ban Scientology too.
    All religions I’d say ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,707
    I wish Facebook would ban Facebook.
    (They already banned anyone younger than 35 from using it, didnt they?  ;)   )
    No I’m not on Faceturd but I know my two kids are still one is 22 the other 25 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,660
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holes? I guess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,287
    edited May 2
    jeffbr said:
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holes? I guess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    I would think it would be clearly listed in the Terms of Service. 
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,431
    jeffbr said:
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holesguess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    Actually, no, I was not advocating for censorship of anti-vaxxers per se, I was just arguing against the notion that it’s always better to see and hear this sort of bogus information due to some idea that we should “know what’s out there”. A lot of this stuff doesn’t deserve our time or attention. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,660
    jeffbr said:
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holesguess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    Actually, no, I was not advocating for censorship of anti-vaxxers per se, I was just arguing against the notion that it’s always better to see and hear this sort of bogus information due to some idea that we should “know what’s out there”. A lot of this stuff doesn’t deserve our time or attention. 
    Oh, ok. Well I tend to agree with that. I was only commenting on the censorship aspect. I'm just not a big fan of pulling the trigger on censoring a group or idea just because it is distasteful. I am in favor of ignore them, however. I don't tend to pay any attention to racists if I can help it. I only pay attention to anti-vaxxers to argue with them and ridicule them, but otherwise have no use for what they have to say. But censorship just seems like the wrong approach unless that speech leads to violence. If there is a public safety reason for censorship, then I can support it. But not if it is just uncomfortable or distasteful.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,118
    Thought police

    no thanks
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,733
    jeffbr said:
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holes? I guess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    I suppose since it’s not a government controlled company - they draw the line where they want. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,911
    jeffbr said:
    jeffbr said:
    dankind said:
    I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

    The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
    Well, ol' Louis X is a black nationalist and anti-semitic, so I think he belongs in the Milo, Alex Jones, David Duke, Richard Spencer category of bigot personally. 

    But I also agree that this is a slippery slope and am not really big on censorship. I like the free expression of ideas, rather than scaring or banning these assholes into hiding so you don't know what they're saying or doing.
    I can see a purist argument for freedom of speech, but I don’t buy the “know what they’re  saying” argument. Pre-internet, these sorts of people had to work hard to get their message out, and so the reach of bad ideas was limited. Now every worthless or dangerous idea can be widely disseminated, and frankly a lot of them don’t deserve the light of day. This is what has brought us the anti-vaxxers. Any positive value in “seeing what they’re thinking” is vastly outweighed by the negative of propagating that thinking. 
    Where is the line drawn, then? You just added anti-vaxxers to the list (I have no love for them), we've already got the racists/bigots on the list, some have suggested religions (I have no love for them either). I don't care what any of them have to say. But does that mean we censor all of them? Ban them from participating in public discussion? Chase them all into their holes? I guess I default to allowing speech rather than censoring speech.
    I suppose since it’s not a government controlled company - they draw the line where they want. 
    This is how they make the decision, or draw the line, as described in the article....

    ""We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement provided to CNN Business. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."
      A Facebook spokesperson told CNN Business the company goes through a lengthy process and takes into consideration a number of factors before determining an individual to be "dangerous."

      The Facebook spokesperson said such factors include whether the person or organization has ever called for violence against individuals based on race, ethnicity, or national origin; whether the person has been identified with a hateful ideology; whether they use hate speech or slurs in their about section on their social media profiles; and whether they have had pages or groups removed from Facebook for violating hate speech rules.

      In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms, the spokesperson said, adding that the company continues to view such action as the correct approach. That policy may not apply to any or all of the people banned Thursday, however."

      It's about time FB & Instagram did something about this.

      If you can't yell fire in a theater, then hate speech and calls for violence on such heavily trafficked media sites as Facebook and Instagram seem reasonable. 

      They always have 8Chan, the dark web and other apps and sites  of which I'm unaware. They are still able to organize rallies and marches. People can choose to find a way to follow these people and organizations wherever they decide to communicate and people can choose to attend rallies and marches to support them.  This move is just taking violence and bigotry out of mainstream media sites, and as cincy said, they are private companies so they have terms of service. 

      I have no problem with less hate and bigotry and desire for violence being commonplace on platforms that provide such a large audience. 




    • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,480
      As long as they don't ban the All-Drug Olympics.



      "Hate your job, love your stuff
      If you think that's living, you are
      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
      -Juliana Hatfield
      ***********
      M.I.T.S.







    • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,201
      edited May 3
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Headstones and Watchmen Fan Boy
    • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,297
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Fox news and MSNBC are both private companies but for whatever reason are worlds apart from news stories and how they are reported.
      Don't ban anything...
    • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,297
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Fox news and MSNBC are both private companies but for whatever reason are worlds apart from news stories and how they are reported.
      Don't ban anything...
      Accept Scientology...

      Ban that please.
    • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,674
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Fox news and MSNBC are both private companies but for whatever reason are worlds apart from news stories and how they are reported.
      Don't ban anything...
      Accept Scientology...

      Ban that please.
      I will NOT accept Scientology......

      there can be no exception to this stance.
      _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

      Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
      you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
      memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
      another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
    • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,480
      edited May 3
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Good point.  Kind of funny how FB is seen as something universal and public.  I think we often forge that it's a private company.  And one that really pries into it's followers personal browsing!  I only go there briefly because it's the only way some people I know keep in touch.  Not nearly as personal as the old ways including phone calls, cards and letters.

      EDIT:  And emails.  Some people I know don't even email anymore.
      Post edited by brianlux on
      "Hate your job, love your stuff
      If you think that's living, you are
      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
      -Juliana Hatfield
      ***********
      M.I.T.S.







    • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 20,297
      mickeyrat said:
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Fox news and MSNBC are both private companies but for whatever reason are worlds apart from news stories and how they are reported.
      Don't ban anything...
      Accept Scientology...

      Ban that please.
      I will NOT accept Scientology......

      there can be no exception to this stance.
      @mickeyrat I'm such an idiot...

      "EXCEPT Scientology"...

      Ban that please, don't accept it.

      Whoops.  TGIF.
    • dignindignin Posts: 7,481
      it's not censorship if it's a private company. these idiots are free to start their own social media platform. it's no different than being banned from here for being an asshole. 
      Fox news and MSNBC are both private companies but for whatever reason are worlds apart from news stories and how they are reported.
      Don't ban anything...
      Fox news and MSNBC censor everything they do, as is their right.

      And bans are necessary, otherwise this place, AMT, would probably be a cesspool. 
    • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 11,539
      edited May 3
      dankind said:
      I don't know how Minister Farrakhan winds up in the same "dangerous" category as Alex Jones. 

      The former is called on by his followers to help prevent violence; the latter calls on his followers to incite violence.
      Are you kidding? Farrakhan is a black nationalist and total anti-Semite (even calling Hitler a “great man” in a 1984 speech). And he said in a 2015 speech in Milwaukee that white people deserve to die. He’s way more dangerous than Alex Jones because not many people take Jones seriously. For some reason, people (including yourself apparently) take Farrakhan seriously. 
      Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on
      2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

      Pearl Jam bootlegs:
      http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
    • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,230
      Slippery slope is a weak argument.
      Everything can be called a slippery slope and every slippery slope can be reversed.
      Slippery slope is never a reason not to act.
      Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
    • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,660
      rgambs said:
      Slippery slope is a weak argument.
      Everything can be called a slippery slope and every slippery slope can be reversed.
      Slippery slope is never a reason not to act.
      Using absolutes in arguments is also rarely a good idea.
      "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
    • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,287
      edited May 3
      (Some) Americans with their skewed look on freedom of speech. 

      It's a private company with its own ToS. If they don't want hatespeech and shit (illegal in other parts of world) on their platform, let them decide. 

      The extremists can sit in their basement or on their blog or on another platform and spew their hatefil garbage supported by the freedom of speech.
      Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
      The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
    • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 16,183
      good.. fuck alex jones. and milo. and farrakhan. let them find their own way to spread their bullshit.

      i love it when people get deplatformed.
      "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

      "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

      If you have never failed, you have never lived.
    • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,851
      (Some) Americans with their skewed look on freedom of speech. 

      It's a private company with its own ToS. If they don't want hatespeech and shit (illegal in other parts of world) on their platform, let them decide. 

      The extremists can sit in their basement or on their blog or on another platform and spew their hatefil garbage supported by the freedom of speech.
      Agree. If you walk into my house and I don't like what you're saying or how you're saying it, I'll ask you to get out, as is my right. The bulletin board of news that is Facebook isn't public domain and isn't bound by the rules of free speech. 
      '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

      EV
      Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
    • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,618
      Ignorant, racist, xenophobic piece of shit supporting other racist,  xenophobic pieces of shit....

      Trump tweets support for far-right figures banned by Facebook
      . https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/04/tech/trump-social-media-twitter-facebook/index.html
    Sign In or Register to comment.