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

Bentleyspop

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

cincybearcat

I wish they’d ban the links to lists that only have 1 item on a page.

oh - and meundies ads

F Me In The Brain

I wish Facebook would ban Facebook.

(They already banned anyone younger than 35 from using it, didnt they?     )

dankind

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.

tempo_n_groove

Slippery slope...

I hope they ban Scientology too.

jeffbr

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.

josevolution

tempo_n_groove said:

Slippery slope...

I hope they ban Scientology too.

All religions I’d say ! 

josevolution

F Me In The Brain said:

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 

oftenreading

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. 

jeffbr

oftenreading 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.

Spiritual_Chaos

jeffbr said:

oftenreading 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. 

oftenreading

jeffbr said:

oftenreading 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. 

jeffbr

oftenreading said:

jeffbr said:

oftenreading 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.

my2hands

Thought police

no thanks

cincybearcat

jeffbr said:

oftenreading 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. 

njnancy

cincybearcat said:

jeffbr said:

oftenreading 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. 

brianlux

As long as they don't ban the All-Drug Olympics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon 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...

tempo_n_groove

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.