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

brianlux

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. 

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.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

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.

@mickeyrat I'm such an idiot...

"EXCEPT Scientology"...

Ban that please, don't accept it.

Whoops.  TGIF.

dignin

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...

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. 

Ledbetterman10

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. 

rgambs

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.

jeffbr

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

(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.

gimmesometruth27

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.

benjs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

(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. 

Bentleyspop

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

tempo_n_groove

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

rgambs

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

That doesn't make the slippery slope argument any better.  
Isn't it also a slippery slope to allowing violence-inducing speech?  Shouldn't Nazi's have been silenced at some point?

Bentleyspop

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

That doesn't make the slippery slope argument any better.  
Isn't it also a slippery slope to allowing violence-inducing speech?  Shouldn't Nazi's have been silenced at some point?

As someone  who lost half their family in the camps I fully believe in the right of free speech for everyone including "American Nazis".
They are really nothing other than trolls.
Whether they are trying to rile people up online or marching through  a city. They are trolls.
The best thing people can do is ignore them.

That being said there should be some limits on hate speech. The end result is the Tree of Life Massacre, NZ massacre, and the Poway shooting. These occur because of the easy accessibility to hate speech. And the current head of government doing his best to encourage it.

tempo_n_groove

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

That doesn't make the slippery slope argument any better.  
Isn't it also a slippery slope to allowing violence-inducing speech?  Shouldn't Nazi's have been silenced at some point?

Yes it is but re read my comments and you have my answer and will be the same every time.

benjs

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

I agree with this so long as we all recognize it only applies to public domain and not the ecosystems of private domains such as Facebook. By reducing our reliance on public domain and allowing ourselves to become the product on private ones, we are willingly restricting our own freedom of speech - and then often complaining about its absence when the ecosystem owners exert their own rights to kick you out of their house. 

rgambs

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

That doesn't make the slippery slope argument any better.  
Isn't it also a slippery slope to allowing violence-inducing speech?  Shouldn't Nazi's have been silenced at some point?

Yes it is but re read my comments and you have my answer and will be the same every time.

I guess I just don't agree that the right to free speech is important enough to balance against human lives.  

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

Actually it is a great argument.

The reason we have freedom of speech in the first place is to make sure that you can't be silenced and if you are on the right side of the argument it doesn't get censored by the opposition.

"I might not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it".  I love that line.

The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that it was at the foremost importance to have Freedom of Speech and put it as the first amendment.

That doesn't make the slippery slope argument any better.  
Isn't it also a slippery slope to allowing violence-inducing speech?  Shouldn't Nazi's have been silenced at some point?

Yes it is but re read my comments and you have my answer and will be the same every time.

I guess I just don't agree that the right to free speech is important enough to balance against human lives.  

I also believe in the slippery slope argument. by and large, I am confident that most of humanity is not depraved idiots who will forget history. 

CM189191

turns out they were right

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones charged with DWI in Travis Co

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200310/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-charged-with-dwi-in-travis-co-authorities-say

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

turns out they were right

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones charged with DWI in Travis Co

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200310/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-charged-with-dwi-in-travis-co-authorities-say

Read an article written by someone who worked for him. Said he was a real piece of work. Berating staff, drinking in the early afternoon on the way to the gun range, routinely showed up drunk but really railed on and was verbally abusive to people around him and didn't care. He and Rushbo can commiserate over why the law doesn't apply to them. Maybe he'll be next for the Medal of Freedom.