Facebook bans a slew of high profile extremists

[Hayabusa Rider]

Twitter is a vanity site. From what I can tell one's self worth is measured by the number of followers you have. It's my belief that anyone with more than thirty followers has issues that require professional help.

The world would be a better place without twitter.

Oh I'd extend this to all of the social network sites. Fake accounts on Facebook, etc.

Vanity? I'm sure there's some of that yet some who have power find it indispensable to support the idea of support. Vanity or not, why permit it? Again this is for everyone in office, not a particular party or person. That makes it fair and balanced.

 

[Commodus]

Twitter is a vanity site. From what I can tell one's self worth is measured by the number of followers you have. It's my belief that anyone with more than thirty followers has issues that require professional help.

The world would be a better place without twitter.

I use Twitter a lot both for catching up with people I know and for work, and I have decidedly more than 30 followers. I only interact with a small fraction of them, but still...

 

[Homerboy]

Twitter is a vanity site. From what I can tell one's self worth is measured by the number of followers you have. It's my belief that anyone with more than thirty followers has issues that require professional help.

The world would be a better place without twitter.

You're confusing Twitter with Instagram.

Instagram is basically 99% vanity. Twitter actually allows for exchange of ideas and thoughts. The whole point of instrgram is for "influencers" to post (altered) pictures of themselves and people buy into it.

 

[zinfamous]

But Milo and Laura Loomer? They make incredibly valuable arguments

such as....

 

[zinfamous]

MissedThePoint.jpg

It's not about what is right or wrong - or if Facebook can or can't legally do something. It's about our society getting more and more triggered and wanting their safe space echo chambers. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way with unicorn farts and rainbows and a magical place where your opinion is always the correct one.

see, this is basically a fabrication of one's limited perspective of the reality of the world today that tends to expose an ignorant belief that the current moment is somehow unique to all generations' moments at their time.

so, no, it isn't "about that" in a general sense. It's only "about that" for those that choose to subscribe to a lazy but ultimately comfortable explanation of the things that upset them, as long as they confirm whatever uneducated biases they harbor. and no--that habit is definitely not unique to any generation.

 

[UNCjigga]

I would equate Facebook/social media sites banning extremists to the same sites banning pedos and child porn. Both cause harm to the broader membership and discourage participation on their platforms--and the platform is the primary product that they are selling (it's only as valuable as the people who use it.)

So yeah, maybe some people do want a "safe space echo chamber" free from extremists and pedophiles--we wouldn't want our children to get the wrong ideas.

 

[umbrella39]

easiest solution is to abandon facebook. not sure why people can't do that, oh well.

Winner!

The poor persecuted Conservaterrorists will have to find a new cause celebre to cry about.

I left Facebook last year and never looked back. Oddly enough my rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness were not extinguished.

I'll have to order one of those Gold Plated Victim Cards the Trump cucks use so often...

 

[woolfe9998]

So much for the conservitard theory that only voices on the "right" are kicked off of social media platforms.

Farrakhan is not on the left.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Winner!

The poor persecuted Conservaterrorists will have to find a new cause celebre to cry about.

I left Facebook last year and never looked back. Oddly enough my rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness were not extinguished.

I'll have to order one of those Gold Plated Victim Cards the Trump cucks use so often...

They hand those cards out at the weekly safe space refresher, held every Sunday at your local Evangelical house of safe space.

 

[woolfe9998]

MissedThePoint.jpg

It's not about what is right or wrong - or if Facebook can or can't legally do something. It's about our society getting more and more triggered and wanting their safe space echo chambers. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way with unicorn farts and rainbows and a magical place where your opinion is always the correct one.

No, it's not about protecting people's sensitivities. This isn't about some idiot college kids wailing over someone using the wrong pronoun. It's about the fact that the so-called marketplace of ideas doesn't work in this climate. We're in a climate where toxic ideas spread like a disease. Haven't you noticed that all forms of extremism are on the rise in the western world?

These toxic ideas are a threat to democracy but we can't have the state intervene to stop it or we're giving up the democracy we're trying to protect. Hence, private actors ought to be take some responsibility for the platforms they provide.

 

[brycejones]

Farrakhan is not on the left.

I would agree with you, but he is frequently cited by the righties as an example of "left hate speech" and how social media sites have different standards for what they see as the "left" and the "right".

 

[IJTSSG]

MissedThePoint.jpg

It's not about what is right or wrong - or if Facebook can or can't legally do something. It's about our society getting more and more triggered and wanting their safe space echo chambers. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way with unicorn farts and rainbows and a magical place where your opinion is always the correct one.

Apologies for not adding the sarcasm tags to my post.

I guess if the cake requester's came into the bakery and did something, anything, that I arbitrarily found objectionable, I could then refuse to bake them a cake.
I wonder if the virtue signaling, wanna be social justice warriors and I would agree on what is 'objectionable'. Probably not, but I'm sure they'd be willing to lecture me at length on what I should and should not find objectionable.

 

[dank69]

Apologies for not adding the sarcasm tags to my post.

I guess if the cake requester's came into the bakery and did something, anything, that I arbitrarily found objectionable, I could then refuse to bake them a cake. ...

Yes actually, you could do that, although you might have to kick everyone else out that did that same thing from then on.

 

[Luna1968]

So much for the conservitard theory that only voices on the "right" are kicked off of social media platforms.

he was the token black guy.

 

[HomerJS]

MissedThePoint.jpg

It's not about what is right or wrong - or if Facebook can or can't legally do something. It's about our society getting more and more triggered and wanting their safe space echo chambers. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way with unicorn farts and rainbows and a magical place where your opinion is always the correct one.

I think you miss the point. The following is just a little bit more the being "triggered"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/paren...tim-forced-to-move-7-times-due-to-harassment/

 

[Luna1968]

Exactly! Refusing to serve someone because of who they are is both morally wrong and illegal. Refusing to serve someone because they behave badly in your business is perfectly fine. If anything, it should be encouraged.

Finally some common sense from you guys.

not illegal. try to twist it anyway you want but the baker won.

 

[HomerJS]

he was the token black guy.

Name a dangerous left winger Facebook should have banned but didn't. You must name their dangerous act. Show your work no name dropping.

 

[fskimospy]

not illegal. try to twist it anyway you want but the baker won.

They did, sadly enough. Doesn't change the fact that he was trying to contrast public accommodation statutes with people enforcing standards of conduct in their business. If a black guy comes into your business you can't refuse to serve him because he is black. You can refuse to serve him if he takes a shit on the floor.

One really important reason why liberals need to counteract the SCOTUS shenanigans of recent years is to reverse a string of ruling that allows Christians to opt out of generally applicable laws. As I've said for years Hobby Lobby was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time. Now that I think about it if you claimed that your religion prevented you from serving black people you could refuse service to them too based on SCOTUS precedent.

 

[Vic]

Apologies for not adding the sarcasm tags to my post.

I guess if the cake requester's came into the bakery and did something, anything, that I arbitrarily found objectionable, I could then refuse to bake them a cake.
I wonder if the virtue signaling, wanna be social justice warriors and I would agree on what is 'objectionable'. Probably not, but I'm sure they'd be willing to lecture me at length on what I should and should not find objectionable.

Moron, as usual. What I find 'objectionable' are people -- like you -- who believe their inability to control their emotions justify interfering in business and commerce. For example, they refuse, while in the course of their regular business, to do business with "their kind" because of some emotional objection. Or, on topic, they insist on interfering with another's business by chasing other customers away with their emotional extremist ravings.

Meanwhile, reactionaries being reactionary, forever adrift in time with no memory of the past, both you and Someone are apparently unaware that almost all the genuine censorship in this country has been the work of conservatives. Movie and TV censorship, HUAC, McCarthyism, Parents Television Council, etc.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

They did, sadly enough. Doesn't change the fact that he was trying to contrast public accommodation statutes with people enforcing standards of conduct in their business. If a black guy comes into your business you can't refuse to serve him because he is black. You can refuse to serve him if he takes a shit on the floor.

One really important reason why liberals need to counteract the SCOTUS shenanigans of recent years is to reverse a string of ruling that allows Christians to opt out of generally applicable laws. As I've said for years Hobby Lobby was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time. Now that I think about it if you claimed that your religion prevented you from serving black people you could refuse service to them too based on SCOTUS precedent.

Really? Hobby lobby was the worst?

Are you referring to them refusing to cover birth control on religious grounds?

You realize that they don't have to offer insurance... At all... Right? You know that right?

Similarly, there are plenty of other services/prescriptions that many companies refuse to cover simply on the basis of cost. As far as hobby lobby is concerned I can't believe you consider it a big deal....

Hobby lobby will cover: The costs to go to the doc (gyno) and get the prescription. They just won't cover the $5 for the generic prescription. Sounds like a HUUUGE problem.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would agree with you, but he is frequently cited by the righties as an example of "left hate speech" and how social media sites have different standards for what they see as the "left" and the "right".

The righties are entirely wrong about that. Then again, they're wrong about almost everything. Farrakhan is essentially a fascist. What's really messed up is that he occasionally gets embraced by blacks on the far left. Like some of the leaders of the Women's March. He doesn't stand for anything the left stands for. At all.

 

[sandorski]

Moron, as usual. What I find 'objectionable' are people -- like you -- who believe their inability to control their emotions justify interfering in business and commerce. For example, they refuse, while in the course of their regular business, to do business with "their kind" because of some emotional objection. Or, on topic, they insist on interfering with another's business by chasing other customers away with their emotional extremist ravings.

Meanwhile, reactionaries being reactionary, forever adrift in time with no memory of the past, both you and Someone are apparently unaware that almost all the genuine censorship in this country has been the work of conservatives. Movie and TV censorship, HUAC, McCarthyism, Parents Television Council, etc.

Speaking of McCarthy, up to his time there were actual respected members of society and politics that were openly Socialist. They were completely removed and continue to be to this day.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Hobby lobby was the worst?

Are you referring to them refusing to cover birth control on religious grounds?

You realize that they don't have to offer insurance... At all... Right? You know that right?

Similarly, there are plenty of other services/prescriptions that many companies refuse to cover simply on the basis of cost. As far as hobby lobby is concerned I can't believe you consider it a big deal....

Hobby lobby will cover: The costs to go to the doc (gyno) and get the prescription. They just won't cover the $5 for the generic prescription. Sounds like a HUUUGE problem.

It appears you don't understand the problem, which had literally zero to do with health care.

The precedent SCOTUS set there was that people could opt out of generally applicable laws for religious reasons, something in direct conflict with earlier, less activist rulings. That is an EXTREMELY bad precedent to set. By Hobby Lobby's reasoning if my religion told me black people were bad I could ban them from my store. Basically you can just roll the civil rights act back by saying Jesus told you so.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It appears you don't understand the problem, which had literally zero to do with health care.

The precedent SCOTUS set there was that people could opt out of generally applicable laws for religious reasons, something in direct conflict with earlier, less activist rulings. That is an EXTREMELY bad precedent to set. By Hobby Lobby's reasoning if my religion told me black people were bad I could ban them from my store. Basically you can just roll the civil rights act back by saying Jesus told you so.

You're kinda stretching pretty long there bud. Not covering a medication on religious grounds doesn't mean you can be racist on religious grounds.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You're kinda stretching pretty long there bud. Not covering a medication on religious grounds doesn't mean you can be racist on religious grounds.

Why not? Trump just gave a proclamation today that doctors and nurses can refuse medical treatments on religious grounds. What next? You guy always love the slippery slope arguments on other things, why not this?