Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures (bloomberg.com) 974
Facebook said it's banning a number of controversial far-right figures, including Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, for violating the social-media company's policies on hate speech and promoting violence. From a report: The company is also blocking religious leader Louis Farrakhan, who is known for sharing anti-Semitic views; Paul Nehlen, a white nationalist who ran for Congress in 2018; and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson. All of these individuals and accounts that represent them are also banned from photo-sharing app Instagram. "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook representative said Thursday in a statement. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today." Facebook is often chided for failing to stop the spread of harmful speech and misinformation on its platform, and Thursday's bans show that the company is taking a firmer hand in enforcing its own service terms.
Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook bans dumbasses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Informative)
Jones, Yiannopoulos, Farrakhan, and the others who have been banned can still say whatever they want. Just not on Facebook.
It's Facebook's dojo. They make the rules. Just like Alex Jones makes his own for Infowars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To make my point clear-- the first amendment is not about saying what you like, it's about saying what you like *PUBLICLY*.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does free speech happen if everything and everywhere is privately owned? Facebook is a privately owned public forum. If there is no free speech on the internet, there's no free speech off of it either.
To make my point clear-- the first amendment is not about saying what you like, it's about saying what you like *PUBLICLY*.
The First Amendment is irrelevant here. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
These people still have their free speech rights on the internet. In the spectacularly unlikely event that they are banned from every single privately-owned outlet, they can just create their own, as Alex Jones did with Infowars. And you might want to take a look at the Infowars rules of conduct. They will ban people they don't like, and for less cause than Facebook considered in these cases.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Interesting)
The First Amendment is irrelevant here. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Exactly right.
However, starting a Facebook clone without the censorship (or with a different leaning) is not practical, because Facebook has patents on part of their technology.
It can plausibly be argued that government actions to aid Facebook in enforcing those patents, now that Facebook censors content, would be a First Amendment violation. If the argument prevails, a social media company that engages in censorship would effectively void their own patents - at least against other social media operations.
I'd love to see that litigated.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
The First Amendment is irrelevant here. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Exactly right.
However, starting a Facebook clone without the censorship (or with a different leaning) is not practical,
Twitter, snapchat, linkedin, google+, Instagram, diaspora,...
Many social networks have been created- some succeed, some don't, many end up bought by Facebook. The barrier to entry isn't high, hence a new social media platform starting up every month.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
they can just create their own
Maybe. We've seen hosting providers banning sites [slashdot.org], and even registrars canceling domain registrations [slashdot.org].
Should they have that power? [newsweek.com] By analogy, what if the electric utilities started banning people from using electricity based on their speech? Or maybe gas stations refusing to sell you fuel? How far do we let that go? Boycotts are great and all, but the power of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. So today, are we so dependent on that voice that the 1st amendment needs to apply to it? Or is it okay to limit politically incorrect opinions to meatspace and save the internet for only approved speech?
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Funny)
Same like the old left then....welcome to Gulag, comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Electricity companies are different because they have a natural monopoly. Gas stations... Well, fair enough, political views are not protected and businesses are free to choose not to do business with individuals that they have a political disagreement with.
What you really want is to make political opinions protected in the same way as attributes like race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. In general the principal is that people are protected when it's something they have little to no control over,
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not protect you and me from each other.
Hmm, what about the 13th?
Unless you're actually claiming that Alex, Milo, Laura et al. are in involuntary servitude without having been duly convicted i fail to see how your comment is relevant to the discussion?
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Bake me a cake for my gay wedding.
How soon liberals forget their own arguments.
Yes, IAAL. No, I didn't forget the "baker's rights gambit."
Sexual orientation is not a protected class, so yes, bakers can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. But they can't refuse to bake a cake for a black couple, a Hindu couple, a German couple, a disabled couple, etc., even if doing so is contrary to their "sincerely held beliefs."
Sometimes one person's rights come into conflict with those of another. The courts have, and will continue to decide whose rights prevail in such circumstances.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
"Don't make me do what I don't want to do"
Baker doesn't want to bake a cake that violates what they believe is right (they considered it a sin).
Facebook doesn't want to allow postings that violate what they believe is right (they consider the speech immoral).
Apparently it is ok to force the baker to do something they disagree with, but it isn't ok to force Facebook to do something they disagree with. Again, moral related... not law related. You kind of defended a moral discussion based on law. Your parent was more discussing the moral hypocrisy than just interpreting law.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The case both of you may be thinking of wasn't about baking a cake. The baker offered to bake the cake. He was refusing to decorate it. The argument he made was against being compelled to speak (artistically) in support of something he disagreed with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Private internet (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a fair question. There used to be public places on the internet (like Usenet) but they've slowly been destroyed by private businesses building fences around the public commons. Perhaps the government needs to provide each citizen with access to a public server space to do whatever they want to with. Free Internet for All!
Re: Alternative headline (Score:4, Informative)
Did you miss all of the attacks on webhosting companies and cloudflare service regarding the same type of issues? In addition to setting up my own website, do I need to own a registrar and web hosting company too?
Re: Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
-Brought to you by tolerance, love, and being against violence and hate speech everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
I choose to tolerate your position anyway, even though I strongly disagree with it and it seeks to strip me of my liberties. Let me remind you: it is impossible to tolerate people you agree with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree in principle, who's willing to host Nazis?
Once upon a time, the ALCU defended the right of the KKK to have public marches.
Once upon a time, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" was important in America.
Once upon a time, we were a nation, not a sack of petty tribal squabbles.
It was a better time.
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree in principle, who's willing to host Nazis?
Once upon a time, the ALCU defended the right of the KKK to have public marches.
Once upon a time, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" was important in America.
Once upon a time, we were a nation, not a sack of petty tribal squabbles.
It was a better time.
I agree, they should be allowed to have public marches.
I agree, people with "wrong opinions" should be allowed to right to free speech.
I don't agree that private corporations should not be allowed to control who and what publishes content on their network.
Facebook is a private entity; the day that government says that they HAVE to allow anyone post whatever they want on facebook and are not allowed to control what's on their network, I will say government has stepped over the line.
I don't like facebook, I hope they crash and burn; but, I do believe that they as a private entity have the right to publish or not publish what they like and it's no damn business of the government to tell them they can't remove people's comments that are harmful to their business.
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is a private entity; the day that government says that they HAVE to allow anyone post whatever they want on facebook and are not allowed to control what's on their network, I will say government has stepped over the line.
They don't have to allow anyone to post anything they want, but if they curate the content, they should be held legally liable for any harmful content that is published. Either that or be a common carrier and post everything submitted.
It's one or the other. To allow a private entity to pretend to be an open forum while hiding or banning certain types of speech is unacceptable.
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that private corporations should not be allowed to control who and what publishes content on their network.
So you're OK with private corporations refusing to do business with black people? Or is your view somewhat less extreme, and you believe some restrictions are better for society?
That's a false dichotomy. Facebook is not refusing to do business with all $color people. They're refusing to do business with select individuals of different races that are using their platform to incite violence. I'm sure if a black man walked into a McDonald's and went on a rant about killing Jews that they would be politely asked to leave before the police were called on them for disturbing the peace.
Re: (Score:3)
This shit isn't that hard. This is a business decision, plain and simple. As business they get to decide who gets to play on their platform, and can ban anybody they want to. The only thing they aren't allowed to do is ban someone for specific legal reasons, such as being in a "protected class." So, first of all, they didn't ban all racist assholes, they banned a select list of racist assholes. Secondly, "Racist asshole" isn't on the list of protected classes. I don't see the problem here.
As far as th
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Facebook claims to be neutral platform. As such, they do not get to pick and choose what they will, and will not publish.
I don't know where Facebook claim to be a "neutral platform". Facebook's front-page claim (for non-logged in users) is "Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life".
For businesses, public figures or communities, it's "Connect your business, yourself or your cause to the worldwide community of people on Facebook. To get started, choose a Page category."
The word "neutral" is not mentioned in their terms [facebook.com] and I've never once gotten the sense from them in any official real capacity that the
Re: (Score:3)
This publisher vs platform nonsense gets walked out on every story and people act like its clear cut that they aren't being a platform for X, Y, Z reasons. The fact of the matter is that no one will know for sure until they are taken to court of the matter. The Section 230 Communication Decency Act was written into place by Congress and debated over because they were afraid that interactive computer service providers would be too afraid to take any editorial control on their platform.
A case review about the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Posting on Facebook and having a march are completely orthogonal issues. Not in the least similar. Thanks to that work by the ACLU you and anyone else can go out and march about whatever you want. They defended those racists from the GOVERNMENT taking action against them including jailing them for marching, and I should note that the public was highly against the ACLU when they took this action just like the public lambasts the ACLU for suing to prevent local governments for retaliating against religious di
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that few, if any, would choose to be a common carrier. Besides illegal content, you need some way to deal with spam, off-topic posts
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny; the more someone has, the more worried they are about loss -- and it holds true for societies as well.
We've become so rich and prosperous, that we're absolutely preoccupied with safety in all facets of life. Everything from driving our own cars (still waiting on the technology to catch up), gun ownership, letting kids walk to school alone, to sodas. Everything with even the slightest iota of 'risk' is going to be taken away eventually. Because it's in our best interest, right?
It can be shown
Re: (Score:3)
That leaves "business class" ISP, so that all you're depending upon is the network. Even less likely to terminate their business with you, based merely on you being an asshole.
If only they were being regulated like a common carrier and couldn't terminate you at all for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the section you're referring to:
Re: Alternative headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes and its the bakers kitchen. If he doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes, those couples can "Express their diversity" somewhere else, right?
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
What if your core value is that you shouldn't serve black people, women, or the handicapped?
I think almost all people would agree that it's good that government doesn't allow you to get away with not serving those groups.
"Almost all people would agree" is a fallacy, but lets set that aside.
I find "protected classes" in general an ominous sign. That doesn't mean it's always wrong, just that it's a bad pattern that's strongly associated with totalitarianism.
The rule is supposed to be "is this the narrowest possible law, and can the government show a compelling social need to act at all". When 90% of stores won't serve $protected_class, there is a compelling need. When 10% of stores won't serve $protected_class, those are just some assholes, no need for a law. To me this is a hugely important distinction.
I apply the same test to social media: is this company effectively a monopoly on the kind of communication they host? If so, like YouTube, then it's the former case above. I'm not sure Facebook qualifies, however, but I think they might. But those cases are generally rare.
Re: (Score:3)
"Almost all people would agree" is a fallacy, but lets set that aside.
No, that's a generalization. "All true Scotsmen would agree" is a fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
You see my point, though. If a person can get service, just not from this one asshole, it's none of the government's damn business. If a person cannot get service because "I'm surrounded by Assholes", then the government has a compelling interest.
Re: (Score:3)
ONE racist asshole is too many,
So, what, the government should exterminate the undesirables? Do you really not see that one days your views could make you the undesirable? That the government could, you know, go bad?
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strangely, people who align with the mass media (I don't want to call them "left", since this incarnation of "social justice" has nothing to do with left-leaning policies) can spout all manners of racist and hate-filled speech, including call to violence, and won't be censored by Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Islamist preachers promoting jihad and support of organisations like al Qaeda and ISIS have been banned from Facebook and Instagram as well as the likes of YouTube for years.
For some reason certain people only seem to think it's an issue now that their far right deities are being treated equally.
Wait, are you actually saying that extremist preachers who advocate killing gays and making women second-class citizens are leftists? Have "left" and "right" lost all meaning now?
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Informative)
The Menlo Park, California-based company didn’t give details on what led to the bans this week, though a spokesperson said that Jones, Yiannopoulos and Loomer have all recently promoted Gavin McInnes, founder of the violence-prone far-right group the Proud Boys, whom Facebook banned in October.
Meanwhile facebook continues to allow violence-prone left goups tlike Antifa to exist https://www.facebook.com/antif... [facebook.com]
So this would suggest to me that they were banned because facebook does not like extreme right views compared to extreme left views. Not really a surprise.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Antifa exists only in opposition to fascists. No fascists, no neo-nazis, no 'alt-right' and Antifa goes away. The only reason they exist is to be the same intimidating, physical barrier that these hate groups are. You see these neo-fascist groups in marches with guns and sticks and bats, and most counter-protestors (particularly people of colour) aren't willing to get into that mix and be either beaten or arrested because for some reason, the police really seem to love protecting the rights of these neo-nazi groups to be openly violent, hateful and intimidating.
Antifa will disappear once we manage to make our fascism problem disappear. Want to get rid of Antifa? The solution is simple.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Violations of a nebulous TOS.
Applied inconsistently.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Proud Boys aren't responsible for "violence against innocent people".
You've been fed a line.
They're a bunch of Western Society Chauvinists who have no qualms about putting the boots to anyone who decides to attack them.
AKA ANTIFA.
Antifa quite simply aren't "innocent". They're a group that makes use of political violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Informative)
If you think that's "just" what the Proud Boys have been doing, and are non-violent, then you're sadly misinformed and should maybe spend like 10 seconds Googling so you know what you're defending.
Also, "white" is not a heritage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Gavin McInnes is the founder of Vice Media. He's considered by some to be the "founding father of modern hipsters." That's "promoting violence?!"
The Proud Boys are just an organization that tries to promote respecting men and allowing white people to feel pride, instead of shame, in their heritage. There's nothing violent about that.
So what you're really saying is that, yes, this was about censoring political speech that the left doesn't like.
From a Clark County Sheriff's office memo "The FBI categorizes the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism” https://propertyofthepeople.or... [propertyofthepeople.org] As the memo relates to a disciplinary matter concerning a member of the Proud Girls, there are more details worth reading.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Speech has social consequences, one of those consequences is people and businesses don't want to interact with you. Any attempt to make private people or business engage in or carry speech they don't want to would be a _huge_ violation of individual rights. A far worse violation than any censorship on an individual platform causes.
The implications of your accusation is that the government should force Facebook and others, under threat of financial or physical damage, to provide this platform to someone they don't want to, for speech they find offensive. Speech that can directly damage their business by forcing people away from their business due to the same social consequences.
As always, if you don't like it, don't use these platforms, create your own. When your soapbox is dependent on some other group providing it for you to stand on you shouldn't be surprised if they decide not to let you use it. There is literally nothing at all stopping you from creating your own forum for speech. Hundreds of thousands of other platforms already exist all over the network and you can trivially make your own for almost insignificant cost.
All these internet companies censor all kinds of speech on their platforms and always have, anything people would find offensive and increase their costs through customer support or advertising losses is booted. The only awful thing I see in any of these actions is that they've waited until now to enforce policies they've had in their TOS since the very beginning, often explicitly defined in what type of speech they won't tolerate. It demonstrates a weekness IMO that is reprehensible, but then I don't use Facebook (and neither should you) so I don't give two shits.
Using Facebook isn't a right, being able to say whatever you want in someone else's house isn't a right. Get over it. Build your own platform and say whatever you want, as long as the government isn't coming after you it's not a threat to your rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The name is "Antifa", you know for "anti-facist". I'd foe you for that statement if I hadn't already done so for other things you have said.
Common misconception. It's ante-fa as in "just before fascism". The name is appropriate as they are actual Blackshirts.
Just like the Blackshirts and the Brownshirts, they are a violent group who punches unpeople. If you don't see how bad that is, you've ignored all of 20th century history.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is a form of public speech and expression. Laws will be passed to protect freedom of speech on social media. It's just a matter of time.
Ain't gonna happen. Any such law would violate the First Amendment rights of Facebook. It's not just you and me who have those rights.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds a lot like "I'm okay with allowing mob rule to prevail."
I won't comment on the current specific issue - not informed enough on the people involved and what they may or may not have done - but the general idea of facebook banning people is troublesome.
A local business is considered a public place, and has to abide by certain anti-discrimination laws.
At what point does Facebook qualify as a public place?
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds a lot like "I'm okay with allowing mob rule to prevail."
No, it's not. It's I'm okay with allowing someone do what they want with their property. If you're having a party and someone comes over and starts insulting the rest of your guests, are you going to ask them to stay?
A local business is considered a public place, and has to abide by certain anti-discrimination laws. At what point does Facebook qualify as a public place?
Political affiliation thankfully is not a "protected class". Nor should it be. I'm 100% in favor of free speech, but nobody should be forced to accommodate speech they disagree with. Replace Facebook with New York Times, and see if your argument makes any sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real question is if Facebook is a publisher or a platform. They can't have it both ways...
Don't think it applies (Score:4, Interesting)
I do believe, however, that Common Carrier laws (of the sort that say telephone companies can't be policing the words people say on them) should be expanded to cover all general purpose communication platforms. If you want to be specialized and push a specific agenda and censor opposing views, that's fine. But if you want to hold yourself up as a cornerstone of the internet, a neutral ground that invites everyone in, you really shouldn't be policing the speech that takes place there. (Banning spammers and abusive use being a very different thing.)
This really really shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say. I mean, imagine a world where Verizon cut off your service if you tried to talk about Net Neutrality or something. But I guess we now have a new generation of Americas who have grown up under this paradigm that there will always watchful guardians above them to keep out the truly nasty folks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing how quickly the "left" (for lack of a better word) pivots from "corporate power is bad and must be regulated" to "the government has no business telling corporations they can't do something". Gives me whiplash trying to follow the positions.
Well, if any good will come of this, it's that the grassroots right is becoming quite anti-corporatist. That's been building for a couple decades (by definition, conservatives don't change quickly), but it's becoming a fervor now.
Re: (Score:3)
It takes some time but the reasonable left/right and middle really dont like extremist crap from either end of the spectrum, and when the anger and furor get to some obtuse level where their regular lives are being interrupted, they rise up like a sleepy lumbering beast to smack it down.
The question is always how much damage is done in the meantime of course. It may be my imagination as I have not looked for any numbers but there appear to be quite a few conservative governments being voted in all over the
Re:Alternative headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah.
I mean, the right to shun people with repugnant views is great. Life would suck without it. And I don't really want to read those views in my local newspaper.
But: when someone becomes as powerful, in the marketplace of ideas, as Facebook but doesn't act as an open conduit for information: it's nearly as dangerous as censorship conducted by the state. Ideas viewed controversial, repugnant, or unworthy can be buried. Sure, it seems like these initial choices are responsible, but how about next year's?
Also, sometimes trying to silence people in this way gives their views more power.
That is, this kind of curation often doesn't work, and when it does it has the potential for terrible abuse.
Re: Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Insightful)
He can say those words. He comes off looking like an idiot. It's when these people such as Mia, Alex, or Louis start telling people to start harassing others, doxing them, calling followers to arms, that we should be concerned.
I am an advocate for free speech, but there are limitations to free speech. Everyone loves to point out screaming fire in a crowded theater. Alex Jones advocated that his fans prepare their rifles to be battle ready. I am betting the others had made similar requests.
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Informative)
t's only censorship that matters if the government does it. Furthermore, if you're talking about censorship in America and the First Amendment isn't relevant to that discussion, then the censorship you're talking about isn't problematic. Opposing an owner having the right to censor his platform is a real attack on free speech. Mainstream publishers (which is basically what any social media platform is) having standards is a good thing. Let the crackpots buy their own servers.
Except that the government has on a number of occasions declared that people retained all or part of their civil rights on certain privately-owned property regardless of the property owner's wishes. One relatively recent example was Zucotti Park during the Occupy Wallstreet protests. The park is privately owned but they were prevented from having the squatting protesters removed and/or trespassed from the property by the courts, as they ruled that the park was a public space. It would be quite reasonable to many people to have the government declare many online spaces public spaces as well. Telephone companies are also required by law to respect many civil rights. "On a computer/on line" isn't a free pass to place millions of users under privacy/security/ideological conditions comparable to China.
That's another thing, is FB a platform or a publisher? They (plus Google and others) seem to want to have things both ways. They say they curate content like a publisher but want to be treated legally like an open platform and be absolved of any of a publisher's responsibility for what they publish (curated content). It doesn't work like that, at least in a society that respects and actually makes an honest effort to uphold the Rule of Law most of the time (nothing is perfect, doubly so for governments because generally people who couldn't make a living doing something else run them).
Strat
Re:Alternative headline (Score:5, Interesting)
the censorship you're talking about isn't problematic
The online marginalisation of people with "wrong" political views is indeed problematic.
Denying people access to the world's largest communications platform is censorship and is an issue.
Let the crackpots buy their own servers.
How? Maybe you haven't noticed but activists are trying to deny all and any services to people:
https://www.paymentssource.com... [paymentssource.com]
Crackpot he may or may not be but apparently Yiannopoulos a far right Jewish gay married to a black man has been banned for saying nice things about people. You seem to support him being banished from society. I do not.
No-one would have an issue if that was true (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook bans dumbasses.
Nope!
Facebook banned SOME dumbasses. Who happened to all be align with the more rightward section of politics (to call either Jones or Yannopilis "conservative" would seem to be insane).
So what left leaning "dumbasses" as have been banned? Any antics groups banned, who opening partake in and advocate for physical violence? No.
People don't have a problem with rules if they are applied evenly and fairly. It's when rules are applied selectively that people get angry.
You know what wo
But (Score:4, Funny)
But how am I going to learn the truth about 9/11 which was some guy wanted to cash in an insurance policy so he single handedly destroyed multiple skyscrapers and framed a bunch of guys who were innocently flying planes into buildings? He should have called Geico.
This should be good (Score:2)
Just wait until 2020 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just wait until 2020 (Score:5, Insightful)
If a private company wants to ban inciting violence on its platform, they have every right to do so, and I applaud them for it, as long as they apply that policy evenly. The fact that most people are getting their "news" and information through a private company that isn't subject to standards of journalism (no different than cable news and late night TV hosts) is a separate issue. Critical thinking was never a universal skill. The abundance of entertainment masquerading as "news" is something that's changed in the last decade or so, and now more and more of that entertainment is partisan.
When I was in high school in the early 90's it was quite difficult for me to get information about how to do stuff, like how to program a computer. Now, of course, any technical answer is just a click away on YouTube or StackOverflow, or about a million programmer blogs. Yet I'm amazed when students I mentor tell me they can't figure out how to do something. I spend about 5 minutes on Google and send them a link to step-by-step instructions someone's written, or a tutorial video. I would have loved this kind of access to information when I was growing up, and they seem to be blind to it.
Similarly, it's never been easier to fact-check any claim. I spend a lot of time trying to think critically about what I'm reading. Who is the author? What is their angle? Where are they getting their facts? Crucially I can actually go find other sources in minutes, even some primary sources, to investigate their claims. Unfortunately the vast majority of people not only don't think critically, but seem to want to be lied to. Politicians used to bend the truth and try not to get caught. Now they've learned they can just blatantly lie, get caught, and nobody on "their side" even cares because "all politicians lie, but this is our guy so he's doing it for the right reasons". This complete disregard for truth is a new thing. This didn't happen before, and it's pretty scary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Alex Jones was just perpetuating harassment of parents who lost their children in a school shooting.
That is just and good (Score:2, Insightful)
Political censorship is indefensible (Score:4, Insightful)
This act is indefensible. This is obviously not something that was actually done on a case by case basis for actual policy violations.
Hate speech has become a dog whistle to dehumanize conservative political views. They have built their slippery slope, now all they have to do is use it. I imagine that conservative views will be effectively banned just in time for the 2020 election.
This is an abuse of monopoly power and needs to be stopped before corporations effectively take over the government.
Re:Political censorship is indefensible (Score:5, Insightful)
In a sense, they already have.
They seem to own the town square, and are the gatekeepers to who can say what and have any chance of being heard.
At the same time, they are not particularly limited in the exercise of their powers, because they have declared the town square to be private.
It would seem that it is possible to have one's cake and eat it too after all.
Re:Political censorship is indefensible (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the question, though.
In a literal town, there really is only room for one town square. And here's the important bit: the town square is as much the town square because people congregate there as it is due to it's physical location or appearance.
Now, let's say that Lordy McFeudal paid for the cobblestones and dug the well in the middle of the square. The people are on board with him doing this because he is welcoming to all.
But over time, he changes. He no longer lets the people in who he doesn't like, or agree with, or whose voices he doesn't want to be bothered by.
Sure, such folks could go hang out on Farmer Joe's back 40, or in some back alley, but no matter what sign they put up at those places, it won't be the town square. Unless all the people go there.
This is exactly the scenario with Facebook, in excruciating detail. Hard to find a better fit for a metaphor.
Re:Political censorship is indefensible (Score:4, Insightful)
Except - they tend to move all as one, if you will. Someone gets de-platformed in one place, they tend to do so in all.
Thing is, the 'net has changed. It used to be a truly distributed system. But - in reality, it is now centralized. Want video? You go to youtube. Want older folks chatting? Facebook (but also, Instagram). Search? Google. Political rants? Twitter. Younger folks? Snap. Slightly more intellectual discussion? Reddit. There are a few others, but in reality, these companies control the vast majority of 'net access for most people.
Thus, in the Wild West days of the 'net, you would be right. No town square. But - the railroads bought up all the land, and have built us planned towns that are rapidly becoming ghettos.
You have your own approaches, as do many who frequent these forums. But the Wild West is gone, cowboy. There's barbed wire everywhere. And yes, in the planned towns, there is a square. And if you aren't in that square, simply put, you aren't going to be heard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly?
I'm fine with it.
It completely validates the merely-suspected concern that social media bandwidth was being curated to sustain only liberal views.
The is the sort of leftist meddling that ENTRENCHES conservatives, and motivates them to work, donate, and vote.
I'm perfectly delighted if my conservative friends can't tweet (they didn't), post on facebook (they didn't, or if they did it was the stupidest tinfoil hat shit), or comment on reddit (you're just going to be mobbed by slavering liberals until
"conspiracy theorist" (Score:2)
Is that actually a job title ?
"Always"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook representative said Thursday in a statement.
Always?
Did Jones just sign up last week?
Censorship BAD! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care who you're banning. If you're banning because you don't like what they have to say, all is lost.
But then I remember this is Facebook, which I want to just implode and die, so ban away. Ban a bunch of 'dangerous' lefties too. Start with Sam Harris. Then ban me. Just ban everyone! Piss everyone off equally, don't just pick on the right (as joyous as that can be!)
*Popcorn* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amusing watching all these people arguing about Facebook dictatorial censorship while posting on a platform that actively supports mob rule style censorship instead.
Usually these "libertarians" are talking about how these are all private sites and they can do what they want... Until they ban someone they agree with. Then it's wrong.
Personally I'm very anti-censorship, even if I think morons like Alex Jones are fraud con men (not the Performance Artist he claimed to be in his divorce hearing). But I don't use, nor have I ever used, Facebook.
So where are the people saying he's free to post on his own site?
Re: (Score:3)
So where are the people saying he's free to post on his own site?
I'm usually a big advocate for this line. Don't like a platforms rules? Make your own site.
However, in this day and age, finding a hosting provider for your alternate facts and reality is getting somewhat difficult.
I find it odd, personally, that it sure seems like "the left" seems to control all the major infrastructure/platform sites. You never hear of lefties getting the banhammer. Even the ones prompting violence and some for sure do.
Kind of revealing, the types and political leanings of people behi
Re:*Popcorn* (Score:5, Informative)
It's amusing watching all these people arguing about Facebook dictatorial censorship while posting on a platform that actively supports mob rule style censorship instead.
I think calling Slashdot's moderation system a form of censorship is quite misleading. No one here is censored. Everyone's comments stay up. They just get rated on their quality. If you want to see all the -1 moderated posts, they're all there for you to look at.
No censorship here, sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Louis Farakan is far right? (Score:5, Informative)
They banned Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan too
Voltaire (Score:3, Insightful)
"To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Facebook is a *publisher* not a *platform* (Score:4)
And should be treated as such.
Facebook claims to be a neutral platform, but that is clearly a lie. A neutral platform cannot pick and chose who get to post and who does not.
A publish is allowed to censor, but a publisher is responsible for anything anybody posts. So if somebody posts something illegal, Facebook is on the hook.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Citations needed.
Do you think people should have an opportunity to defend themselves, or are you fine with some billiionare making the call of who can and cant use the internet?
Would you be as happy if it was the Pope deciding? Or a hereditary monarch? Or do you only value those with material wealth?
Re: (Score:2)
Private company. They can ban whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.
Re:They're not being banned for being "far right" (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Ted Kazinsky, "The Unabomber Manifesto"
Re: (Score:2)
They're not being banned because they are "far right," although one could call them that.
They're being banned for irresponsibly ginning up hatred and violence against people...for being hate mongers.
Who also happen to be "far-right". Hmm... is that correlation or causation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is, send the kids to a 'no vaccinations, GTF out' policy school. They're common enough.
Re:Harmful speech, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it another five years. A post like yours will be defined as "literally violent and dripping with hate", and you'll be facing universal deplatforming from the half dozen or so gatekeepers of the 'net.
Re:This won't make them cool at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conspiracy theorists of an anti-semitic bent will simply lay down their arms and go back to peaceful pursuits.
No. They'd be forced back into chain emails and other niche media. This in time will diminish their popularity.