Politics Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars & others from its platforms as dangerous

The shades of gray are exactly the point. It is who decides what gray areas are allowed and what aren't.

This isn't like people leaving sports two for real gm or something. This is people with possibly valid opinions being censored because some group of liberals got together and didn't like what they said. Which might just be the beginning.

If you don't start down that road you won't get lost on the way. What's next, banned for saying that the obese girl in the Gilette ad shouldn't be wearing a bikini?

 

Read the tale about the Tribe of Shabazz. Then see how well your words apply in that story. Interesting parallel.

 

I don't find it that interesting really. Farrakhan may be 100 percent right for all I know.

I'm using the term hate the way it is applied today.

I stopped here and read the story on Wikipedia. 66 trillion years ago! Wow.

The stories people believe are amazing to me. I have watched some old video of Elijah Muhammed years back. He WAS an interesting guy.

 

Ha!
It seems to me your words were spot on! Their story would indicate they want to replace the Jew in running shit! Perhaps while eliminating the rest of us.

 

As long as it is not defined as a public utility - it is pretty clear that owners should be the one making these lines, even if they are huge companies - after all, no-one makes someone use this service.

Of course, if you decide to declare Facebook a utility - you run into the problem of state governed news...

 

Is racism, sexism or homophobia (and by all these terms, I mean what you would term as such, assuming you think anything meets those terms) speech that should be protected in all venues? If so, then we definitely have fundamental disagreement on what "possibly valid opinions" encompass. I certainly understand that terms like those can be used to shut down legitimately valid opinions, but my point is not that anything branded "racism" should be censored but rather that there's probably some line where "censorship" is valid, especially on "private property" (as Facebook or Disneyland is, no matter how popular).

Sure, anything can fall victim to slippery slope. But we all start down the road to some extent, unless you believe (going back to my previous example) Disneyland should allow neo-Nazis to scream racial epithets in the middle of their park so as not to censor opinions. Every organization has the right to establish their preferred culture and/or atmosphere--and I mean "right" in the ethical sense, not the legal sense.

We're just debating over where the line is, really.

 

I don't use it or "The Twitter" as our ditzy local newscaster says.

I would imagine that letting Facebook users decide would be the best way. If they don't want to hear Farrakhan they don't click on his page. Seems simple.

I've never said Facebook can't do this. They can. If there are barriers in place to competition by other platforms then that is when I want the government to step in.

Imagine McDonald's and Wendy's being the only restaurants out there. Yuck

 

Disneyland can throw them out. Government can't. The debate is going to be how to govern Facebook and the like. It may very well end up being controlled by the government in the future and I don't think anyone wants that.

 

First it seems to me, that the term must be defined and agreed upon before any discussion about censorship can begin.
Many discussions of what exactly the word racism means has been had before in this forum, with no consensus found.
The dictionary does not adequately define in the view of many here, so how the hell could censorship discussions begin?

 

I don't think I want this, but I am not going to use it in any case. What I don't want is it being used to organize evil or disorganize good.

 

There will never be a universally accepted definition. But every organization should still have the reasonable right to make a call on that. Whether that's a church or Facebook.

 

Facebook, given that it is a platform are going to be screwed no matter which way they go - no curation and they are a platform for misinformation, curation and they are a censor.

My gut feeling is that there needs to be a line of curation anywhere - so I am all for the companies doing their own curation, as we said, if people do not like it, leave the platform. If you like some of the other services the platform offers, stay there and look for your infowars diet somewhere else - using facebook does not prohibit anyone from seeking the content elsewhere - so honestly, there is no real reason to call it censorship. Censorship is when you prevent the information from being accessed, Facebook does not do it, they just do not want their platform to be used for it - any other platform (basically the http platform) is still open - so, no issues imho.

Anyone that calls for it and calls themselves conservatives are hypocrites - you can't call for freedom for businesses and individuals and cry censorship when a private company does not lend itself to someone else's whims.

 

I don't think Facebook itself will ever be under government control. Facebook isn't a utility--social media has no obvious bounds, like "do you convey electricity to customers?" Sure, we can say Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are social media...what about SportsTwo? What about a church instant messaging system? Social media is far too amorphous to be branded a "utility" IMO (and Facebook, itself, is just one company...how silly would it have been to make MySpace a utility, only for it to fall into total disuse?).

 

Facebook has to follow some government rules so we can have some public safety. Now those rules can be mandatory and explicit or voluntary and implied. Remember the old adage you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

Sounds like the story of my life.

 

Maybe not. But I bet some thought you were!

 

Maybe not. But I bet some thought you were!