Facebook goes full tilt Orwellian... Bans "dangerous" commentators, including Farrakhan.

First, Facebook is a private business. It can ban whomever it wants for any reason it wants. Participation is bilaterally voluntary. To that end they have just unequivocally an unapologetically banned Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, and Milo Yiannopoulos and some other mostly right wing talkers I've never heard of.

I think what is "dangerous" is suppressing speech because you don't like the message, the messenger, or the content. YMMV. Talk amongst yourselves...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech...owars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html

 

The problem is that Facebook gets 'public commons' protections from advertising itself as a platform for all views. I suppose they can change their mind and decide to not platform certain views, but the 'public commons' protections exempting them from liability from their users content should be removed.

 

I hope President Trump takes them to court. Now Brett Kavanaugh has a lot against the Left. Only time will tell.

 

Talking about dangerous I can only wonder how many deaths will result in the next months from fools believing the internet information that childhood vaccination will cause autism.

 

They do not advertise as a platform for all views, nor are they a public commons. They are a for-profit business with bilaterally voluntary terms of service.

 

On what grounds would Trump be able to take them to court? You mean sue them personally for money damages? Please clarify your position. As to your point on Kavanaugh... WHAT???

 

That kind of stuff has been around for ages, though. There was a time when it was thought eating fat made you fat. So people stopped eating fat and it made them sick... and fat. Or wearing seatbelts is dangerous because in the event of a crash you want to be able to roll out of the car and not get trapped inside of it.

But back on topic... Farrakhan is a crackpot. Alex Jones is a crackpot. Yainnopoulos is a provocateur. Should it not be up to me if I want to receive their message or not?

 

What pisses me off is that Mark Zuckerberg isn't in prison for knowingly working with Russia.

He admited to congress that he knew that Russia was paying facebook to put up illegal political ads. He and his team were fully aware for over a year that facebook was putting up false news stories, and illegal political ads in violation of federal law. And yet he being charged as a accomplice even though he was fully aware that he was allowing a crime to be committed and that he was taking money in exchange for letting that crime be commited.

 

When is he going to find time to do that with all the court case he has in front of the SDNY

 

Well if you use that criteria the Trump campaign team......

 

There is clear evidence that they knew Russia was interfering, but whether or not they knew the specifics of that interference is more black and white.

When it comes to Trump, it really depends on how much they actually knew. If they knew specifically that Russia was running an illegal ad campaign, and failed to report it, they are accomplices to that crime no different than facebook.

Even if they didn't actually help Russia do something, it's still a crime if they knew they were doing it and didn't report it to the authorities.

This is no different than if you knew someone was gonna murder someone and didn't call the police. You are still considered an accomplice, even if you didn't actually assist with the crime, if you had prior knowledge of it.

Now, in some cases, such as Donald Trump Jr.'s meetings with the Russian lawyer, there is also a possibility of being accomplices after the fact as well. Junior met with the lawyer because she promised to give him information stolen from the DNC and Clinton servers. She was apparently lying to him, but there is evidence that that was the real reason for the meeting. There is also evidence that Trump ordered him to lie about the purpose of the meeting, and came up with his cover story of it being about reestablishing adoption rights for Americans in Russia.

 

I do not know what powers the President has in his arsenal. But in order to keep his online support through 2020, he should do something.

 

What? Like give up golf, stop lying his head off and actually do something about health care?

 

The internet is however wonderful in being a few magnitudes better then anything we had have before in human history as far as spreading information be that information true or false.

The false information on vaccination is not only placing the families of the fools at unneeded risks but anyone who had shared a room or an airplane ride with them.

Facebook if it allow it platform to aid in this false information spread then they are going at least morally share the blame for all the unneeded sickness and death that result.

 

Sadly they didn't shut that down, they only do political speech. As it happens I find Farrakhan to be every bit as repulsive as the Grand Dragon of the KKK and for exactly the same reason, but I would punt either one of them from the web. I might have a section called racist shitbirds and conspiracy loons and dump them all into it. Hell I wouldn't even ban the Russians I'd just identify them as such.

 

they are welcome here; they can argue with a federalist over here.

 

Ummmm. “Something”? Are you suggesting he should abuse the power of his office?

 

As Voltaire said, “I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death to insure you can say it.”

 

Well he certainly will find another group to hate to shore up his base. Or maybe just keep usings Mexicans and Muslims and poor people. Time will tell what he will use to keep dividing America.

 

facebook is a family friendly site, if people want a crazy adult only site, they shoudl create one

 

maybe he will have another affair on his wife... his Christians base seems to be ok with that too.. my how the republican party has changed

 

What Facebook is doing is not Orwellian. Orwellian is pretending things are other than they are. Like Trump pretending that the Mueller report exonerated him.

 

Straw man. FB has not banned these folks because their messages are too titilating for the kiddos. They have banned them because the management of FB object to their messages and/or politics. How do I know this? BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID!

 

That’s only part of it. Big Brotherism is what it’s all about, and the parallels to FB are almost palpable... wired into billions of homes, only difference being that it’s voluntary. For now. Once we start down the road of banning ideas deemed “dangerous” by a handful of oligarchs, we can kiss our free and open society good bye. Go to China and criticize Mao if you want a taste.

That said, FB can ban anyone it wants for any reason AFAIC. Trump is making noise again that he’s going to “watch them.” Their actions may violate the principles of the First Amendment, but they cannot violate the First Amendment itself. Only the state can do that. Someone should remind it it’s not supposed to.

 

I don't do Facebook or Twitter.