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

With no limits?

Who is saying that it is? I didn't see @Bow To The Robots say this, but yet you quoted his post.

So Orwellian is not authoritarianism?

 

So there can't be anything about wars then on Facebook?

 

Only the book 1984 was about an authoritarian society. Animal Farm was abut the fraud that was the communist state of the USSR. But Orwell wrote more about the how the public discourse is often built upon issues that aren't always honestly presented. That was an underlying theme throughout 1984 and Animal Farm.

This is from Orwell's essay, Why I Write:

It may be that dishonest public discourse is a tactic of authoritarians, but throughout, Orwell tends to attack the discourse, moreso than the authorities. But then exposing the lies often exposes why authoritarian societies are so bad.

 

Well then. It appears that the adjective, 'orwellian' can have multiple meanings.

 

Did you miss there rest of my post?

 

I doubt Voltaire meant forcing a private business to print your words though.

 

So yes, Facebook is being Orwellian from the standpoint of going after "misinformation and denial of truth". Had the sites confined themselves to opinions they'd have been OK but they feel the need to support their opinions with flat out lies and there is little in the way of refuting or correcting them on their sites, their followers want to believe so they do.
Is there an equivalency to Trump's lies or a Tucker Carlson? Sure but at least with them there are many keeping track and refuting what they say. Sure their hardcore followers believe every word and make no effort to hear the flip side but people have to hear what the president says and make their own judgements as to how dangerous his lies are. Tucker Carlson is on much thinner ice because he presents himself as a journalist when he is not and his lies could and should be considered fraud and should not be protected by the first amendment as he is a threat to a free society and democracy. His lies also further erode confidence in real journalists.

 

What lies of Carlson are you referring to?

 

@ImNotOliver?

 

Tucker Carlson is on thin ice because he questions unlimited low skill immigration, this puts the profits of billionaires at risk so they fund a bunch of left wing whack jobs to terrorize advertisers in an attempt to shut his mouth. You are a shill for billionaires who want to be the curators of America's speech. Billionaires are the LAST people on earth who should have the right to curate the speech of others.

After sipping the sweet sweet nectar of the truly free and honest political expressions of ordinary youtube creators, I will never EVER accept curated speech again EVEN at the point of a gun. This is the hill I will die on. The authoritarians on the left MUST fail.

 

His latest would be that according to him we now know that the asinine senator that shouted "you lie" during the State of the Union address by Obama was right and that Obama care did provide benefits for illegal aliens. It did not, they, like everyone, have always had the protection of law that hospitals must provide acute care without concern over ability to pay. That didn't change with Obama care nor will it change with the destruction of Obama care should that happen. The senator is still an ass.

 

Probably a safe bet. Nor have I made that argument.

 

I would still have a problem with it. Ideas should be discussed, and if you disagree, refuted. Suppression of speech or other expression has no benefit.

 

“Orwellian” generally refers to the ideas presented in 1984.

 

It generally refers to the ideas presented in 1984.

 

Or we can use antitrust laws to force the monopolies to provide fair access to their platforms.

(How do you feel about net neutrality, btw?)

 

Actually, I think we all should.

 

So? I don't get this stuff by the right. your saying that if you own a private business, you should not be able to control what your customers paint on your wall?

There is another thread regarding Warren wanting to break up facebook so that competition could offer differing views, what was your stance on that?

 

The author was an anarchist-socialist who hated authoritarianism and nationalism. The irony of this thread isn't lost...

 

With who?

 

You should probably take that up with "the right" then.

You need to go back and read my OP. Carefully this time.

I don't care one way or the other. If somebody wants to break up FB, competition should take care of that, not the government.

 

Please elaborate on this alleged irony to which you refer. Thank you.

 

Your politics and the nationalists banned. Those fellows would hate Orwell's contempt for nationalism.

 

How are "my politics" (whatever you imagine they are) relevant to the topic?

I suspect you are correct. However, fail to see this "irony" you claim.

 

Let's agree that you don't see the irony! God bless