Jump to content


Facebook & Instagram ban extremist accounts


Recommended Posts

IT'S ABOUT TIME

 

 

Quote

 

Instagram and Facebook Ban Far-Right Extremists

In an effort to contain misinformation and extremism that has increasingly spread across the platform, Instagram has banned several prominent right-wing extremists.

 

Specifically, Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, have banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Paul Nehlen, and Louis Farrakhan under their policies against dangerous individuals and organizations.

 

Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Any account that shares Infowars content will see the content removed; if an account violates terms on multiple occasions it will be banned. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles, and Facebook will remove any Groups set up to share Infowars content and Events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Alex Jones and Infowars.)

 

Jones, Yiannopoulos, Watson, Loomer, Nehlen, and Farrakhan are all personally banned, as are any accounts set up in their likenesses. But users may still praise those figures on Instagram or share content related to them that doesn't violate other Instagram and Facebook terms of service. “We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today," a Facebook spokesperson said over email.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

This makes me pretty nervous. Social media platforms have somewhat monopolies on public discourse online, but they are not representative or elected officials and they get to decide internally with no accountability or transparency who gets to have a voice and a platform and who doesn't? Don't think I'm a fan.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Landlord said:

This makes me pretty nervous. Social media platforms have somewhat monopolies on public discourse online, but they are not representative or elected officials and they get to decide internally with no accountability or transparency who gets to have a voice and a platform and who doesn't? Don't think I'm a fan.

 

That is every place of business. You can be refused service for a litany of reasons at a lot of places.  First Amendment rights only pertain to the government, so if any other establishment doesn't like what you're saying, they're well within their rights to not give you a forum to speak.

  • Plus1 4
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That is every place of business. You can be refused service for a litany of reasons at a lot of places.  First Amendment rights only pertain to the government, so if any other establishment doesn't like what you're saying, they're well within their rights to not give you a forum to speak.

The issue is whether there's a platform available for everyone to speak. I understand why a business doesn't want to allow all content, but there should be a way for even the most heinous among us to voice their opinions, so that those opinions can be subjected to scrutiny.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That is every place of business. You can be refused service for a litany of reasons at a lot of places.  First Amendment rights only pertain to the government, so if any other establishment doesn't like what you're saying, they're well within their rights to not give you a forum to speak.

 

 

And in a situation like huskerboard, which is very small and one of a million options, then those kinds of private rules are totally fine. But in a situation where a company completely runs and has monopoly on a country, that wouldn't be so fine. Facebook/insta/youtube/twitter are somewhere in between. I understand first amendment rights pertaining to the government, that's not what I'm talking about. When non-governmental establishments get so big and have that much pragmatic power to silence people based on their own ideologies, that gives me great pause.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
Just now, RedDenver said:

The issue is whether there's a platform available for everyone to speak. I understand why a business doesn't want to allow all content, but there should be a way for even the most heinous among us to voice their opinions, so that those opinions can be subjected to scrutiny.

 

I disagree. Every opinion doesn't have a right to be heard, nor should every business have to provide a platform for every opinion. I think removal of a person/opinion should be done only in extreme cases, but businesses still have to have that right.

 

And I realize there's a component of my argument that argues in favor of bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for gay patrons, something I'm against. But I think there's gray area there.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
Just now, Landlord said:

 

 

And in a situation like huskerboard, which is very small and one of a million options, then those kinds of private rules are totally fine. But in a situation where a company completely runs and has monopoly on a country, that wouldn't be so fine. Facebook/insta/youtube/twitter are somewhere in between. I understand first amendment rights pertaining to the government, that's not what I'm talking about. When non-governmental establishments get so big and have that much pragmatic power to silence people based on their own ideologies, that gives me great pause. 

 

I understand, and I think you're right to be cautious. But there are many places where these people can still disseminate their information, places that won't kick them out. They're free to pick one and get the word out to their audience.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The issue is whether there's a platform available for everyone to speak. I understand why a business doesn't want to allow all content, but there should be a way for even the most heinous among us to voice their opinions, so that those opinions can be subjected to scrutiny.

They can fill out a form and go on the steps of the capital building.  They can create their own websites that people can still go to.

 

This is nothing more than the bar asking the drunk butthead to leave.  He doesn't have to stop being drunk and rude, he just has to do it somewhere else, preferably at home where people would have to seek him out....

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The issue is whether there's a platform available for everyone to speak. I understand why a business doesn't want to allow all content, but there should be a way for even the most heinous among us to voice their opinions, so that those opinions can be subjected to scrutiny.

 

No.  It's not in the constitution that every human being must have the ability to go on a website and say whatever they want.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, funhusker said:

They can fill out a form and go on the steps of the capital building.  They can create their own websites that people can still go to.

 

This is nothing more than the bar asking the drunk butthead to leave.  He doesn't have to stop being drunk and rude, he just has to do it somewhere else, preferably at home where people would have to seek him out....

Those are good points.

 

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I disagree. Every opinion doesn't have a right to be heard, nor should every business have to provide a platform for every opinion. I think removal of a person/opinion should be done only in extreme cases, but businesses still have to have that right.

 

And I realize there's a component of my argument that argues in favor of bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for gay patrons, something I'm against. But I think there's gray area there.

First, you're confusing "right to be heard" with "right to express". The first isn't a right under the 1st Amendment, the second one is. Second, you're talking about businesses, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Private enterprises are not under the same 1st Amendment considerations that the government is.

 

What I'm talking about is the larger context of what forums are available for free speech. The question I'm asking is: should we as a society simply ban the things that we don't like to be said by handing over the public forums of our day to private companies? And I think the answer to that should be: no. We need to be careful not to stifle free speech under the guise of handing over our public discourse to the private sector.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Those are good points.

 

First, you're confusing "right to be heard" with "right to express". The first isn't a right under the 1st Amendment, the second one is. Second, you're talking about businesses, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Private enterprises are not under the same 1st Amendment considerations that the government is. 

 

What I'm talking about is the larger context of what forums are available for free speech. The question I'm asking is: should we as a society simply ban the things that we don't like to be said by handing over the public forums of our day to private companies? And I think the answer to that should be: no. We need to be careful not to stifle free speech under the guise of handing over our public discourse to the private sector. 

 

Generally, I'd agree that the 1A should give anybody the right to say anything, short of inciting violence. If you lie, someone else can sue you. If you express gross opinions, you pay a societal penalty. Say what you want, but face the consequences. I realize this right doesn't extend to private social media platforms, but it should.

 

The other part of this situation is more problematic. These people all used the guise of 1A protection to express blatant bullsh#t & conspiracy theories which poison and radicalize the minds of Americans, thus harming our democracy and damaging public safety. Need I remind anyone some whackjob showed up to a pizza parlor armed to the teeth because of a far-right conspiracy theory? This is dangerous, toxic stuff for our society.

 

I think ultimately I'm in favor of increased governmental oversight & scrutiny of these social media platforms to crack down on conspiracy theories and deliberate disinformation. I realize this stands in contrast to promoting a broad pro-1A environment, but I don't trust these companies to do so. Their chief concern is NOT promoting healthy dialogue on their platforms, it's making money. As with most ventures, too much focus strictly on profit with too little oversight has a corrupting effect. The government could theoretically both mitigate violent hatespeak online and prevent election interference from hostile nations like Russia. It would just have to be effected carefully.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It will be interesting to watch and see if any of those people file lawsuits claiming their first amendment rights are violated.

 

No one is taking away their right to say things, they can still say these things.  They are just taking away a platform.  Taking that platform away isn't a violation.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...