Jump to content


Facebook & Instagram ban extremist accounts


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Size of a platform has nothing to do with being unconstitutional.

 

37 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Facebook curbing hate speech leading to a world where Donald Trump was not elected seems like a pretty good idea to me.

 

Yes. AND, this conversation has nothing to do with the constitution, at least as it pertains to First Amendment rights.

 

 

Yeah I'm not the one bringing the constitution up. It's not part of my argument. The only thing interesting to me about the Constitution in this discussion is if the Constitution allows for this trajectory I think there's a possibility it needs to be changed.

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Yeah I'm not the one bringing the constitution up. It's not part of my argument. The only thing interesting to me about the Constitution in this discussion is if the Constitution allows for this trajectory I think there's a possibility it needs to be changed.

 

But why would the size of the platform make any difference in whether they can remove certain users for violating the terms of service?  Where is the cutoff from when the platform gets to 'that size'?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

But why would the size of the platform make any difference in whether they can remove certain users for violating the terms of service?  Where is the cutoff from when the platform gets to 'that size'?

 

Not to put words in @RedDenver or @Landlord's mouths, but I kinda get the impression that the ubiquitousness of the platforms makes them feel a sense of societal ownership over them.

 

Is that fair to say or am I misunderstanding that?

Link to comment

I can't remember what thread or poster it was, but  there was a post about Disney removing "Song of the South" from their streaming service because they felt the content wasn't appropriate for their brand.  @Landlord, do you think Disney was overstepping any boundaries?  

 

Although I could still find a copy of the film, it would absolutely be easier if I could just stream it on Disney's app along with "The Little Mermaid".

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

Yeah I'm not the one bringing the constitution up. It's not part of my argument. The only thing interesting to me about the Constitution in this discussion is if the Constitution allows for this trajectory I think there's a possibility it needs to be changed.

 

But, the constitutional freedom of free speech is the only arguments someone could possibly make to why Facebook, Instagram or Twitter can not ban these people.  The argument would be that by being banned, these social media outlets are harming their ability to voice their opinions.

 

Now, that's an opinion I do not agree with.

 

If we are not having a discussion that involves the constitution and free speech, what grounds are you standing on to say these sites shouldn't be allowed to do that?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Is this not a similar story? A private business declines an organization the ability to use their platform to publish their message.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, appeared on Wednesday's CBN Newswatch program to talk about Saturday's "Alive From New York" event and why he thinks some companies are afraid to lease Time Square's jumbotron screens to the ministry. 

 

Focus on the Family reports three companies have denied its request to buy billboard space on New York City's Times Square.

 

The ministry has been planning the "Alive from New York" event for Saturday, May 4, to show 4-D images of unborn babies in the womb. 

 

The move was launched in response to New York state's radical new abortion law that allows abortion of viable babies right up until the moment of birth. 

 

Focus on the Family President Jim Daly wrote in his online blog: "It's a confirmation of what we've long known. There are many people who don't want the world to see these images of pre-born life because the abortion industry is predicated on a lie -- namely that a baby is just a blob of tissue inside the womb. It's not. It's a baby."

 

"In response to this flat-out discrimination, we've decided to bring in our own digital billboards," he continued. "In other words, the show will go on!"

 

 

 

 

Which reminds me of this:

 

 

Quote

 

Atheist billboard in Nebraska removed amid boycott threats

A billboard, sponsored by the Lincoln Atheists and which read, "The Good Life Without God? It's possible," has been taken down by the advertising company after local residents threatened to boycott businesses in the area.

 

The signage was to stay up at Subway-Phillips 66 in Lincoln, Nebraska, until Nov. 10, according to the contract the Lincoln Atheists signed with Lamar Advertising, but it was brought down earlier this week, Lincoln Journal Star reported.

 

The billboard was taken down after several residents threatened to stop doing business at the gas station and store, whose space the advertising company used for the signage.

 

The advertising company says it has to respect what the landowners, upon which the company leases space, want. "At this point, we're just going to refund them all of their money, even though they got some display time," Scott Morton, general manager of Lamar's Lincoln branch, was quoted as saying.

 

"We are grateful for the work Lamar did for us and with us, but we are disappointed that we don't get an equal platform to share ideas," Shawn Capler, marketing director of the atheist group, was quoted as saying. "I think a group like ours is necessary because not everyone is religious, but I think everyone needs a community. We'd like to think that we provide community for those without any religious beliefs."

 

 

 

 

In all of these circumstances, private businesses determined that they would not allow certain messages on their platform.

 

The Focus on the Family folks are going an alternate route to get their message out. Their speech isn't being curtailed, it's just being forced to choose a different delivery method.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, knapplc said:

So, you have a bad actor spewing hate speech. This is, objectively, a bad thing that can lead to people being hurt or killed.

 

What's your solution? No impingement on that speech, at all? And that's fair to the victims of people radicalized by that hate speech that you could have, but did not, curb?

I would not curb that speech unless it was a direct threat of violence or slander. Let them spew their hate, and we can counter that with our own forms of speech. You continue to not address the slippery slope of censorship, which is IMO much, much more serious than the hate speech itself.

 

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK....should anyone be allowed to come on Huskerboard and spew whatever crap they want without getting banned or kicked off?

Again (and not just to you BRB but other posters as well), I'm not saying that Huskerboard, Twitter, or any other non-government entity cannot or should not exercise censorship.

 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

Not to put words in @RedDenver or @Landlord's mouths, but I kinda get the impression that the ubiquitousness of the platforms makes them feel a sense of societal ownership over them.

 

Is that fair to say or am I misunderstanding that?

I guess it depends what you mean by societal ownership. The ubiquitousness of the platforms is a factor but certainly not the only one. I'm not giving a solution but rather asking if this is an issue:

 

Do we as a society want to allow public discourse to be censored by private entities?

 

I'm not sure how much of an issue this is and what are the best ways to address it.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I would not curb that speech unless it was a direct threat of violence

 

Hi. It's 2019. A brief viewing of the news will show you that this hate speech has turned to action in the past few years.

 

1Zy9647.png

 

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Do we as a society want to allow public discourse to be censored by private entities?

 

We already allow that. I've posted a few examples above. We've allowed that since... the day this country was founded.

 

Hate speech leads to hate violence. The best way to address it is to keep the hate speech as hard to access as possible.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

My trainer went on a tangent today about how Louis Farrakan is just an actor and the real problem is that he's so good people buy into it.  That he hasn't actually instigated anything.  So he shouldn't be impacted by this.

 

I was speechless - where do  you start with that?  

Link to comment

28 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

My trainer went on a tangent today about how Louis Farrakan is just an actor and the real problem is that he's so good people buy into it.  That he hasn't actually instigated anything.  So he shouldn't be impacted by this.

 

I was speechless - where do  you start with that?  

is this the only issue from your trainers lobotomy?

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

My trainer went on a tangent today about how Louis Farrakan is just an actor and the real problem is that he's so good people buy into it.  That he hasn't actually instigated anything.  So he shouldn't be impacted by this.

 

I was speechless - where do  you start with that?  

I have a former co-worker who posts a lot of Farrakan news/links/memes.  He also posts a bunch of stuff about racist America and how there is a master plan to eradicate black people.

 

I'm interested to see what his reaction will be to this...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

My trainer went on a tangent today about how Louis Farrakan is just an actor and the real problem is that he's so good people buy into it.  That he hasn't actually instigated anything.  So he shouldn't be impacted by this.

 

I was speechless - where do  you start with that?  

 

By finding a new trainer.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I share a moderately similar opinion to @Landlord in that I'm not really a fan of this, but I'm not a fan because I think it's disappointing that the situation has evolved to this, if that makes sense. If push comes to shove, it's probably a good idea to prevent dangerous extremists from pushing misinformation, but I don't think it means I have to like that this is where we're at.

 

I have mixed emotions about a massively influential voice like Facebook having to curate content to this degree - these social media platforms do have a monopoly on public discourse. There is no "alternative," at least in terms of effectiveness. I'm not necessarily blaming them for it because they're operating in a playing field where they know the rules and have executed their strategy to relative perfection. But, I don't think it makes it any less uncomfortable.

 

The trouble is that you can't violate anti-trust laws simply for having a superior product or for being first. The fact that Facebook and Google have such a powerful influence is really to their credit.

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I share a moderately similar opinion to @Landlord in that I'm not really a fan of this, but I'm not a fan because I think it's disappointing that the situation has evolved to this, if that makes sense. If push comes to shove, it's probably a good idea to prevent dangerous extremists from pushing misinformation, but I don't think it means I have to like that this is where we're at. 

  

I have mixed emotions about a massively influential voice like Facebook having to curate content to this degree - these social media platforms do have a monopoly on public discourse. There is no "alternative," at least in terms of effectiveness. I'm not necessarily blaming them for it because they're operating in a playing field where they know the rules and have executed their strategy to relative perfection. But, I don't think it makes it any less uncomfortable.

 

The trouble is that you can't violate anti-trust laws simply for having a superior product or for being first. The fact that Facebook and Google have such a powerful influence is really to their credit.

 

 

I would think you and @Landlord, who has been a Mod at other sites, would see this pretty clearly. They're modding their sites just like you do here, and LL did/does there.

 

When you have to silence someone it's not (always) an easy decision, and you're going to trample on someone's feelings. The decision is always the lesser of two evils.

 

I agree with you two, and @RedDenver, that this should not be taken lightly, and is not necessarily a good development. It's a sign of our times, and it's, unfortunately, necessary.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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