Regardless of content I don't want to live in a world where corporate interests censor me.
So join us in building open source alternatives.
Facebook takes down Britain First ads
21–30 of 136 posts
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ads for a Britain First petition to stop a mosque being built in Maidstone, Kent, appeared on Facebook over the Christmas period, despite the group being banned by the social network. > The three ads and the page on which they originated have now been removed, after BBC News contacted Facebook. I think it’s safe to say that the “to stop a mosque being built” is the important phrase here.
why is that hate speech? i don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech?
is your campaign against more churches being built part of an overall plan to drive christians out of your area?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#23I feel like this corporate censorship is awful for free speech. Specifically, because dividing people by beliefs/demographics increases tribalistic behaviour and the spread of misinformation.
I foresee a situation where we have multiple social networks, each with radically different social/political slants. Similar to what we've seen with things like Reddit and Voat.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#24As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
I agree with you here. Details of this particular issue aside - the chilling effects are likely to have a significant impact in the future. I don’t generally agree with censorship, but in cases where it’s needed I think it must be objective and not subjective. Eg. “i’ll know it when i see it”.
This is always going to be subjective because it has everything to do with the speaker's intent, not the actual words. Determining hate speech is almost always about fishing out intent that the speaker is very protective of.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#25Does anyone else remember when, circa ±2009, Zuckerberg used to frame Facebook as (in his words) a utility? What has happened since? The company grew and became more "normalized" and thus inline with the "company activist" model so prevalent today?
Among other things, they realised that being a utility would not be as profitable. Also, many of the people who work there legitimately don't want Facebook to be used as a tool to make the world a worse place.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#26As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
> Ads for a Britain First petition to stop a mosque being built in Maidstone, Kent, appeared on Facebook over the Christmas period, despite the group being banned by the social network. > The three ads and the page on which they originated have now been removed, after BBC News contacted Facebook. I think it’s safe to say that the “to stop a mosque being built” is the important phrase here.
> I think it’s safe to say
Why do you think it's that and not the fact they were banned before?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#27I've seen Britain First ads. While I disagree with their fearmongering, I think they went to great lengths to portray things in a nonviolent and "we Christians just want to make sure our children can still practice Christianity" way.
Really, though, this is beside the point. Just like whether the Internet should be regulated under Title I or Title II was beside the point. The point is that, when you're at a point where it's one or the other one-size-fits-all policy, it's a symptom of too much consolidation: the telcos / banks / platforms / whatever have become too big. It's a cartel.
Look, Facebook is becoming something much different than college social networks, or a "utility". Isn't it time for open source software that we can all move to, like the Web instead of AOL, or like Wordpress instead of Blogger.com ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI
Why are we, in 2018, still relying on giant centralized corporations to connect us and "allow" us to have our own (shocker) chatroom on their servers?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ads for a Britain First petition to stop a mosque being built in Maidstone, Kent, appeared on Facebook over the Christmas period, despite the group being banned by the social network. > The three ads and the page on which they originated have now been removed, after BBC News contacted Facebook. I think it’s safe to say that the “to stop a mosque being built” is the important phrase here.
why is that hate speech? i don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech?
It depends, why don't you want more churches built?
Because it's a Muslim church and you don't like them?
Because you're an anti-theist?
Because you don't like the noise?
Because you think their application for a zoning exception is shaky?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#29Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#30It is concerning that Britain First exist and have the support they do. It's also concerning that Facebook has the power to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to the most popular form of free speech we have in the world today. These aren't mutually exclusive facts- they can both be true or false and you can agree or disagree with them to different levels. And I don't have an answer. I'm not even sure any ans…
Britain First have about as much support as Islam4UK which is to say not much.
The EDL was the real worry with membership peaking at 184,000 but today virtually none existent.
The majority of both groups appears to have merged into UKIP.