31–40 of 136 posts
As 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.
A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.
Earlier 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?
Yes. What business is it of yours what people do behind closed doors?
(EDIT: assuming that behavior is otherwise law-abiding, in compliance with building codes, etc).
I 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.
They are new and don't understand- Its time to move off facebook.
Same reason I'm here instead of reddit.
Anyone remembers how the internet was going to liberate the expression, instead we got two, three bottlenecks manned (or is it personed?) by censors actively supported by the MSM and virtually the entire university system.
Facebook executives are disrespectful and duplicitous but this is hardly an existential contradiction of the concept of the free and open web. If people choose a corporate platform with corporate censorship then the real problem is that no one is offering a better alternative.
As 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.
Does this mean countries with nascent independence movements will be able to declare these movements "hate speech"? I don't see much difference. Let's say Chiapas rebels or Puerto Rico or Scotts’ Independence movement want to seek independence, can the government declare that hate speech and have all that taken down? If this argument sticks, I can’t see why the above isn’t in similar vein.
I remember when the UK banned Sinn Fein from appearing on TV, including their actual elected MPs, resulting in the ridiculous "words read by an actor" workaround.
As 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.
As 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 struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement. A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.
What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed. There is no racism or exclusion based on a person's ethnicity here.
Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti catholic?
I 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.
It seems like this is the first time non millennials had to deal with 'shitty mods'. They are new and don't understand- Its time to move off facebook. Same reason I'm here instead of reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is that hate speech? i don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech?
I don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech? Yes. What business is it of yours what people do behind closed doors? (EDIT: assuming that behavior is otherwise law-abiding, in compliance with building codes, etc).
Besides, there are valid reasons to be against the building of a church near your house - noise for example (church bells, prayer songs).
As 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.
> revert the UK back 50 years In what way?