> "We thank the BBC.."
And why is BBC trying to portray that a canned email response is an official statement?
I don't doubt the matter at hand, but this is very sloppy journalism.
Facebook takes down Britain First ads
41–50 of 136 posts
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#42I 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.
How is that different than news papers or long-form magazines deciding what to report and what op-eds to publish?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#43It 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.
Which in turn has merged into the Conservative Party. Occasionally an MP or councillor is found posting in a hate group.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/zm8zb3/tory-mp-with-histo...
(Sometimes people claim they were added to the group without their knowledge or consent, which FB lets you do - this is a massive misfeature of the system!)
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#44Earlier 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).
Churches get de facto public financing to support their proselytizing. It's okay to have an opinion on whether we should subsidize more of them.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Curiously, is it better to be anti-theist than anti-Muslim? I have a feeling like I can be against religion, but not one religion.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#46I 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.
Free speech on the internet is a dream. Look at what happened while Reddit tried to advocate it - shitholes like coontown, dead girl fetishes, and a lot of other shit. That's "free speech" too. Everyone has their own standards at what is acceptable in online communities.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#47Anyone 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.
Also censored by payment processors and Big Tech collusion. Collusion met with indefensibly weak arguments of “just build your own”.
Build your own = shovel, lay cable, and found a bank before you get to your project, because Big Tech and Big Payment will cut you down if you say something they don’t like.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#48I 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.
Shitty mods have existed far longer than millenials.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#49Maybe it's time to realize that it's very hard to be objective and neutral. In this case, being objective and neutral is just giving the extremes a platform to promote themselves. Maybe sites like Facebook should try taking a "no politics" policy, or a policy where a political ad is always placed next to a free ad from the opposing side?
Then you have to come up with a definition of what is and isn't politics - is a poll about whether you do or do not want a mosque built political? Is paying for an advertisement to sign a petition (about not building a mosque) political?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#50Earlier 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).
Objectively, lots of our business. Mainly because what is done behind closed doors rarely stays behind closed doors, and also because of said crimes that can occur behind closed doors.
Ie, I can't sit behind closed doors and commit horrible crimes against humans and then claim "What business is it of yours?".
That of course is not to say that we don't have some right to privacy, to independence and etc. Yet, standing behind a claim of "what happens behind closed doors is none of your business" seems to willfully ignore so much.