Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

Post by rahuldottech » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:35 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #590

ilikehurdles wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter'…

> Monopolies of what, exactly? In many smaller countries Facebook is nearly synonymous with the internet itself.

Post by dang » Fri, May 03, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

emilfihlman wrote: post #515

iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so…

Post by wolco » Fri, May 03, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #586

chii wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monopolies of what, exactly? Monopoly on platform reach. The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. It's as if they own the radio spectrum, and you have to acquiesce to what they demand to use said spectrum. Of course, i am free to use smoke signals to send my message, but who will receive it?

>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

Post by KozmoNau7 » Fri, May 03, 2019, 6:18 AM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #17

maximus1983 wrote: post #2

I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the…

I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. And also, I may end up censored anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark protecting me.

Post by Creationer » Fri, May 03, 2019, 6:24 AM UTC

Veen wrote: post #64

cm2012 wrote: post #31

This is awesome news. Deplatforming works and these guys are so blatantly harmful.

Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?