Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones among others from its site

[terry78]

Well this should spark something.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Man, I am just gonna sit back and watch this one...

 

[Schlosser85]

Took them long enough.

 

[Sithborg]

Long time coming.

Dollars to donuts that Twitter sees this as an opportunity.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Equal opportunity bozo banning.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

So I guess its just the actual big names themselves. I just checked out a Minister Mohammad from the Nation and he is still up with post about Minister Farrakhan and Elijah Muhammad all over his news feed.

 

[jmc]

They'll find other platforms, their fans will follow then, which IMO makes this decision pointless. The real problem is the arbitrary nature companies like Facebook enforce their rules. We've got a situation where billion dollar companies are trying to act like both a platform and a broadcaster, whilst simultaneously trying to say they are neither, whilst having no consistency in terms of what can actually be posted. The algorithms don't work because they are either too strict or too loose, as Twitter admitted as much recently. At some point a decision is going to have to be made about these companies and exactly what responsibility they have in terms of content and in terms of freedom of expression, or whether they should even have said responsibility in the first place.

 

[Sithborg]

Except, as Milo's apparent financial problems shows, deplatforming works. Yes, they will still have some following them, but deplatform them, you cut out most of their reach.

The tech companies have already made the call, though. Allow it until it is not financially viable to keep them. Though Dorsey is clearly sympathetic to racists.

 

[Teelie]

I think the racists are still financially viable to Dorsey which is why he hasn't kicked them off yet. If he did though, he would also have to deal with Trump and he's not about to lose that cash cow.

 

[jmc]

The reason Twitter hasn't taken the same steps is because they've said they would inadvertently ban users who lean right because there's overlap in terms of ideology with guys like Alex Jones. That said, there's still an arbitrary system in place with these companies for dealing with people who's views are controversial. People might cheer for this but the reality is it's a slippery slope silencing people when so many people who don't share the companies views are using their platforms. We're getting to the stage now where we have to have honest conversations about what exactly companies like Facebook are. They can't be both a platform and a broadcaster. It can't call itself the digital town centre whilst kicking people off. I don't like the idea of them becoming a public utility, but on the other hand I do know them having so much sway as to what so people can and can't say is not good for society. So, we need some nuanced conversations about it.

 

[writer0327]

The reason Twitter hasn't taken the same steps is because they've said they would inadvertently ban users who lean right because there's overlap in terms of ideology with guys like Alex Jones. That said, there's still an arbitrary system in place with these companies for dealing with people who's views are controversial. People might cheer for this but the reality is it's a slippery slope silencing people when so many people who don't share the companies views are using their platforms. We're getting to the stage now where we have to have honest conversations about what exactly companies like Facebook are. They can't be both a platform and a broadcaster. It can't call itself the digital town centre whilst kicking people off. I don't like the idea of them becoming a public utility, but on the other hand I do know them having so much sway as to what so people can and can't say is not good for society. So, we need some nuanced conversations about it.

Yeah its getting to the point that social media platforms are showing that they aren't vehicles to express your freedoms. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are businesses at the end of the day and if you are looking for a platform for public discourse that will not censor its users, I'm not even sure where you would go. Its a dangerous precedent they are setting.

 

[Donner]

Right, because calling on your followers to stalk and harass the parents of the Sandy Hook victims is expressing "freedoms."

Alex Jones has no business being on social media and I'm more than happy that he's been banned.

People can argue all they want that a person can't be held responsible for what their fans do, but he actively encouraged that nonsense. He crossed the line into Manson brainwash territory.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah its getting to the point that social media platforms are showing that they aren't vehicles to express your freedoms. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are businesses at the end of the day and if you are looking for a platform for public discourse that will not censor its users, I'm not even sure where you would go. Its a dangerous precedent they are setting.

It's actually not. It's an expression of the free market and well within the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. Say what you want. You do not have a right for someone else to provide you with a platform to disseminate your speech.

This forum allows you to express yourself within the rules they have set. Do not abide by them and as a private entity they can choose to deny you use of this platform. There is no constitutional right enumerated that says you can force a private company to give you a platform to express yourself.

Otherwise many a screenplay writer would be able to force a movie studio to make their film. A comedian can have whatever act they choose but they can't force a comedy club to book them for a performance. You can write a book but you can't force a publisher to put it out for sale by claiming your free speech is being violated.

 

[jmc]

This forum doesn't cater to billions of people though. The issue we have is a small group of people have an extraordinary amount of leverage over what billions of people can and can't say and do on their platform, whilst adamantly trying to say they are not responsible for their users content. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The rules that are in place were never meant to cater to this type of scale in terms of customers nor social impact, so the idea companies can simply hide behind the idea they are free to do as they please to their users doesn't hold the water it once did. If Facebook, Twitter, etc are not a platform for user generated content, nor a broadcaster, then we need to figure out what it actually is and what its responsibilities are, and at the moment we don't actually know.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This forum doesn't cater to billions of people though. The issue we have is a small group of people have an extraordinary amount of leverage over what billions of people can and can't say and do on their platform, whilst adamantly trying to say they are not responsible for their users content. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The rules that are in place were never meant to cater to this type of scale in terms of customers nor social impact, so the idea companies can simply hide behind the idea they are free to do as they please to their users doesn't hold the water it once did. If Facebook, Twitter, etc are not a platform for user generated content, nor a broadcaster, then we need to figure out what it actually is and what its responsibilities are, and at the moment we don't actually know.

Movie studios do cater to billions. Can I write a film and force them to make it? How about a semi-reasonable option... Can I make a film in total and force a studio to distribute it? If they don't want to put my finished film into theaters or on an online streaming entity can I claim my free speech is being violated?

 

[jmc]

Movie studios do cater to billions. Can I write a film and force them to make it? How about a semi-reasonable option... Can I make a film in total and force a studio to distribute it? If they don't want to put my finished film into theaters or on an online streaming entity can I claim my free speech is being violated?

Films studios are content creators not a platform. Facebook is not a content creator, but it does encourages user generated content. So, is Facebook a broadcaster or a platform for users to publish their own work? The answer is we don't know because they themselves won't commit one way or the other. And this goes for Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, etc, So, if we don't have a clear idea of what these companies are, and they won't commit one way or the other, then the rules that currently exist are not sufficient enough to contend with what we're dealing with.

 

[Donner]

James Woods isn't banned. Twitter will restore his account if he deletes the #HangThemAll tweet. He's refusing to do so.

 

[Sithborg]

Twitter and Facebook fight Isis content. Is that restricting freedoms? Is fighting racism, sexism, and bigotry in general restricting freedoms?

And really, when you deplatform that kid of content, and it hits a particular political group hard, some self reflection needs to be had. But, then again, Fox News is giving prime time air to full on white supremacists.

Dorsey isn't interested in fighting it, because he clearly has sympathy with it.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Films studios are content creators not a platform. Facebook is not a content creator, but it does encourages user generated content. So, is Facebook a broadcaster or a platform for users to publish their own work? The answer is we don't know because they themselves won't commit one way or the other. And this goes for Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, etc, So, if we don't have a clear idea of what these companies are, and they won't commit one way or the other, then the rules that currently exist are not sufficient enough to contend with what we're dealing with.

Studips distribute films all the time they do not produce. They are a "platform". You're dancing around the question at the heart of the matter. What rights do private entities have to decide what they will put out?

How can I force a private entity to publish what I want and circumvent the free market system?

I'm not saying the issue that is at hand has no nuanced questions at play but at the end of the day what I'm bringing up is at the heart of the matter. Do you have an individual right to make a private entity do what you want in a direct manner outside of pressure from the free market?

Is it actually infringing on free speech if a privately held company makes a decision not to put your content out? Because if that is your arguement then the other examples I stated are a go. And that is not ever happening.

 

[writer0327]

Films studios are content creators not a platform. Facebook is not a content creator, but it does encourages user generated content. So, is Facebook a broadcaster or a platform for users to publish their own work? The answer is we don't know because they themselves won't commit one way or the other. And this goes for Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, etc, So, if we don't have a clear idea of what these companies are, and they won't commit one way or the other, then the rules that currently exist are not sufficient enough to contend with what we're dealing with.

Studios can create content as well as distribute content. I think the comparison was meant to be regarding distribution and to that point, I agree that Facebook, Twitter and other social networks and platforms are under no obligation to distribute someone's views because they are private companies. But the point is the arbitrary nature of their rule enforcement.

If they applied their rules equally across the board without fail, okay fair play. But as it currently stands, it seems as if they are trying to silence those they wish to silence or who have the largest audience. It says..."We don't really have a problem with you unless you're popular."

 

[Teelie]

Yeah its getting to the point that social media platforms are showing that they aren't vehicles to express your freedoms. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are businesses at the end of the day and if you are looking for a platform for public discourse that will not censor its users, I'm not even sure where you would go. Its a dangerous precedent they are setting.

Gab I think it is called. Alt-Right and their ilk have their own platform to spew their hatred. Pretty sure they don't like anyone on their platform who has a liberal lean though. Problem solved.

 

[Lily Adler]

The Deep State strikes again using Uncle Sam's money to influence Zuckerberg to do their Obama agenda. SAD!

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

It looks like the fight's on. At least from NoI followers. Snoop Dogg has encouraged folks to mine YouTube and the website to post Minister Farrakhan content, under the theory that they can't ban us all.

 

[Teelie]

As far as I know Farrakhan and NOI still believe caucasians are literally "white devils" who were created by a scientist named Yakub.

True beliefs there.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

That is true, then again the NoI has a bunch of major pop music stars who claim, or in the past claimed allegiance with them. Snoop himself has publicly been with them, the Rastafarians and last year did a Christian Gospel album. So in a free speech matter banning Minister Farrakhan would be like banning a Pope or the Mormon President.

I do wonder if the social media giants can withstand that heat if other celebrity followers, which the others on the banned list don't have, join Snoop Dogg.