Facebook Bans All QAnnon!

[Preety_India]

Facebook is not fascist. It's just a mirror. 

It reflects people's opinions and needs. 

So it is a reflection of the decision of the people by proxy. 

In a way its people who took this decision. 

Facebook simply reflected it. 

 

 

 

[No Self]

5 hours ago, datamonster said:

This shouldn't have come from FB. A company shouldn't be the arbitrator for freedom of speech. This is what we have a democratically elected government for, not Mark Zuckerberg.

So you'd like the Trump administration to dictate what is or is not allowable on social media? That could be interesting.

[Adam M]

My girlfriend is in a group chat with many ppl who are deeply into QAnon.

Basically, this mass banning just adds fuel to the fire...

QAnonners see this mass banning as more proof that they are on the right track!

"They don't want to truth to get out! They are censoring us because they know that we are spreading Truth!"

 

That's the narrative.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Adam M

[Adam M]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Obviously! If you own a restaurant and a racist walks in the door with a sign that say "I hate black people" -- it is your responsibility as the business owner to take action, or your customers will start to hate your business.

Considering the massive global influence of apps like Facebook or even YouTube (and Google).

Do you think it would be better for these platforms to be seen as public services that can be moderated by the government? Considering that having these platforms moderated privately could lead to corruption problems?

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Adam M said:

My girlfriend is in a group chat with many ppl who are deeply into QAnon.

Basically, this mass banning just adds fuel to the fire...

QAnonners see this mass banning as more proof that they are on the right track!

"They don't want to truth to get out! They are censoring us because they know that we are spreading Truth!"

 

That's the narrative.

That's always the narrative, and it doesn't really matter.

[Yog]

Its in our nature to think that if we put something in the dark it wont exist.

Its there, but you cant see it.

Its there. but you wont be able to talk to it.
Its there but it wont want to talk to you.
Its there, but you cant hear it.
Its there, its radicalizing.
its there, its growing.
it there, ever-twisting.

Its there, but you can't see it.

For you have turned the lights off.
For you have locked the door.

Deaf and blind.
Blue cheese and wine.

Damn I am so goth tonight...

Edited October 8, 2020 by Yog

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Yog said:

Its in our nature to think that if we put something in the dark it wont exist.

That's not the point. If you put something in the dark, you won't see it.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Yog]

@Carl-Richard

Yea... that's what my little poem is about. You don't see it, but its there...

Its something humans like to do and it ends up biting them in the but.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Yog

[Opo]

36 minutes ago, Adam M said:

My girlfriend is in a group chat with many ppl who are deeply into QAnon.

Basically, this mass banning just adds fuel to the fire...

QAnonners see this mass banning as more proof that they are on the right track!

"They don't want to truth to get out! They are censoring us because they know that we are spreading Truth!"

 

That's the narrative.

If an eagle took a shit on their heads they would think it's God sending them signals. 

They are already gone, what's important is to stop exposing new people to that shit and this will help with that. 

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Yog said:

@Carl-Richard

Yea... that's what my little poem is about. You don't see it, but its there...

It's there... in the dark, where it belongs.

[Preety_India]

It's there in the dark and it should stay in the dark with other forms of darkness 

We're clean of it.. Dark entity removed. Goblin. 

 

[Yog]

I am generally onboard with this. In a somewhat sad way,

I was just referring to the mechanisms trough which it will come back in a form more powerful and unrecognizable to most. It will also serve as a recruiting, polarizing and uniting agent. It will polarize if its left as it is, it will polarize if its banned. So you are damned if you do, you are damned if you don't.

It looks like a never ending yo-yo game to me. Sadly we have to stick with it for the time being. So in this sense I do support it, but I see that its a yo-yo. In that spirit I wouldn't celibate any of these bans.

[Space Coyote]

15 hours ago, datamonster said:

To make it very clear: The problem for me is not that Q has been banned. It is the fact that Facebook, a profit-oriented company led by people nobody voted for, gets to arbitrate about what can and cannot be said.

We have a democratic government that is supposed to be in charge of this. And we are supposed to be able to participate in these matters by electing our representatives. 

No, we most certainly do NOT! Never have, we have a First Amendment that prohibits our government and our representatives from being in charge of these things. They are very much, very explicitly, NOT supposed to be in charge of these thing, this is literally amendment  #1 . You act like a cocky know it all saying Mark and Facebook are above the law when in fact they are in fact protected by the law.  It is Mark's decisions to ban Q that is protected under law not Q being on his platform. 

You are argument depends on conflating a right to speech with a right to someone else platform. Facebook is a private platform (in regard to constitutionally first amendment law, your silly word games are irrelevant here.) Facebook has the constitutionally protected right to decide who gets to speak on its platform (this is part of their speech rights); none does have or has ever had a constitutional right to be on someone else platform.  Platforms do always, have always and will always have the right to decide who get to be on their platform not the government.

Shouldn't have come from Facebook???? Under the First it can only come from facebook. I get you really really want there to be some magical legal expectation for really big platforms but there isn't any. And there shouldn't If there where the government could force FOX News to air Rachael Maddow and MSNBC to host Rush Limbaugh. 

Also, our constitutional "participation" in this matter is extremely limited and far removed at best. This is not our call or even our representatives’ call; this is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. You could pack both Congress the White House with clones of datamosther and the Supreme Court based would still declare all of datamosther's "the government is in charge of this" bills unconstitutional. Again the 1st amendment and over 200 hundred years of legal percent are abundantly clear on this, 

tl;dr: Everything you say is not a glitch it is the US Constitutional working as intended.  If you want to rewrite the Constitutional ,fine, but at least be honest about it and stop trying to deceive (mostly likely yourself) with word games about irrelevant economic definitions of private and public lol. 

Quote

 

FB nowadays has the power to shape public opinion, election results, freedom of speech and more. Now they took one more step to exercise that power. And everybody is happy because they used to towards a good end.

If they will keep using it responsibly in the future, that is the question. And right now there is no mechanism that would ensure that

 

False, we have the same mechanism we have always had to deal with private companies that abuse their free speech rights.  Don't. Use. Their. Product/ Service. People act like FB is some sort of essential service and not a completely optionally part of 99% of people lives. One that 99% of that 99% would likely benefit from using less.  It is logically and logistically one of the easiest things for most people here to give up, but psychologically one of the hardest.  The deeper structural problem is not Facebook it the human dopamine addicted monkey mind.

People shouldn't be getting any important information from Facebook in the first place, Using the worst sources of information has become normalized. This is a very difficult problem to reverse, made worse by the fact that it not even acknowledged as being a problem. "I read on Facebook" should gainer the same look as "I read in a 99-cent supermarket checkout tabloid". "Social media" is structurally designed in ways that make them the ultimate mis-information, confirmation bias, echo cambers. No amount of regulation is going to change these underlining structures. We need to stop debating what Facebook  is doing and ask ourselves what are we doing on Facebook. We have to become wise enough to use social media differently then we currently are.  This is a price of freedom we the public bare the responsibility of using or not using Facebook if we disagree with their decisions. 

I'll take this one step further; your stance is ultimately a pro-facebook and pro-Mark paradigm. Imagine the hammer industry suddenly convinced everyone to use hammers to drive in screws. Your stance is: "Yes but we need regulation on using hammer for screws". The hammer industry already won when it convinced people to use the wrong tool for the job. I'll defended Facebook right to speech and advocate no one listen to whatever the hell it is they are saying. Close the app, find better resources and uses for your time; stop using a hammer for screws. 

Aside: Everyone Read Digital Minimalism by Cal New Port.

No one is forcing anyone to use Facebook here. No one is pointing a gun at anyone's head. It amazing that you are so concerned about the slippery sloppy of corporate control of their own platforms that you willing to give completely unprecedent control to the government aka that which can point guns at people heads to get them to do stuff... 

tl;dr (part duex): …while FB power is a real concern your cure is far worse than the disease. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Space Coyote

[Opaltri]

I would love to see how fast you all change your opinions if spirituality without hard facts would be banned , because there are plenty of reasons to do it. 

[Space Coyote]

53 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Agreed. Certainly content advocating the use of illegal substances such as psychedelics, for example ?

@Space Coyote Alright let's FB and big tech just do whatever they want completely unchecked. What could possibly go wrong?

Alright let just let the government censor everything unchecked. What could possibly go wrong?  See, I can make strawmen too. 
I literally said "no one listen to whatever the hell it is they are saying. Close the app, find better resources and uses for your time;".

Popularizing the idea of digital minimalism which I already mentioned would do more to depower Facebook than government regulations ever could, (and wouldn't  require rewriting the Constitution to do it.) You want to give Facebook a slap on the wrist (while effectively tearing up the constitution to do it); I want to stab it in the heart.  Again your more pro-facebook then I am and can't even see it.

[BlackPhil]

The left very much have themselves to blame for Trump being this popular. I mean how stupid can you get? By calling everyone who disagrees with you a nazi/white supremacist, censoring right wingers, rioting, blaming all cops or all white people for the actions of one guy, making up easily dubunkable lies and overstatements by Trump in MSM and overall acting like a bunch of irrational, unconscious degenerates you are just making people sympathize with Trump more! 

No way this many "normal" people would support Trump if it wasnt for the behaviour of the leftist and MSM lies.

I know many people who use to be trumphating democrats, hippies pretty much, who are now voting Trump just because of the leftists stupidity.

Im not a fan of Trump myself so this is painful to watch... sometimes it even feels like the left and MSM wants Trump to win using some reverse psychology, if not the stupidity is just on another level...

 

[No Self]

4 minutes ago, BlackPhil said:

Im not a fan of Trump myself so this is painful to watch... sometimes it even feels like the left and MSM wants Trump to win using some reverse psychology, if not the stupidity is just on another level...

The problem is that there have always been lunatics on the extremes of the political spectrum. Much of right-wing propaganda is dedicated to conflating left-wing lunatics with rational centre-left punters, and vice versa. This disproportionate coverage of political extremes is one of the many political crimes that Facebook has been guilty of, for it has effectively helped to radicalise a substantial percentage of the population. We have been inching towards terrorism being completely mainstream, of which right-wing terrorism is historically far more deadly for some reason.

[BlackPhil]

16 minutes ago, No Self said:

The problem is that there have always been lunatics on the extremes of the political spectrum. Much of right-wing propaganda is dedicated to conflating left-wing lunatics with rational centre-left punters, and vice versa. This disproportionate coverage of political extremes is one of the many political crimes that Facebook has been guilty of, for it has effectively helped to radicalise a substantial percentage of the population. We have been inching towards terrorism being completely mainstream, of which right-wing terrorism is historically far more deadly for some reason.

Thing is this censoring/cancel tactic isnt working, its stupid. As soon as the left or any tech company censors any rightwinger/group the pro right media and people will make this big headlines. Then the fact that people are hearing that the trump-side are getting censored by bigtech will make them support that side way more than any propaganda qanon or any other group could push. 

[Leo Gura]

Giant tech companies and social media platforms definitely require serious federal regulation and guidelines.

The wild west days of the internet are over.

[Preety_India]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Giant tech companies and social media platforms definitely require serious federal regulation and guidelines.

What do you mean? 

You mean that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to ban Qannon?