Facebook deleted this Trump ad - Censorship? Y/N?

9CC5DFF1-A24A-48C7-BEB4-AA6CE5AAA2C8.jpeg

Updated with statement by Facebook

Apparently the Nazis made political prisoners wear this red triangle on their uniforms in their concentration camps.

If yes then why? If no then why not?

The company said in a statement Thursday that the ads violated “our policy against organized hate." A Facebook executive who testified at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday said the company does not permit symbols of hateful ideology “unless they're put up with context or condemnation.”

“In a situation where we don't see either of those, we don't allow it on the platform and we remove it. That's what we saw in this case with this ad, and anywhere that that symbol is used, we would take the same action," Nathaniel Gleicher, the company's head of security policy, told lawmakers at a hearing.

How quaint. I am seeing many democrats in congress and people who vote for them cheering for censorship on the internet. In one of Caitlyn's recent essays she linked to a 3 yo article which showed Feinstein asking for more censorship after Trump became president. I will look for the link.

Even with the ads removed, Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, still face persistent criticism for not removing or labeling earlier posts by Trump that spread misinformation about voting by mail and, many said, encouraged violence against protesters during recent unrest in American cities.

Those questions arose anew during Thursday's hearing as Democrats pressed the executives about what moral obligations they felt they had when it came to content and about decisions they've made to remove, label or leave up false or incendiary posts.

It is interesting that no one in Trump's campaign asked for sites to be censored when they lied about Russia Gate for 3 damn long years.

Later Thursday, Twitter labeled a video Trump had posted as “manipulated media.” The president had tweeted a doctored video of two young children with a fake, misspelled CNN headline of “Terrified todler runs from racist baby.” For the first time last month, Twitter began flagging some of Trump's tweets with a fact-check warning.

With Thursday's hearing focused on the spread of disinformation tied to the 2020 election, the companies said they had not yet seen the same sort of concerted foreign influence campaigns like the one four years ago, when Russian sowed discord online by playing up divisive social issues.

Sorry for trouble editing this am.

Share
up
11 users have voted.

Comments

I generally do not feel that it is necessary to protect the public from examples of idiotic or baseless opinions. I suspect Trumps claim is right up there with the Russia! Russia! hype, but would not support censoring on that basis. Better to leave the chaff of public discourse for those who follow it to sort out.

God knows, we certainly need more exercise in discerning BS from information for ourselves rather than being spoon fed a more highly processed and homogeneous narrative version of reality. Credulity is not helpful, but neither is disinformation. We all need to be able to sort for ourselves, if we value the truth.

up
10 users have voted.

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Lookout's picture

And yes the ad is BS propaganda...and so was Russiagate which they promoted and pushed.

Jimmy had a fun discussion of censorship of conservative sites yesterday (41 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JGwR10UCA]

up
12 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

snoopydawg's picture

@Lookout

Thanks. Jimmy is right that there is a nefarious organization doing the fact checking. There is a few popping up related to UK government. PropOrNot and others didn't go away they just changed names.

Thanks!

up
7 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

snoopydawg's picture

@Lookout

Guess which website has this disclaimer in EVERY diary?

(This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Why? Because kos had to put that in them or daily kos would never make its way through the censors that decide whether diaries are truthful or not. I kid you not. He wrote a diary about this to explain why people were seeing it. Many of the front pagers get away with blatantly distorting articles that they excerpt. Just one from yesterday said that cops had the blue flu even though in the article the police spokesman said it was not the blue flu but a call out where cops don't come in to work. This was in Atlanta after the cop was charged with murder.

But even though she included that statement she twice more insisted that it was the blue flu. And then the comments agreed that yes indeed it was the blue flu. But there were worse examples of total gaslighting the folks there and you only knew that if you followed the links and read the articles at the source. Many people don't do that. I do. And that was how I caught on to how he wasn't being honest with his leaders.

The SKY was tinged with greens this morning.

NOPE not a green tinge in site....

up
10 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

longtalldrink's picture

But Jesus H. Christ...ONLY Facebook is trying to save us from The Demented One? This is The President (who has unlimited powers and can conjure up fire-power with a flick of his wrist) on Facebook trying to incite "his followers" to take "vigilante" action in the streets. He SHOULD be censored. His position is just too powerful not to be reigned in. The rest of us do not have this kind of power and should therefore be allowed to speak our grievances.

The bad ol' military would not allow him to "unleash Hell" on the US citizens, so he is calling his "other" military...his loyal followers.

The President should be ashamed of himself...using his powerful position like this. I know he won't be, but he should. What a low-life move imo.

up
6 users have voted.

Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin

snoopydawg's picture

@longtalldrink

This is The President (who has unlimited powers and can conjure up fire-power with a flick of his wrist) on Facebook trying to incite "his followers" to take "vigilante" action in the streets. He SHOULD be censored. His position is just too powerful not to be reigned in.

...democrats keep giving him power to move to a more authoritarian society. But they want him censored for certain speech?

The same folks who cheered when Alex Jones got banned from social media are cheering this act. Never in my days did I think I would be seeing people from the left cheering censorship. But then they willingly jumped down the Russia Russia Russia rabbit hole.

up
15 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

longtalldrink's picture

@snoopydawg "Never in my days did I think I would be seeing people from the left cheering censorship."

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that somehow this President feels empowered to use Social Media as a call to arms to his sycophants.

It should not be up to us to censor this President, I believe it is the moral duty for our Congress critters to reign him in. Why is it left up to Facebook to "censor" him? Why does this part need to be said out loud? Stands to reason that "our" President should not be allowed to try to incite violence. I mean...who does that??

up
7 users have voted.

Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin

@longtalldrink Congress could do, but do you really think his buddy Mitch McConnell, aka Dr No, is going to let anything pass the senate to rein in Donald?

up
2 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

censorship in some form or another.

For you married men, what do you say when your wife asks you, "do these (jeans / dress / blouse, what ever), make me look fat?". What do you tell her? Do you self censor,"of course not honey, you look great", or are you actually, brutally honest, "Yep, it make you look fat".

Another example would include C99. (Don't mean to pick on ya JtC), but I'm sure JtC might have a problem with me, if I published an essay advocating violence, targeting specific people, like fat cat CEOs of Wall Street or a certain orange headed person with tiny hands, or blowing up some business simply because I'm pissed they didn't pay their fair share of federal taxes, yet paid lobbyist to help push through more tax breaks for corporations and rich people, against the best interests of the "country".

We all might dislike them, but advocating to inflict bodily injury or even advocating death to them, would cross a line.

"Technically", that would still be "censorship" of our right to free speech. Unlike facebook, C99 has a much broader allowance of diverse opinions, and JtC is not a NAZI look-a-like or sound-a-like, as Mr. Zuckerberg certainly appears to me.

Of course that's just my "selective opinion".

Youtube banned this video I posted because they said I violated their "community guidelines", not for violation of "copyright". (Just fyi, I do not monetize my videos on my RantingRooster youtube account and I don't allow "advertising" on my video's either.)
[video:https://youtu.be/xXEBBRqCHiw]

The video had been published since 2014 but they didn't flag it till 2019. For almost 5 years no one said anything, and heck I didn't even have a bunch of comments on it, and it barely had a few hundred views. I simply re-posted it and so far no one has said anything.

But, do any of you think it should have been flagged?

While I can only speculate, I do "believe" it was targeted because it shows Hillary, admitting we funded the "terrorists" (Led by Democrats) we are supposedly fighting today, and we can't have the truth getting out.

Gee, in the 80's, Osama Bin Laden was a "hero" for America, fighting the "evil" Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Cvk9WRBWIAEHREd_0.jpg

While the Trump ad on facebook was offensive to me, 1. I don't use FB, so who cares, but 2, and most importantly, I believe it should have been pulled, not for being "offensive" or insulting to my "delicate constitution", but because it was not truthful.

And in theory, and "legally", we are supposed to have some semblance of "truth in advertising", and clearly, labeling Antifa as a "terrorist organization" is not "truthful" in anyway, shape or form.

Heck, every WWII vet that fought with the Allies against Hitler, would be Antifa.

Think for a moment, we're all talking about censorship, rather than truth in advertising, which I think IS the critical issue in this case. The ad it's self, should never have been allowed to run in the first place, because it runs afoul of the principal of "truth in advertising".

It's mis-direction and a distraction from the Fascist POS in the White house, who brutalized peaceful protestors for a political photo op, while over 100,000 Americans are dead from COVID19, which he said was a "democratic hoax" in the beginning, and over seeing a country erupting in flames from the centuries of self dishonesty, "we're not a racist country", which clearly we are, and have been, since the very beginning.

That's just the truth. (imho)

Gee, I think we're up to seven black men that have been lynched in the last week, and all of them have initially been ruled, by fascist cops, as suicides.

We've had how many #Karens (apologies if you're name Karen) over the last few months, freak the hell out over a black person, for doing nothing more than existing, with a different skin color.

Not to mention #OfficerKaren crying because she feared her food was going to be poisoned, simply because her order took a bit longer than normal.

The little red triangles and the 88 test ad runs, I believe, were done on purpose to enrage the so called "radical left", which fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

The "radical left" in this context, is the emotional butt hurt left, that finds anything that disrupts their emotionally fragile world, as offensive. (I smell Steve Bannon using Gustave Le Bon's techniques spelled out in The Psychology of the Crowd)

From the Atlantic,

Le Bon wrote. The crowd’s leader is “acclaimed as a veritable god,” holding sway over its imagination by “devising new formulas as devoid as possible of precise meaning,” thus taking on whatever meaning the follower invents. At the same time, this leader destroys his rivals with claims devoid of substance: “By dint of affirmation, repetition, and contagion” the crowd’s leader affirms that his opponent is “an arrant scoundrel, and that it is a matter of common knowledge that he has been guilty of several crimes.” Almost as an afterthought, Le Bon concluded: “It is, of course, useless to trouble about any semblance of proof.”

Drinks

up
19 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote

CS in AZ's picture

@RantingRooster

I think your example of c99% itself is the best way to understand the difference between real censorship (i.e., the government outlaws certain speech or words, and violators are subject to legal consequences) and a privately owned platform (no matter the size or scope), which has every right to make its own rules and limit what users of that platform are allowed to say or post, and to remove content and/or users that, subjectively, do not follow their rules or guidelines.

FB is a private entity. Removing posts and ads and users who they determine break their rules is in no way "censorship" and I feel it is counterproductive to conflate the two concepts. Trump has other avenues through which he can spread his hate and lies. People who want to read his hate and lies can find them elsewhere. People who want a free-for-all where anyone can say anything no matter what... well, good luck. If someone really enjoys spending all their time fighting with strangers online and reading a continuous firehose of bullshit, I'm sure it's out there somewhere. But I don't think most people would want that anyway. It's very easy to simply not go to facebook or to not expect it to be anything other than what it is: a corporate platform that exists to make money, money, money.

up
8 users have voted.

@CS in AZ I think the internet is a great commmons where free speech should never be censored. When you put up a website you should be prepared to hear everyone's words. I've never agreed that the owner of a website is "inviting you into his home". No, he's using the public commons and the only moderation that I feel is acceptable is to ban obvious spammers.

Every site like this should grant people the right to hit the ignore button on anyone they wish to. Just as you are free to speak, I am free to not listen to you. But I firmly believe the owner of a website, by virtue of being the owner, is not granted the rights to disobey the Constitution.

up
2 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@RantingRooster

For you married men, what do you say when your wife asks you, "do these (jeans / dress / blouse, what ever), make me look fat?". What do you tell her? Do you self censor,"of course not honey, you look great", or are you actually, brutally honest, "Yep, it make you look fat".

This reminded me of a joke I heard years ago from a stand-up comedian who I don't remember anything else about:

"My girlfriend asked me if the jeans she was wearing made her look fat. I was honest; I said No, it's the fat that makes you look fat!"

LOL! Now that is what I call brutally honest! I still laugh at it all these years later. Smile

up
9 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

@CS in AZ I would tell my wife, (going into her closet and pulling out a dress) I like this one, it makes you look sexy. Man in love

up
6 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote

longtalldrink's picture

@RantingRooster "I like this one, it makes you look sexy"

This is how women get men to dress up too. Smile

up
6 users have voted.

Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin

@RantingRooster @RantingRooster Truth in advertising is just the low hanging fruit, as modern advertising long ago learned to slickly bamboozle the public with its slippery claims. And with political advertising generally, there is very wide berth given to what information is presented, the First Amendment and all that.

No, the issue is one of censorship, or c-ship by a private entity, which creates arguments pro and con, but mostly pro as I see the question at the moment. I don't do FB, but if I ran that show, while I would do things differently in some areas, I would have to worry about some things raised by the curious Trump camp tweets -- which are probably not entirely innocent -- and how they would affect the overall corporate position with several groups. And the major headaches from not acting swiftly probably were considered to greatly outweigh the risk of letting things slide, would be my guess.

up
2 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

@wokkamile Here's where I fucked up. Fool

I know more about "brand" paid advertising, ie "truth in advertising" than I do about "paid political advertising", and opened my big mouth too soon, without enough research. (what a fucking dork I am!)

Upon further research, here's what I think are the Facts of the case.

Trump wanted to place a "political paid Ad" on Facebook's advertising platform.

The FEC has "rules" for political advertising, it must contain a disclaimer, for any advertising platform (radio, TV, broadcast, etc...)

Facebook, pulled the ad, according to them, based on their "concern" about the "content" of the paid political ad. ("community guide lines" against "organized hate")

Trump's paid political ad, violated the FEC's rules, by not having a disclaimer for "paid political advertising".

Facebook's "reasoning" for pulling the ad, was based on "their" community guidelines, and as a private corporation, they have the right to refuse "service" to anyone, as long as that refusal does not discriminate, based on sex, religion, blah blah blah.

Trump didn't follow FEC rules.

Facebook was with in their "right" as a private corporation to refuse the ad, for any reason, except discrimination. They "cited" their community guide lines against organized hate, they deemed the paid political ad's "content" violated.

Facebook, would have been much better off, citing the FEC's rules violation, that all paid political advertising must contain a "disclaimer", rather than creating a political "firestorm" over what Trump, and many others claim as "censorship".

Broadcasters (Radio TV, Print, Social Media), as private entities, have the "right" to refuse "service" to anyone, for any reason, as long as that refusal does not discriminate. They also have the right to require advertisers to comply with their "content" guidelines for broadcast or publication.

While I might be a dork, I do great "Art" for "brand's" TV ads. (shameless self promotion)
(Art = Everything in the Frame, that does not breath or have a pulse, belongs to the "Art Department")

[video:https://youtu.be/-XTOAaKPPY0]

Drinks

up
4 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote

@RantingRooster citing FEC rules is that it easily fixed by the Trump camp and FB would still have those ads up with the offensive material and they would still be hearing it from the Jewish and other groups. But citing their own rules/standards, they seem to have gotten rid of the problem and don't have to revisit it.

up
3 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

@wokkamile however I just think FB could have handled it much better.

Trump's base, and more many people still think it's about "censorship".

Personally, I would have argued, after I did more research (lol) a private corporation's right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, other than discrimination, and 2, Trump's violation of FEC's rules, which is a continued pattern of him violating the law.

Drinks

up
2 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote

@RantingRooster @RantingRooster @RantingRooster truth in advertising point about Trump's claim about Antifa, that while it may be dubious as a factual truth, it does represent a political truth for Trump and the far-right that he represents. That is, Trump and his camp find it politically useful to make such claims, even if it's not exactly factually true when you look at the matter closely.

Just politics one might say. However this is a president who is threatening to label one small insignificant group of disorganized vaguely anti-fascist types as terrorists. Legally, at the moment that might be problematic, but with a few tweaks by the Trump gov't machinery, it could be made to fit the existing law on terrorist groups and the supporting of them.

This to me is the far more important issue, (edit for clarity:) not merely Trump's attempts/threats of censorship of a tiny group (Antifa) but essentially outlawing the group, and putting into jeopardy anyone who could be deemed to be in support of them. I haven't seen this discussion raised here on the content of Trump's tweet, as opposed to the curious label attached, but this is the issue that concerns me.

up
3 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

This to me is the far more important issue, not merely censorship of a tiny group (Antifa) but essentially outlawing the group, and putting into jeopardy anyone who could be deemed to be in support of them.

up
7 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg my above to make it clearer that I was referring to Trump's attempt at "censoring" Antifa.

up
3 users have voted.

a whole different set of WW II Vets than I ever met RR

@RantingRooster

Heck, every WWII vet that fought with the Allies against Hitler, would be Antifa.

Yeah, these people are all about the Four Freedoms.

IIRC the first one was "Freedom of Speech".

up
2 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@RantingRooster @RantingRooster

Gee, in the 80's, Osama Bin Laden was a "hero" for America, fighting the "evil" Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

heck, in the fifies and sixties, even the US were the 'heroes' to us Germans for having fought the evil Nazis AMD the evil Communists.

Who is fighting them today? My only hope - they destroy themselves.

PS and yes, I think there are many faux and hypocrtical free speech and anti-cenor advocates. Of course, that's probably because I am German. But I have no trust left in me.

up
2 users have voted.

Mark Zuckerberg is Mark Zuckerberg. Who cares how many Mark Zuckerbergs can dance on the head of a pin? It's like getting your news from the Enquirer. Even Twinkies have more valid content.

up
13 users have voted.

@Snode

a recent headline in the WSJ made me laugh out loud..."Biden Says Facebook Must fight Falsehoods".

up
14 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

snoopydawg's picture

@Fishtroller 02

Democrats are leading the calls for censoring fake news which is funnier then hell because it was Obama that made it legal for the government to spread propaganda manure in the first place after he repealed the Smith-Mundt act. Go figure.

up
10 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg

if Donald Trump is a "pathological liar", as Bernie Sanders called him, then what kind of liar is Joe Biden?

up
5 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

mimi's picture

@Fishtroller 02 @Fishtroller 02
which one is more dangerious and which one do you prefer.

up
2 users have voted.

@mimi

up
1 user has voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Maybe it's always been like this. Trust me, I'm not a Pollyanna who thinks in the good old days everything was black and white and there was a right and wrong. But I really don't feel it's hyperbole anymore to say we are constantly asked to chose between being shot in the back and shot in the front.

Was the ad intentionally provocative? I'm sure of it. Is this censorship? Probably. So, I resent having to chose between accepting a facist symbol used to identify political enemies and censorship which can and will be used against voices I consider important. Heads, they win. Tails, we lose.

I suppose the idea is to make people like me hopeless and apathetic. Even knowing that's the game, I hate to admit, it's working.

up
17 users have voted.

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

@Dr. John Carpenter We've got this invisible ring through our noses, and we're being led around where ever "they" want us to go. It sucks big time.

up
10 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@Dr. John Carpenter I have consistently spoken out against censorship here at C99.

But then there are days that make me feel as though I am being forced to decide between my anti-censorship stance and pure hate speech. Still I am siding with being anti-censorship.

The best antidote against censorship and hate speech is the same thing...teaching critical thinking skills and exposing people to all points of view.

up
7 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

@gulfgal98

I could only up vote you once.

up
3 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

up
9 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

mimi's picture

and I am glad if such hate speech is censored. Fake freedom of speech enablers in fact enable fascist censorship. Can't believe what I am reading here.

I can't figure out anymore, if this site is right-wing or left-wing, and that's the reason why I am ready to leave.

That's it. Bye.

up
3 users have voted.

@mimi @mimi

I can't figure out anymore, if this site is right-wing or left-wing, and that's the reason why I am ready to leave.

If you are looking for propaganda to support pre-conceived ideas, yes Mimi, goodbye. May I recommend https://www.dailykos.com or https://progresspond.com/ for a site where you can absorb thought-free content? But I warn you in advance, that non-conforming thought will be banned.

EDIT:
But I hope you will stay and share your thoughts.

up
9 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

mimi's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness @The Voice In the Wilderness
are you never tired? I am tired. I don't need truthwing. There was something like truthdig. Some idiot woman destroyed it. Now we have scheerpost.

I can't stand the changes. And apparently you think that I somehow still think of dailykos? Why would I ? C99p can'r identify for ever as something as 'not being dailykos'. Why?

Isn't there something more important than that?

I miss voices here, who were here the first two to three years. They are all gone. Why?

Nevermind. I am just tired.

up
3 users have voted.

@mimi
And Bernie Sanders' betrayal really hit me hard.

I almost left becaus4 of the #BLM ass-kissing, condoning arson and looting.

But sometimes we have to understand that people we respect are totally wrong. Not evil, just wrong.

I was reacting to perceived indignation at not hewing to a party line. And I think I was too harsh on you. I'm sorry. Tired people need gentler handling. Hope you feel better soon.

up
4 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

@mimi

I miss voices here, who were here the first two to three years. They are all gone. Why?

Some of them are dead. An age histogram of participants would be interesting.

I'm guessing very old and very young with just a few in between. The Right captured most of thee in-betweens. I'm guessing that the '60s riots turned most of them off. And I heard around that time in Germany that many young people pushed back from blaming all Germans for the Nazi era, claiming (very logically) "Why should I be blamed for things that happened before I was born?" I see the same result coming here from #BLM Down south it isn't the Geezers waving the Stars and Bars, it's young people.

up
3 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

RantingRooster's picture

@mimi I hope you don't go! Sad I enjoy your perspective from across the pond. Gives me things to think about and reflect upon, which I like and helps me grow as a person. I like the fact that C99 is not an echo chamber like other sites, who will go nameless...

Drinks

up
6 users have voted.

C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote

mimi's picture

@RantingRooster
that certainty doesn't speak well for me. I feel ashamed that I can't leave here. Feels likeI have a weak character.

Ack, I am just frustrated. The site has changed from what it was. And I regret it. That's all.

Prost. Drinks

up
3 users have voted.

He'd have become a billionaire in these recent years.

"Literally Hitler!!!" "Nazis Everywhere!"

So now, using a symbol that some Antifa have been known to use, is now a "Nazi Dogwhistle?" The rules are so complicated.

https://www.spreadshirt.com/shop/design/antifa+mens+t-shirt-D5ed9b041f93...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/863/651/3b1.jpg

https://www.globalinfo.nl/images/stories/nweplaatjes10/posterantifa.jpg

https://trianglerouge.be/
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://trianglerou...

But fortunately, the self-appointed arbiters of truth, "safety," and hate speech, have decided to save me from organized hate on their platform, by removing this odious post that shows one symbol the referenced group has actually been known to use, but at the same time, FB leaves up every Antifa page that continually doxxes anyone they deem a "Nazi" so that they can engage their brand of hate and violence against anyone they deem worthy of wrath; who cares about all their misidentifications and errors...innocent be damned in their righteous crusade.

https://www.facebook.com/phillyantifa/
https://www.facebook.com/Atlanta-Antifa-1157535444339383/
https://www.facebook.com/ANTIFACANADA/
https://www.facebook.com/pnwawc/
https://www.facebook.com/midwestantifa/
https://www.facebook.com/desmoinesantifa/
...
...on and on...

Death and violence against whoever "we" decide is a KKK/Nazi: https://ashevilleantiracism.noblogs.org/post/2018/04/30/the-neo-nazis-ne...

Fortunately, when you decide yourself, that you are on the side of the righteous angels, anything you do toward your ends, is justified. Good thing FB has determined that Antifa is not organized hate...because angels on the "right" side of history...

Antifa's violence and destruction is "defense" and is a, "small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity."

You know, last time, despite my knowing voting is of no consequence, I ticked off for Stein, but this time, considering Trump's election has helped expose the absolute idiocy that abounds among the general populace, the hypocrisy of a different set of thuggery they themselves decry when used against them, when employed by their mob justice is "freedom" and "good," I've decided that since most idiots are now in-fighting the wrong enemy/problem, there is probably no going back. So I've decided the next best thing is to simply let this bonfire burn itself out by electing Trump again; I think I'm inclined to just go ahead and do my small part to tick off for Trump to help reignite the dissonance for another 4 years and let the morons continue bashing each other over the head, ignoring the real culprits, in favor of outing all the secret, "average Joe/Jane" racists/misogynists/homophobes/Nazis, because those inconsequential "average Joes/Janes" clearly have all the power.

Frickin' idiots abound..."we" as a society have still somehow not evolved past the witch-trial mentality from several hundred years ago. Astonishing.

up
6 users have voted.

@ChezJfrey
If the (D) was not Trump in a Blue suit, I might pass by both major parties. But Clintonism must be destroyed. at least Trump was honest about his policies.

up
3 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

That is the whole point of censorship. Some person in authority knows how to tell bullshit from truth, but the citizen is too stupid and/or ignorant to do the same thing. As a person in authority, the censor has access to the truth while the citizen is mired in ignorance.

Yes we believe in equality. But when it comes to determining what is the truth and what is a lie, some are more equal than others.

Anyone who favors censorship opposes the First Amendment and the Enlightenment values it asserts.

Ah, but Hitler. You can't just let Hitler talk people into supporting his own brand of censorship. So we beat him to the punch and censor him first. Of course that assumes that censoring the next Hitler from certain media will stop him. Good luck with that.

Censorship of "fascism" is a fantasy of power for some leftists who do not control the government -- yet they long to control it so that the Hitlers of the world can be silenced before they silence the rest of us. The hole in the logic of that "anti-fascist" sophistry is that they do not control the government -- and the power they want Facebook or whoever to exercise against these Hitlers In Embryo, with their Evil Red Triangles, will be used against themselves too. Irony never sleeps.

Suppressing a symbol gives it far more power than it could ever gain on its own. Suppressing the idea that such a symbol so inarticulately represents does nothing to keep the idea from spreading through other means of communication.

Censorship over time has been more well known for its battle to suppress the depiction or description of sexuality. How's that working out?

As far as Facebook and other social media platforms are concerned, I don't care whether they censor or don't censor anything. They do have insulation from anti-trust laws, and their practical monopoly status does give them more power to influence the second by second chatter of our nervous culture. Just more silly shit for the most part, no matter which color jersey you want to cheer for.

I just don't pay any attention to social media. As far as I can tell neither does anyone else, especially those who spend a lot time typing and looking at Soc Med screens. It looks to my jaundiced eyes to be even more of a soporific than television was in putting the American public to sleep.

But in answer to the question of this thread -- Yes, it is censorship and it is wrong, stupid and counterproductive as well. But, again, who cares?

up
9 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire Nice post.

up
1 user has voted.
snoopydawg's picture

As far as Facebook and other social media platforms are concerned, I don't care whether they censor or don't censor anything.

if you knew that FB is working hand in hand with the Atlantic Council that gets lots of its funding from the government and is filled with NATO insiders such as Saudi Arabia and many, many other countries? I wrote an essay on the AC when FB banned Alex Jones because of his conspiracy theories about crisis actors during Sandy Hook the school shooting that killed 20 children. I detailed what the AC was and where it got its funding as well as who was in in. I don't have time right now to look for it, but if you type Facebook has banned Alex Jones in the search bar on the site you should be able to find it.

Yes Facebook is a private company, but when it works directly with the government or people that have the ear of the government then that blurs the line that they are entitled to their rules when it is not honest about how it makes its decisions.

up
6 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg

also banned - in the wake of taking down Infowars - a number of sites focused on police brutality, government corruption, medical kidnapping and such - most popular of which was probably The Free Thought Project

But now they are supposedly all about ending police abuse.

Count on these guys to to peg the hypocrisy meter every time.

up
2 users have voted.

In the abstract, I agree with you completely. There has been in effect a merger between the government and the communications industry. Some of its manifestations are more subtle, but the things you point to are brazen.

I just don't care about it because the only way to address that particular abuse of the Constitution is through either litigation or political action. I don't believe the current judiciary will give anyone the time of day when it comes to "interfering" with "private enterprise." Irony intended.

There are lots of things that I oppose but do not care much about. Social media is one of them. I think those of us who oppose the Insanity Regime should/must find ways around Social Media -- just as the dissidents in the waning days of the Soviet Union used the mimeograph machine to counter the organized bullshit coming from The State, dissidents here need to make some bitter decisions about what we are up against and what it will take to make change. Using the internet without resort to the Mega Sites is job one.

The odds against the samizdat movement were much longer than what we face.

If we disagree at all, it is only in terms of emphasis and tactics. You are right about how the First Amendment should apply. The older I get, the less enthused I am with the word, "should."

up
4 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire the major social media outlets, FB, google and whoever owns Twitter, on the size and monopoly matters. But on this

I don't believe the current judiciary will give anyone the time of day when it comes to "interfering" with "private enterprise." Irony intended.

with maybe another Trump term and one tweak to Scotus, RBG exiting in favor of one of Trump's far-right Opus Dei/Federalist Society/ABA-Disapproved nut job extremists on the bench, who's to say that 5 ultra-conservative Justices just won't fall in line with whatever the Don wants.

And currently private-enterpriser Trump is considering a move which would eliminate the legal immunity website owner's now have regarding third-party comments made on their site per the Communications Decency Act of 1996, section 230. Such a drastic step -- creating in effect sweeping government censorship -- would do away with most of the robust, free-flowing commentary we now enjoy.

up
2 users have voted.