@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.

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.

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.”

@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.

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.

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.”

@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.

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.

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.”

@Snode

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

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@fire with fire Nice post.

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?

@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.

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.

@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.

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."