Goodbye social media.

J

JJJA

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
Na
Enneagram
1
This is the last straw for social media, as it is now Mark Zuckerberg next to fall under the ocean of censorship masquerading as a peace-envoy for anti-hate speech. You are either for free speech or you are against it. What is it going to be, Zuckerberg? It seems you are against it. If I have to read more of this sinister piffle, I'll have to delete my facebook, too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...to-crack-down-against-hate-speech-on-migrants

People, it is utterly paramount that you stand up against this nonsense. Stop trivializing it with cynicism and nihilism in the face of people that want to create a world that is hostile to free-thinkers. 'Hate-speech' is an empty term and has no defined meaning or code-word. It is babble used to make excuses for censorship. The last time I mentioned this on the forum, it was completely ignored and trivialized, but this is now very serious. Some people on this forum have the guts to stand up against it.
 
Last edited:
You realize this forum has similar policies, right? Are you going to be leaving this forum as well?

Facebook isn't the government and this isn't the implementation of law.

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
Click to expand...

Not all speech is freely protected. For instance, directly threatening another person is assault. Child pornography is also a category of unprotected expression. Most expressions directly concerning actively engaging in illegal activities are generally non-protected.

Hate speech is difficult because it tends to border on illegally threatening and the advocating of violence. For instance, it is not illegal to wish or hope for someone to die or be killed, eg "I hope someone kills Trump." This isn't illegal because it does not represent an imminent threat.

For most of American history, the courts held that no one has a right to advocate violations of the law. They ruled that advocacy of crime is wholly outside of the First Amendment--akin to a criminal attempt and punishable as such. Indeed, many of the judges revered as the strongest champions of free speech believed that express advocacy of crime was punishable. Judge Learned Hand, in his great 1917 opinion in Masses v. United States, established himself as a true hero of free speech by saying that even dangerous dissident speech was generally protected against government regulation. But Hand himself conceded that government could regulate any speaker who would "counsel or advise a man" to commit an unlawful act.
Click to expand...
http://prospect.org/article/violent-speech-right
 
Matt3737 said:
You realize this forum has similar policies, right? Are you going to be leaving this forum as well?

Facebook isn't the government and this isn't the implementation of law.



Not all speech is freely protected. For instance, directly threatening another person is assault. Child pornography is also a category of unprotected expression. Most expressions directly concerning actively engaging in illegal activities are generally non-protected.

Hate speech is difficult because it tends to border on illegally threatening and the advocating of violence. For instance, it is not illegal to wish or hope for someone to die or be killed, eg "I hope someone kills Trump." This isn't illegal because it does not represent an imminent threat.


http://prospect.org/article/violent-speech-right
Click to expand...

It would occur to me that you didn't read the article I linked. This is not a thread blaming government; this does, however, involve one of the biggest corporations headed by one of the most powerful and wealthy men in the world wishing to censor opinion. We are not simply discussing a few warnings to racists or homophobes. This involves the censorship of dissenting opinion; open criticisms and accusations. To censor free speech in such a way directly contradicts what such people as Mark Zuckerberg once claimed to believed in free speech not one year ago. To deny a person the right to argue his own case not only removes his right to say it, it also removes your right to hear it. Once you remove yourself the right to hear something, you are openly denying the right of you and others to learn just even a smidgen of truth. If you are any sort of reasonably-minded and rational person, it should take no hesitation to want to defend this principle. Zuckerberg wishes to take that away from us.

Your forum comment is very dishonest. I've complained several times about the migrant crisis and not once did I receive a warning, infraction or slap on the wrist. They don't care because it is my own opinion and my right to defend it being heard.
 
JJJA said:
It would occur to me that you didn't read the article I linked. This is not a thread blaming government; this does, however, involve one of the biggest corporations headed by one of the most powerful and wealthy men in the world wishing to censor opinion. We are not simply discussing a few warnings to racists or homophobes. This involves the censorship of dissenting opinion; open criticisms and accusations. To censor free speech in such a way directly contradicts what such people as Mark Zuckerberg once claimed to believed in free speech not one year ago. To deny a person the right to argue his own case not only removes his right to say it, it also removes your right to hear it. Once you remove yourself the right to hear something, you are openly denying the right of you and others to learn just even a smidgen of truth. If you are any sort of reasonably-minded and rational person, it should take no hesitation to want to defend this principle. Zuckerberg wishes to take that away from us.
Click to expand...

I did read it and I pointed out that Facebook is not the government nor is it an implementation of law. It is a website and fully within its rights to do so. You're free to disagree and advocate against it, but that is a matter of company policy and not a legitimate threat to freedom of speech.

Third, private institutions, such as broadcasting stations, should think carefully about their own civic responsibilities. An owner of a station or a programming manager is under no constitutional obligation to air speakers who encourage illegal violence. Stations that deny airtime for such views do no harm to the First Amendment but on the contrary exercise their own rights, and in just the right way. In recent months, public and private concern about hate-mongering has encouraged some stations to cancel G. Gordon Liddy's show; this is not a threat to free speech but an exercise of civic duties. Similarly, private on-line networks, such as Prodigy and America Online, have not only a right but a moral obligation to discourage speech that expressly counsels illegal killing.
Click to expand...
 
JJJA said:
Your forum comment is very dishonest. I've complained several times about the migrant crisis and not once did I receive a warning, infraction or slap on the wrist. They don't care because it is my own opinion and my right to defend it being heard.
Click to expand...

How is it dishonest? Do you consider this rule to be censorship or not?

Do Not:
Disturb the peace of the forum via hostile advancement of religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other agendas.
Click to expand...

Just because you haven't been reprimanded for it does not make it any less of a rule. It simply means we try to be as openly accepting of other's opinions as we feel we can tolerate.
 
Matt3737 said:
How is it dishonest? Do you consider this rule to be censorship or not?

Do Not:


Just because you haven't been reprimanded for it does not make it any less of a rule. It simply means we try to be as openly accepting of other's opinions as we feel we can tolerate.
Click to expand...

If you want to be accepting of other's opinions in order to be tolerant, then shouldn't you agree with me about free speech? You appear to be contradicting yourself.
 
JJJA said:
If you want to be accepting of other's opinions in order to be tolerant, then shouldn't you agree with me about free speech? You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Facebook's policies are not law. It has nothing to do with legal rights or the right to free speech. There is nothing contradictory about that. It is factual. I'm sorry you wish I'd support you in the matter, but I don't care what Facebook's policies are because I don't spend much, if any, time on it. Maybe you should tolerate my opinion that Facebook has little to no influence on public opinion and is mostly a depository for the opinions of the uneducated?

Good luck to you though. If you have enough public support then you might be able to get them to reverse their policy. I guess you could consider my lack of using Facebook a sort of coincidental boycotting except for the fact that I won't start using it more if they change their policy.
 
Matt3737 said:
Facebook's policies are not law. It has nothing to do with legal rights or the right to free speech. There is nothing contradictory about that. It is factual. I'm sorry you wish I'd support you in the matter, but I don't care what Facebook's policies are because I don't spend much, if any, time on it. Maybe you should tolerate my opinion that Facebook has little to no influence on public opinion and is mostly a depository for the opinions of the uneducated?

Good luck to you though. If you have enough public support then you might be able to get them to reverse their policy. I guess you could consider my lack of using Facebook a sort of coincidental boycotting except for the fact that I won't start using it more if they change their policy.
Click to expand...

I already understood the issue of the law, I did not claim you were wrong about the facts of the law either...but that wasn't my point to begin with. Billions of people use facebook, and it was responsible in large-part to the 2011 Arab spring. You originally wanted to deny the terms of hate speech (of-which I refuted) but then changed the tune to denying free speech altogether. To deny it has no effect or is a trivial matter just because it is a private company making up its own laws is rather naive. This massive entity has a grip on millions worldwide, and if it turns into an opinion farm which only breeds one narrative of opinion and half of the facts, it will inevitably create a society of ignorance because almost everybody uses social media. My main point of disagreement is that you think this is not about free speech; it is ALL about free speech when such a powerful person openly proposes cutting down his own principles and betraying all of those that entered social media and being told such rights would be protected. If he does re-affirm this 'hate speech' position, I will inevitably delete my facebook once I begin witnessing it first-hand. For now, all I can do is simply make people aware of it on forums like this one.
 
JJJA said:
I already understood the issue of the law, I did not claim you were wrong about the facts of the law either...but that wasn't my point to begin with. Billions of people use facebook, and it was responsible in large-part to the 2011 Arab spring. You originally wanted to deny the terms of hate speech (of-which I refuted) but then changed the tune to denying free speech altogether. To deny it has no effect or is a trivial matter just because it is a private company making up its own laws is rather naive. This massive entity has a grip on millions worldwide, and if it turns into an opinion farm which only breeds one narrative of opinion and half of the facts, it will inevitably create a society of ignorance because almost everybody uses social media. My main point of disagreement is that you think this is not about free speech; it is ALL about free speech when such a powerful person openly proposes cutting down his own principles and betraying all of those that entered social media and being told such rights would be protected. If he does re-affirm this 'hate speech' position, I will inevitably delete my facebook once I begin witnessing it first-hand. For now, all I can do is simply make people aware of it on forums like this one.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say other than that you feel Facebook is super important and Mark Zuckerberg is really powerful.
 
JJJA said:
Well, you tried.
Click to expand...

Condescension is not an admirable trait. Maybe you should try expressing yourself more clearly.
 
JJJA said:
I explained what I meant in my OP several times.
Click to expand...

Listen, I understand you have a big ego. I don't mean to undercut it by disagreeing with you, but if you cannot be civil with me what use is there in discussing anything at all? What do you want to hear?

I heard what you said and I clarified the distinction between company policy and legal standard and I also made it clear that I disagree with the implication that Facebook is important. Facebook is not the sole arbiter of conversational merit. That's about all there is to it.

I was expecting to let the conversation go after wishing you good luck on your endeavor, so I don't understand what more you are expecting from me in continuing this discussion unless you're hoping to persuade me into taking a harder stance more in line with your views on the issue. Is that what we are engaged in doing? Discussing the cultural influence that Facebook supposedly wields?
 
I get why [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] is POed about this. It is emblematic of an issue that is everywhere. No one can just say what's on their mind without worry that the politically correct police will blackball them in some way. It's a truly stifling environment. A particularly good example of this is when an accomplished scientist who helped land a spacecraft on a comet was reduced to tears in public over a shirt he wore (which turned out to be a beloved item that was handmade for him by his girlfriend) in their victory announcement of the achievement. He made a great scientific accomplishment, yet the unaccomplished, bullying PC forces that be, tried to ruin this man, reducing him to tearful, public apology because they found his shirt sexist.
http://www.infjs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26642&d=1456593977

It is common sense that ALL lives matter. Most people with their head on straight can see this is not a hateful or bigoted assertion to make. ALL lives, not just Black lives. Why FB feels the need to step in on this issue is beyond me.
 
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

Did the 'super important' and 'really powerful' comment seem like mockery, perhaps? If so, I sincerely apologize. That wasn't my intention. I only intended to point out where our difference of opinion seems to lie. You feel Facebook has more influence than I do. I feel it's not important at all.
 
PintoBean said:
I get why [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] is POed about this. It is emblematic of an issue that is everywhere. No one can just say what's on their mind without worry that the politically correct police will blackball them in some way. It's a truly stifling environment. A particularly good example of this is when an accomplished scientist who helped land a spacecraft on a comet was reduced to tears in public over a shirt he wore (which turned out to be a beloved item that was handmade for him by his girlfriend) in their victory announcement of the achievement. He made a great scientific accomplishment, yet the unaccomplished, bullying PC forces that be, tried to ruin this man, reducing him to tearful, public apology because they found his shirt sexist.
http://www.infjs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26642&d=1456593977

It is common sense that ALL lives matter. Most people with their head on straight can see this is not a hateful or bigoted assertion to make. ALL lives, not just Black lives. Why FB feels the need to step in on this issue is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well sure, but that's a MUCH larger discussion. One in which I'd agree with you on some points and disagree on others. Yes, the PC police can be super douchebags even if their argument is one I agree with. They might be complete assholes in how they go about expressing it.

I support the underlying argument of Black Lives Matter, but their behavior in some instances is repulsive and destructive to their argument. The slogan does not mean to suggest that black lives are more important than white lives. It means to suggest that black lives are NOT being treated the same as white lives and hence that the slogan that all lives matter is not currently being represented.

Black lives matter just as much as white lives matter. I think they are upset by the 'All Lives Matter' slogan because it dismisses the point all together and assumes that all lives are, in actuality, being treated equally.
 
Matt3737 said:
Well sure, but that's a MUCH larger discussion. One in which I'd agree with you on some points and disagree on others. Yes, the PC police can be super douchebags even if their argument is one I agree with. They might be complete assholes in how they go about expressing it.

I support the underlying argument of Black Lives Matter, but their behavior in some instances is repulsive and destructive to their argument. The slogan does not mean to suggest that black lives are more important than white lives. It means to suggest that black lives are NOT being treated the same as white lives and hence that the slogan that all lives matter is not currently being represented.

Black lives matter just as much as white lives matter. I think they are upset by the 'All Lives Matter' slogan because it dismisses the point all together and assumes that all lives are, in actuality, being treated equally.
Click to expand...

I think it's part of the same discussion. People are being told they can't express their views for fear of huge political/financial powers crashing down on them and ruining them. They can't wear a shirt or put a slogan on FB without fears of social/professional and financial ruination. I do have an opinion that the Black Lives Matter movement has gotten way out of line. I am one of those that says "ALL lives matter."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/
 
Matt3737 said:
Listen, I understand you have a big ego. I don't mean to undercut it by disagreeing with you, but if you cannot be civil with me what use is there in discussing anything at all? What do you want to hear?

I heard what you said and I clarified the distinction between company policy and legal standard and I also made it clear that I disagree with the implication that Facebook is important. Facebook is not the sole arbiter of conversational merit. That's about all there is to it.

I was expecting to let the conversation go after wishing you good luck on your endeavor, so I don't understand what more you are expecting from me in continuing this discussion unless you're hoping to persuade me into taking a harder stance more in line with your views on the issue. Is that what we are engaged in doing? Discussing the cultural influence that Facebook supposedly wields?
Click to expand...

What is it that I said that led you to believe I have a 'big ego'? I was simply referring you back to my previous posts. Instead of discussing such personal nonsense, you could have simply disagreed with me and left the snark of it out.
 
PintoBean said:
I think it's part of the same discussion.
Click to expand...

That is what I meant. That it was a part of a much larger discussion. It can't be the same discussion though unless [MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] wants to expand it to such an end.

I think given the complexity of systemic racism in America, many people don't really understand the problem and its causes and they tend to focus on race rather than the socioeconomic issues that make up the 'systemic' part the problem. It has less to do with race and more to do with class. Race just becomes a signal or sign of social class, ie. if they're a minority then they're likely to be poor and have less access to resources in which to protect and defend themselves against discriminatory practices.

Consider this: What did O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Bill Cosby all have in common? They were all black, accused of crimes, and financially well off.

This is why I would agree with you if you held that the race issue in the upcoming Academy Awards show is really a non-issue. Fuck Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith and everyone else buying into that bullshit narrative. They're wrong because they're a bunch of rich, entitled assholes complaining about not getting everything they desire. It has nothing to do with actual racial disparities in America today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top