Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Drewski
Except I didn't say that. So, if it's possible, you can quit being a **** to try and make a *****y point.
So if you've got nothing to actually add, I'm going to zone you out to the background noise that you are. Ttfn.
So if you've got nothing to actually add, I'm going to zone you out to the background noise that you are. Ttfn.
If you scroll up you might see the posts where you literally said what I have quoted.
Original post by Themysticalegg
Although I am not a fan of these groups by any means do you believe this infringes on freedom of speech and could be perceived as censorship and is it right to ban these groups from Facebook?
Of course it can be perceived as censorship, but only if you discount that as a private platform, Facebook is perfectly entitled to do it. If they're uncomfortable with those people airing their views on their platform then of course they're going to follow through with it. I doubt many businesses want to associate with the likes of those listed in the OP.
Original post by Themysticalegg
Although I am not a fan of these groups by any means do you believe this infringes on freedom of speech and could be perceived as censorship and is it right to ban these groups from Facebook?
Background:
Facebook said it had taken the action because those involved had proclaimed a "violent or hateful mission".
"Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook," the social network added in a statement.
The ban includes:
Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47974579
Background:
Facebook said it had taken the action because those involved had proclaimed a "violent or hateful mission".
"Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook," the social network added in a statement.
The ban includes:
•
The British National Party and its ex-leader Nick Griffin
•
Britain First, its leader Paul Golding and former deputy leader Jayda Fransen
•
English Defence League and its founding member Paul Ray
•
Knights Templar International and its promoter Jim Dowson
•
National Front and its leader Tony Martin
•
Jack Renshaw, a neo-Nazi who plotted to murder a Labour MP
Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47974579
In other words, any group that opposes mass immigration (unless the group is in a non-white country).
Original post by poorhouse321
In other words, any group that opposes mass immigration (unless the group is in a non-white country).
These groups do more than just oppose mass immigration, they openly push a racist and fascist agenda and is some cases terrorism, and what does white have to do with this?
Original post by The RAR
These groups do more than just oppose mass immigration, and what does white have to do with this?
They do have many other policies in their manifestos, however, it is only the opposition to mass immigration that the powers that currently be have a problem with. And it is only White countries that are not allowed to oppose mass immigration. Uganda is 99% Black. You have to be Black to be a citizen of Liberia. Japan is 98.5 % Japanese. It is very difficult to get an Indian passport if you are not ethnically Indian. If you have a Jewish grandparent you are automatically entitled to Israeli citizenship.
No, because it is precisely those people that have banned what they call far right groups from Facebook.
Britain does't have free speech, Facebook is a corporation so they don't have to obey any laws of freedom of speech easier. Though it is a coincidence this is coming out pretty soon after another Facebook privacy blunder where they uploaded 1.9 million users' personal information....
Either way, I think it would be better if corporations focused on removing all hate groups (ANTIFA, BLM, islamic terrorist supporters) if they are going to remove any at all. Oh well
It's kind of weird to get angry for people claiming they're victimised when they are in fact victimised.
Either way, I think it would be better if corporations focused on removing all hate groups (ANTIFA, BLM, islamic terrorist supporters) if they are going to remove any at all. Oh well
Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe
Or they can loudly whine about how victimised they are. Based on what the far right is good at, they'll do the latter.
It's kind of weird to get angry for people claiming they're victimised when they are in fact victimised.
Original post by That'sGreat
Britain does't have free speech, Facebook is a corporation so they don't have to obey any laws of freedom of speech easier. Though it is a coincidence this is coming out pretty soon after another Facebook privacy blunder where they uploaded 1.9 million users' personal information....
Either way, I think it would be better if corporations focused on removing all hate groups (ANTIFA, BLM, islamic terrorist supporters) if they are going to remove any at all. Oh well
It's kind of weird to get angry for people claiming they're victimised when they are in fact victimised.
Either way, I think it would be better if corporations focused on removing all hate groups (ANTIFA, BLM, islamic terrorist supporters) if they are going to remove any at all. Oh well
It's kind of weird to get angry for people claiming they're victimised when they are in fact victimised.
Naturalistic fallacy. We're not arguing about whether facebook have the legal right to do this, as far as I'm aware they do. We're arguing about whether what they are doing is right.
Original post by Drewski
Nobody has an inherent right to use any particular platform. Facebook has every right to say who can and who can't use the services it owns, and says as much in it's Ts and Cs.
If you don't like that, don't join.
If you don't like that, don't join.
Original post by StriderHort
Nah, buck sick of all this free speech whining, if you want an online platform contact a hosting company and buy one like everyone else. Stop insisting you have a right to mooch off and stink up other peoples spaces.
Original post by Moments
Facebook can ban who they want. Their company, their rules.
Original post by MrDystopia
Of course it can be perceived as censorship, but only if you discount that as a private platform, Facebook is perfectly entitled to do it. If they're uncomfortable with those people airing their views on their platform then of course they're going to follow through with it. I doubt many businesses want to associate with the likes of those listed in the OP.
That would be all well and good in a truly competitive market, however today Facebook and Twitter are by far the largest platforms of public discourse, with very few others like youtube. When a public figure is banned from one of these, they're almost always banned from all of them. And, because the market is effectively monopolised by a few like-minded corporations, they are silenced. That's not liberty, that's not freedom.
Private utility companies (internet, water, etc) aren't allowed to stiff you off for whatever reason they like because their services are a necessity, and although theoretically competitors could be alternatives the barriers are too high for that to work. It's the same for these big social platforms: they shouldn't be able to stiff you off for any reason because their services are nearly necessities, and they are monopolists.
You can't even set up alternatives. People say 'go make your own platform' whilst platforms like gab have been lambasted as nazi and boycotted by payment processors. It will become even more difficult when the coming privacy regulation on social media makes it so that the big ones (Facebook) are the only ones that can operate.
It would be like saying in 1800: don't want to be censored in this town square? Lol, go build a different town square (ignorant of the great difficulty/impossibility of doing so).
Original post by limetang
Naturalistic fallacy. We're not arguing about whether facebook have the legal right to do this, as far as I'm aware they do. We're arguing about whether what they are doing is right.
If they have the legal right to do this, then yes it is right... It's their business.
Original post by That'sGreat
If they have the legal right to do this, then yes it is right... It's their business.
Absolute nonsense, something being legal in no way means it is right.
Facebook can do whatever they like with their business in what's left of that Free World that was so hard to erect in the past, at the same time we're all free to exercise our prerogative in commentating on it. That's what Free World was meant to be, freedom of thought and expression. So we don't deny Facebook, You Tube or whatever the right to do whatever. It is still a free world.
Every time these things happen we can only soak them up and learn whatever lessons there may be, the point of interest is what they tell us about who they are. Public perception has them as politically neutral by default and trusts them as such, are they really? I don't care whether they ban these groups or not, I don't even know what their pages are like, all I'm interested to know is whether they apply exactly the same criterium to all ranges of opinions, regardless of political orientation. Hate is quite a loose concept, surely there will be pages where things can be construed as hateful speech but against other groups, like white men or people. Transgenderism will be quite a hot area to look for it flying both ways, Brexiteers would be filing complaints by the hour if only they weren't a bit sturdy at taking abuse and demonisation in. Yet, not much of that is classed as 'hateful' enough.
Sillicon Valley follow the political orientation that best serves their interests, it's as simple as that. That's how they manage to pay so little tax. Donate a pile to an abortion group or crack down on anyone moaning about out-of-control immigration and you're good, it serves somebody else's interests too somehow. Install sex-neutral toilets and the CEO will be on the cover of Time.
Every time these things happen we can only soak them up and learn whatever lessons there may be, the point of interest is what they tell us about who they are. Public perception has them as politically neutral by default and trusts them as such, are they really? I don't care whether they ban these groups or not, I don't even know what their pages are like, all I'm interested to know is whether they apply exactly the same criterium to all ranges of opinions, regardless of political orientation. Hate is quite a loose concept, surely there will be pages where things can be construed as hateful speech but against other groups, like white men or people. Transgenderism will be quite a hot area to look for it flying both ways, Brexiteers would be filing complaints by the hour if only they weren't a bit sturdy at taking abuse and demonisation in. Yet, not much of that is classed as 'hateful' enough.
Sillicon Valley follow the political orientation that best serves their interests, it's as simple as that. That's how they manage to pay so little tax. Donate a pile to an abortion group or crack down on anyone moaning about out-of-control immigration and you're good, it serves somebody else's interests too somehow. Install sex-neutral toilets and the CEO will be on the cover of Time.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by limetang
Absolute nonsense, something being legal in no way means it is right.
But what is 'right' is subjective so the law is the only objective basis we can go off of...
Original post by That'sGreat
But what is 'right' is subjective so the law is the only objective basis we can go off of...
The first six words are correct but I can’t agree with the rest. The law in Brunei says that gays face death, laws are not a basis for what is objectively right
Original post by Underscore__
The first six words are correct but I can’t agree with the rest. The law in Brunei says that gays face death, laws are not a basis for what is objectively right
Morals are different in different cultures. In Brunel, the law suggests it is objectively right (though this is only based on law, there is no such thing as an objective moral right), it is also likely subjectively/morally right in Brunel as well. Morals are not transcultural or transnational.
Original post by DarthRoar
That would be all well and good in a truly competitive market, however today Facebook and Twitter are by far the largest platforms of public discourse, with very few others like youtube. When a public figure is banned from one of these, they're almost always banned from all of them. And, because the market is effectively monopolised by a few like-minded corporations, they are silenced. That's not liberty, that's not freedom.
Private utility companies (internet, water, etc) aren't allowed to stiff you off for whatever reason they like because their services are a necessity, and although theoretically competitors could be alternatives the barriers are too high for that to work. It's the same for these big social platforms: they shouldn't be able to stiff you off for any reason because their services are nearly necessities, and they are monopolists.
You can't even set up alternatives. People say 'go make your own platform' whilst platforms like gab have been lambasted as nazi and boycotted by payment processors. It will become even more difficult when the coming privacy regulation on social media makes it so that the big ones (Facebook) are the only ones that can operate.
It would be like saying in 1800: don't want to be censored in this town square? Lol, go build a different town square (ignorant of the great difficulty/impossibility of doing so).
Private utility companies (internet, water, etc) aren't allowed to stiff you off for whatever reason they like because their services are a necessity, and although theoretically competitors could be alternatives the barriers are too high for that to work. It's the same for these big social platforms: they shouldn't be able to stiff you off for any reason because their services are nearly necessities, and they are monopolists.
You can't even set up alternatives. People say 'go make your own platform' whilst platforms like gab have been lambasted as nazi and boycotted by payment processors. It will become even more difficult when the coming privacy regulation on social media makes it so that the big ones (Facebook) are the only ones that can operate.
It would be like saying in 1800: don't want to be censored in this town square? Lol, go build a different town square (ignorant of the great difficulty/impossibility of doing so).
Social media is not a necessity to talk to people, it’s a convenience. Unless you think you must sit there in front of a computer screen reading the mindless ramblings of someone you will never meet, and who has no bearing on your day-to-day life.
Facebook and twitter became big because they host content that appeals to the majority. If there was a majority for far right ideology, some other platform with right leaning staff/management would fill that spot too.
Original post by xDron3
The more you try and silence these groups, the louder they become.
Many of these groups have been under restrictions far more onerous for years - for instance, BNP and NF members are banned from working as teachers or prison workers - and it didn't really correlate with any huge surge in popularity.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- who is donald trump
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- What content is taught in Pharmacy Foundation Year?
- Transferring university
- GCSE History
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Does this still go on at Exeter University
- Friends just started excluding and ignoring me
- Loughborough vs. Southampton for Mechanical Engineering
- Midwifery group chat Keele uni
- I’ve been harassed on Snapchat, what do I do?
- Extremist social media apps should be banned in schools, colleges and universities.
- Camp Leaders/ UsaSummerCamp 2013
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Struggling with mental health
- How do I advertise my GCSE tutoring service?
- How do I get an A* in my History Coursework?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
