The Student Room Group

Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders

Scroll to see replies

Far left needs to be banned.
Original post by poorhouse321
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.


Croatia is 99% white. Even Scotland is 96% white.

You have to be Black to be a citizen of Liberia.


Which is a dumb racist law that dates back to Liberia's past as a settler-colonial racist state, and it should be repealed.

Japan is 98.5 % Japanese.


This stat gets trotted out a lot, and it's not what its citers usually think it is. That actually refers to the proportion of Japan's population who are Japanese citizens. There's no such thing as an "ethnic Japanese" person. The dominant majority population - the people you're probably thinking of when you say "Japanese" - are Yamato people. Yamato are not the only native ethnic group in Japan - there are also Ainu, Ryukyuans, and Burakumin, and Japan also has a sizable ethnic Korean population. The problem is we don't really know how many of them there are, because the Japanese state likes to project an image that it's ultra-homogenous - it didn't even recognise the formal existence of the Ainu until 2008, collects virtually no stats on ethnicity, and those it does release tend to underplay minority numbers significantly.


It is very difficult to get an Indian passport if you are not ethnically Indian.


i) What's an "ethnic Indian"? India is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. Andamanese people are hugely different from Kashmiris, who are very different from Tamils, and so on.

ii) Not that difficult to get an Indian passport, in many ways it's easier than getting a UK one. Indeed, if you were born in India before 1987 (and have proof of it, of course), there are basically no barriers to getting one.

If you have a Jewish grandparent you are automatically entitled to Israeli citizenship.


Yes, and it's one of the many things that makes Israel a racist state. That Law has been pretty damn controversial, you might have noticed.
Original post by That'sGreat
But what is 'right' is subjective so the law is the only objective basis we can go off of...


A contradiction. IF what is right is subjective then the law cannot be an objective basis.
Original post by That'sGreat
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.


You said laws are the only source of things being objectively right, if something is objectively right in Brunei it’s objectively right everywhere.

Laws are simply a manifestation of what most of a particular group of people think is fair but they’re no more objectively correct than the view of any particular individual and shouldn’t be used as a benchmarking authority on what’s 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.


Exactly. That's how the free market works. Companies should be allowed to decide who they serve and who they ban, and people can vote with their wallets.

The right-wing should stop complaining when the free market goes against them.
Reply 45
'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.'

Football Ground Regulations state 'Racial, homophobic or discriminatory abuse, chanting or harassment is strictly forbidden and will result in arrest and/or ejection from the Ground.' There can also be Banning Orders imposed.

So, is banning someone from football matches for shouting a player is 'a f***ing black monkey who should go back to the jungle', which might only be heard by a handful of people, infringe on freedom of speech, be perceived as censorship and is it right?

No, no and yes.
Original post by Underscore__
You said laws are the only source of things being objectively right, if something is objectively right in Brunei it’s objectively right everywhere.

Laws are simply a manifestation of what most of a particular group of people think is fair but they’re no more objectively correct than the view of any particular individual and shouldn’t be used as a benchmarking authority on what’s right.


I said law is the only basis we could use to create an objective right, not that it is an objective right in itself. There is no such thing as objectively moral right, and just because there is the perception of the objective right in Brunel, that doesn't mean it has to be objectively right everywhere. Not sure where you got that idea from.

Law is the only benchmarking authority that can be used.
Original post by limetang
A contradiction. IF what is right is subjective then the law cannot be an objective basis.


Law is objective, I didn't say it was in itself an objective right.
Original post by That'sGreat
I said law is the only basis we could use to create an objective right, not that it is an objective right in itself. There is no such thing as objectively moral right, and just because there is the perception of the objective right in Brunel, that doesn't mean it has to be objectively right everywhere. Not sure where you got that idea from.


Is something is objectively right in one place it would be objectively right everywhere, otherwise it would be subjective to a particular group.

Original post by That'sGreat
Law is the only benchmarking authority that can be used.


It’s no better than what any individual thinks, the question of whether something is morally right or wrong will always be completely subjective. Having more people believe that something is right doesn’t push it closer to be objectively right.
The law is objectively right in their country, the law is a fixed document that is not subjective. You are still confusing the idea of moral rights and lawful rights.
Original post by Underscore__
Is something is objectively right in one place it would be objectively right everywhere, otherwise it would be subjective to a particular group.



It’s no better than what any individual thinks, the question of whether something is morally right or wrong will always be completely subjective. Having more people believe that something is right doesn’t push it closer to be objectively right.

Again, you're failing to understand.
Original post by Moments
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.


Water on tap isn't a necessity, it's a convenience, you can just buy it bottled or use the well, right?

Social platforms are less, but still very important. The ability to effectively silence an individual is far too much power for any monopolistic firms to have.

Original post by AngeryPenguin
Exactly. That's how the free market works. Companies should be allowed to decide who they serve and who they ban, and people can vote with their wallets.
The right-wing should stop complaining when the free market goes against them.


If you're an advocate for complete free-market economics, you don't appear to have much of a grasp of reality. There's no use shouting "vote with your wallets" when Rockefeller's Standard Oil has dominated the fuel supply market which you need. It's similar with social platforms: the structural barriers and entry-deterring strategies used have demonstrably stopped competitors from being able to operate.
The thing is all these groups preach hate no doubt about it which is illegal in the UK. So Facebook probably feels obliged to ban these groups to follow the law
Original post by That'sGreat
The law is objectively right in their country, the law is a fixed document that is not subjective. You are still confusing the idea of moral rights and lawful rights.
Again, you're failing to understand.


Something can’t be objectively right in one place, if it is then it’s subjective. Their law is subjectively right, they believe it to be correct whereas most other people don’t.

I’m not confusing them at all, you were the person who said that laws are the only basis we have for determining what is right. It is correct to say that homosexual sex is punishable by death in Brunei but that in no way means it’s right.
Original post by Underscore__
Something can’t be objectively right in one place, if it is then it’s subjective. Their law is subjectively right, they believe it to be correct whereas most other people don’t.

I’m not confusing them at all, you were the person who said that laws are the only basis we have for determining what is right. It is correct to say that homosexual sex is punishable by death in Brunei but that in no way means it’s right.


FFS you haven't understood a word. No point trying to flog a dead horse
Reply 54
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?




I feel i should point out that the idea of freedom of speech is in itself a myth. I mean you can either have free speech or not, to argue there is a middle ground is a ridiculous fudge of the matter.
Not being on these major platforms can sway elections.

No private company should have that power without regulation.
Facebook's banning strategy seems to be quite selective :biggrin: Communists, anarchists and Islamists can stay but nazi cannot :biggrin:. I mean if you want to ban lunatics, why not all of them?
great move, extremists from the right and left regardless should have no say on such a platform, spreading hate, however a fine line with freedom of speech which we have to be careful of...
Original post by Napp
I feel i should point out that the idea of freedom of speech is in itself a myth. I mean you can either have free speech or not, to argue there is a middle ground is a ridiculous fudge of the matter.

True it is in itself a myth. I think realistically we do not have free speech.
'The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.'
There's a lot of things we can say which can land you into prison.

'The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.'

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html (Outdated but relevant)
Reply 59
Original post by Themysticalegg
True it is in itself a myth. I think realistically we do not have free speech.
'The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.'
There's a lot of things we can say which can land you into prison.

'The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.'

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html (Outdated but relevant)


Just for clarification are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Given that I said the notion of free speech is in itself a myth under the current regime.

Quick Reply

Latest