Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders Watch

AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(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.
If you scroll up you might see the posts where you literally said what I have quoted.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
As I was reading the names of the groups who were getting banned I was like "Am I even supposed to give a ****? Good riddance these idiotic groups are getting banned".
Last edited by The RAR; 1 month ago
0
reply
MrDystopia
  • Volunteer Section Leader
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(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.
1
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
The problem with all these "it's a private company" arguments is that in theory yes, but in practice the economies of scale enjoyed by the likes of Youtube Twitter and Facebook severely distort this fact.
5
reply
poorhouse321
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(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:
  • 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).
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(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?
2
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
can we also ban the far leftists and the radical feminists?
1
reply
poorhouse321
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(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.
1
reply
poorhouse321
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by ltsmith)
can we also ban the far leftists and the radical feminists?
No, because it is precisely those people that have banned what they call far right groups from Facebook.
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
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
(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.
1
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by poorhouse321)
No, because it is precisely those people that have banned what they call far right groups from Facebook.
that's not politically biased at all then
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(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.
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.
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(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.
(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).
3
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(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.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
they should ban extreme left groups as well to keep things balanced.
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(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.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
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.
Last edited by z-hog; 1 month ago
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(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...
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (42)
16.28%
The paper was reasonable (127)
49.22%
Not feeling great about that exam... (57)
22.09%
It was TERRIBLE (32)
12.4%

Watched Threads

View All