Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders Watch

Moments
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(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).
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.
2
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(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.
3
reply
Other_Owl
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
Far left needs to be banned.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(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.
1
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(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.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 17
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(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.
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 weeks ago
#48
'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.
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(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.
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(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.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
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.
2
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 weeks ago
#53
(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.
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
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
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 weeks ago
#56
(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
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 weeks ago
#57
(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.
1
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 weeks ago
#58
Not being on these major platforms can sway elections.

No private company should have that power without regulation.
1
reply
CommanderKeen
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
Facebook's banning strategy seems to be quite selective Communists, anarchists and Islamists can stay but nazi cannot . I mean if you want to ban lunatics, why not all of them?
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 weeks ago
#60
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...
2
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 GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (490)
31.07%
The paper was reasonable (608)
38.55%
Not feeling great about that exam... (258)
16.36%
It was TERRIBLE (221)
14.01%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed