Censorship gone too far?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
595
Country
United Kingdom
No, not on GD this time...:)

Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders

Now a load of those included are totally nasty individuals and dangerous groups...

But has this gone a bit far?

Personally I think banning some of said people/organisations often has a negative effect...

Far better to be able to see/hear what the tw*ts are trying to say, as it's usually very easy to argue against their warped philosophies...
(Remember laughing stock Nick Griffin on question time?)

Drive them underground and that simply fuels the hatred!

And there are a few world leaders who spout hate but appear to be able to comment away, thus double standards appear to apply!
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
19
Country
United Kingdom
Now a load of those included are totally nasty individuals and dangerous groups...
But has this gone a bit far?
There are some really spiteful individuals who invent gossip, which gets passed around, added to, and is usually offensively abusive.
One example:
How duchess is abused over race and pregnancy
https://news.sky.com/video/the-trolling-of-meghan-markle-11696249

But every fairytale has its antagonists, and the trolls in this story don't hide under bridges - they lurk behind computer screens, posting abusive messages and sharing dark conspiracy theories.
https://news.sky.com/story/trolling-of-meghan-how-duchess-is-abused-over-race-and-pregnancy-11696606

Some of the things said are truly despicable.
It reminds me of some of the things said in this forum, about Dianne Abbot, Jeremy Corbyn, David Cameron, Theresa May, and a whole host of others.
Criticise their politics, their beliefs, their ideology, their behaviour, their decisions by all means. But when the trolls resort to outright abuse, it's nothing short of outrageous misconduct.
 
S

SammyInnit

Drive them underground and that simply fuels the hatred!

Exactly right.

The best platform for bad ideas is a public, open one. Expose the ideas and rhetoric to the light of day it will become apparent who is for and against.

As Lal said, put these groups underground and it perpetuates the idea that they must be silencing the truth, all that lark.
 
Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
595
Country
United Kingdom
Exactly right.

The best platform for bad ideas is a public, open one. Expose the ideas and rhetoric to the light of day it will become apparent who is for and against.

put these groups underground and it perpetuates the idea that they must be silencing the truth, all that lark.
One of the 'wallies' agrees (y)
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
9,460
Reaction score
1,231
Country
United Kingdom
Its the equivalent of installing speed cameras and 20mph limits because a drugged joy rider crashed at 80. They are trying to be seen as doing something to distract from all the other ills they want you to ignore.
 
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
39,506
Reaction score
4,960
Location
Retired to:
Country
Portugal
It, of course, depends on who is in charge.

I am quite bemused by one of the reasons given for exclusion from the site -

"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,"

 
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
19
Country
United Kingdom
Exactly right.

The best platform for bad ideas is a public, open one. Expose the ideas and rhetoric to the light of day it will become apparent who is for and against.

As Lal said, put these groups underground and it perpetuates the idea that they must be silencing the truth, all that lark.

Its the equivalent of installing speed cameras and 20mph limits because a drugged joy rider crashed at 80. They are trying to be seen as doing something to distract from all the other ills they want you to ignore.
Let's use an analogy:
Someone is hiding behind a door, a fence, a window, whatever, hurling insults and abuse at passers-by, maybe not all passers-by, just the ones that they have singled out. They are doing it from an anonymous vantage position. Their abuse is offensive, insulting, completely off the wall, false allegations, and they are joined by numerous others who add to that abuse, leading to a cacophony of insults and offence. It becomes a wall of offence aimed at specific individuals every time they appear in proximity to that closed, secreted, vantage, anonymous position.

Would it, should it be tolerated?
 

JohnD

Party? What party?
Joined
15 Nov 2005
Messages
82,241
Reaction score
5,616
Location
South
Country
Cook Islands
on the basis of who they are

rather than on the basis of what they do.

I gather you don't understand the difference between excluding someone because he IS, say, a Moslem or a Jew or a redhead; and excluding someone because he DOES commit multiple crimes of violence, and DOES stir up hatred.

You may be aware that we lock up criminals, such as Yaxley-Lennon, because of what they do, not because of what they are.





typo "is IS" corrected to "he IS"
 
Last edited:
S

SammyInnit

rather than on the basis of what they do.

I gather you don't understand the difference between excluding someone because is IS, say, a Moslem or a Jew or a redhead; and excluding someone because he DOES commit multiple crimes of violence, and DOES stir up hatred.

You may be aware that we lock up criminals, such as Yaxley-Lennon, because of what they do, not because of what they are.

When questioning someone's ability to understand the difference between two given examples the least we could expect is you to make some sort of sense while doing so.
 
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
9,460
Reaction score
1,231
Country
United Kingdom
FB can ban who it likes, its not like you pay a membership. But this is aimed at grabbing headlines under the "look we are cleaning up" PR machine.
 
D

durhamplumber

Let's use an analogy:
Someone is hiding behind a door, a fence, a window, whatever, hurling insults and abuse at passers-by, maybe not all passers-by, just the ones that they have singled out. They are doing it from an anonymous vantage position. Their abuse is offensive, insulting, completely off the wall, false allegations, and they are joined by numerous others who add to that abuse, leading to a cacophony of insults and offence. It becomes a wall of offence aimed at specific individuals every time they appear in proximity to that closed, secreted, vantage, anonymous position.

Would it, should it be tolerated?
More complicated than you suggest,because they are spreading the ideas via a media site that they have agreed to abide by its terms and conditions And,should media sites be alllowed to start banning views they disagree with,,etc.Media sites are all for "free speech" but what is free and what is hate etc.Which political groups should be banned and where is the line?
 
Joined
15 Sep 2017
Messages
31,430
Reaction score
2,579
Location
S. Uplands
Country
United Kingdom
Let's use an analogy:
Someone is hiding behind a door, a fence, a window, whatever, hurling insults and abuse at passers-by, maybe not all passers-by, just the ones that they have singled out. They are doing it from an anonymous vantage position. Their abuse is offensive, insulting, completely off the wall, false allegations, and they are joined by numerous others who add to that abuse, leading to a cacophony of insults and offence. It becomes a wall of offence aimed at specific individuals every time they appear in proximity to that closed, secreted, vantage, anonymous position.

Would it, should it be tolerated?
No it should not be tolerated.

On this forum, people get called racist without any proof.
It really is terrible
Awfully upsetting
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Top