Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:58 pm
So, from your last point, I take it that you think that FB commercial activities undermine certain rights and freedoms, because 'you can't have freedom" "if money is involved." I don't necessarily disagree with that, but probably for different reasons.
Attach some of your money to a 'free speech platform', or acknowledge that our reasons are likely very similar.
I wouldn't.
Last year
FB banned far-right political and pressure groups in the UK, groups which themselves are banned as extremist and/or terrorist organisations under UK law.
Are Facebook at fault for abiding by that law, or is the law at fault for banning far-right groups and some of the people who support them?
The law is at fault, which is usually the case.
It always comes down to 'who gets to decide what 'far-right' means. (or whichever group is targeted)
The thing here though is that FBs primary concerns are business concerns -
Yup. They will have to exercise those concerns in every jurisdiction they wish to play in. This means that things on facebook will get more and more conservative, until you can't even show nudity, mock those in power, or mention certain individuals who are of interest only in their home countries (like that Eric fellow, who shouldn't be named by anyone)
What you're complaining about is that FB's standard and interests do not align with your or Tommy Robinson's, but unfortunately both of you are impotent to effect a change in FBs business model, commercial objectives, or corporate interests - as are we all.
Not so. I quit their platform, and started using it as it is presented - a 'yellow pages' for the modern age. A place for facebook to collect data about citizens, and sell it to whoever they want.
But nobody thinks that FB is acting illegally.
I think when they say that TR called for beheading, and he didn't, they are guilty of a crime in most countries (defamation or libel - I forget which) but they complicate things with expensive lawyers, so it is probably tough to prove.
But you know they lied about him blatantly. Who else did? Do you know about the BBC reporter he caught - on tape - saying he was going to set him up?
He is a good example because it is SO politically correct to hate him.
Was it Mills who suggested that if you didn't value freedom of speech, for speech you hated, then you didn't value it properly?
This is why I asked you if you think there needs to be some additional legislative obligation placed on companies like FB by the government, something that will ensure the rights and freedoms you and Mr Robinson think of as important are secured for FB users - and if so, what might those legal securities look like?
Since facebook has the right to mine our data, we should have the right to tax them on it. So I guess I'm saying...I don't know.
When I wanted to learn about advertising, I didn't study the slick, professional and well-crafted stuff. I soaked up the porn ads, cheap, vulgar and unsubtle.
I suggest using these 'modern day bookburnings' as places to investigate.
Tommy is one easy example, but you can pretty easily find others.
The thing is, banning these folks does little more than draw attention to who is NOT being banned. That Bernie staffer who was calling for violence...I bet his facebook feed had PLENTY of evidence of calls for violence (he sure did it in person freely enough)
Another example, the old site eight chan got closed for hosting some terrible stuff (basically) so why isn't twitter facebook and others closed for the same reasons? (I'll give you a hint - it wasn't because of the NZ monster, but because of another poster unique to that site)
Looking to who
doesn't get the ban-hammer is going to tell you much more, if you take the time to look at it right.
And that you have not accepted my friend request? 
