Is Facebook killing freedom and liberty?

[Cunt]

The evidence of course is in what he posted to his account, which has now been removed. Facebook hold all the cards. But speaking personally, I'm quite happy to exclude violent extremists from public discourse, like white supremacists and Jihadis.

In order to justify your #OUTRAGE you'll have to argue that Robinson's views are not extremist, violent, or hateful in nature. But you can't do that because of your self-confessed ignorance of his politics and his history of political activism. I think that leaves you nowhere to take this conversation other than to the personal level. So what's your personal view about whether Facebook has some kind of social obligation to promote all ideas equally, or at least not to hamper the expression of any particular idea - no matter how threateningly or hateful they're expressed?

Basically, you and Robinson seem to be complaining that Facebook isn't 4Chan.

No, I was complaining that facebook made fact claims, then immediately failed to produce evidence to back their claims.

Others, however, can't get off the fact that some person is terrible.

I wonder what an organized smear of some citizen would look like...

Are there any such large-scale smears to examine? Or is everyone smeared by the media deserving of their fate?

Has facebook ever banned anyone who doesn't deserve it?

[Brian Peacock]

The evidence of course is in what he posted to his account, which has now been removed. Facebook hold all the cards. But speaking personally, I'm quite happy to exclude violent extremists from public discourse, like white supremacists and Jihadis.

In order to justify your #OUTRAGE you'll have to argue that Robinson's views are not extremist, violent, or hateful in nature. But you can't do that because of your self-confessed ignorance of his politics and his history of political activism. I think that leaves you nowhere to take this conversation other than to the personal level. So what's your personal view about whether Facebook has some kind of social obligation to promote all ideas equally, or at least not to hamper the expression of any particular idea - no matter how threateningly or hateful it's expressed?

Basically, you and Robinson seem to be complaining that Facebook isn't 4Chan.

No, I was complaining that facebook made fact claims, then immediately failed to produce evidence to back their claims.

Others, however, can't get off the fact that some person is terrible.

I wonder what an organized smear of some citizen would look like...

Are there any such large-scale smears to examine? Or is everyone smeared by the media deserving of their fate?

Has facebook ever banned anyone who doesn't deserve it?

How has Tommy Robinson been 'smeared' exactly? Pointing out he's a white supremacist with violent tendencies is only a smear if you think those are adorable traits.

And of you're going to say that his politics isn't the issue, or that you don't know if he's far right or not, then why aren't you defending the Jihadis who've had their FB accounts similarly terminated?

[Cunt]

Has facebook ever banned anyone who doesn't deserve it?

How has Tommy Robinson been 'smeared' exactly? Pointing out he's a white supremacist with violent tendencies is only a smear if you think those are adorable traits.

And of you're going to say that his politics isn't the issue, or that you don't know if he's far right or not, then why aren't you defending the Jihadis who've had their FB accounts similarly terminated?

In the interview you didn't see, the interviewer asked the facebook rep why, the rep gave his reason, citing a specific thing Tommy said. The interviewer asked him for the post in question, and the facebook rep said they didn't have it.

If I have to explain it to you, it's going to be tough, since you don't believe me. Why not take in the interview itself, and then you can rely on the character of the lady who interviewed facebook on the issue, rather than staying so focused on Tommy (or ME - who you don't believe)

[Hermit]

Has facebook ever banned anyone who doesn't deserve it?

How has Tommy Robinson been 'smeared' exactly? Pointing out he's a white supremacist with violent tendencies is only a smear if you think those are adorable traits.

And of you're going to say that his politics isn't the issue, or that you don't know if he's far right or not, then why aren't you defending the Jihadis who've had their FB accounts similarly terminated?

In the interview you didn't see, the interviewer asked the facebook rep why, the rep gave his reason, citing a specific thing Tommy said.

It is you, who has not watched the interview. It's in Danish but captioned in clear, and in my opinion accurate English.

When Lotte Folke Kaarsholm asked Facebook's Nordic Communication Chief Peter Münster why Facebook banned Robinson, he replied: "...we also have a responsibility to ensure that the platform is safe, and that the environment is not one where minorities can be persecuted..." (8:58) Kaarsholm then asked "And that is what you think that Tommy Robinson has caused?" (9:15) Münster replied: "Yes, Tommy Robinson, as far as we are concerned, belongs in the category "hate preacher." (9:19) Münster equates Robinson with "...people who with their public actions are a part of organising hatred against minorities, and who encourage violence."

It was in fact Kaarsholm, quoting the Guardian, who raised the allegation that "it is because Tommy Robinson, on Facebook, has encouraged the decapitation of Muslims." (9:56) Münster reiterated what he said in other words less than a minute earlier: "...there isn't one particular post where we can say that this is THE post ... we made the decision based on a number of different signals." (10:11) He then went on to list some of those signals in a general way.

The rest of the interview is Münster holding forth about the fact that Facebook does as it pleases. Of course that is not what he literally said. He just mentioned that a list of banned people will never be published, concrete justifications for banning people will never be made, methodologies employed for deciding who will remain secret, and so on. Near the end (13:13) he is explicit about who ultimately makes the rules: "...somebody has to make these rules. And until such time as we arrive at a situation where there is a political definition, and perhaps even a democratically legitimised definition of what hate speech is, and what is illegal content on the internet, then we have to make those rules ourselves." And that means Facebook makes its own rules and it decides on how it is implemented all on its own. I said the exact same thing a short while ago. Now you got it from the horse's mouth.

Full Kaarsholm - Münster interview

[Cunt]

Yes, the decapitation claim. That one is less 'opinion based' and clearer. Funny how all the opinions match up, but that one piece of real evidence could not be offered

So we are to believe corporate media giants when they tell us there IS evidence, but they just don't want to show it.

But believe them, being corporate media giants, they have the right interests in mind.

[Hermit]

Yes, the decapitation claim. That one is less 'opinion based' and clearer. Funny how all the opinions match up, but that one piece of real evidence could not be offered

I just exposed your misrepresentation of what was said in the interview.

But believe them, being corporate media giants, they have the right interests in mind.

That is not my opinion. On the contrary, I was explicit and unambiguous just four hours ago, when I dedicated this post to the fact that Facebook's only interest is money, and explained why "the right interest" whatever you mean by that, is not part of the equation.

[Cunt]

It isn't a misrepresentation. He said Tommy Robinson had called for beheading. He was asked for evidence.

He then explained his financial interest.

The result - I dont' believe anything facebook would say about Tommy or you. I would let you speak for yourself, give Tommy the same courtesy, and pay attention to who practices deliberate misunderstanding of him.

Like trying to pretend that muslim is a race, when it is no more a race than is christian.

[Hermit]

It isn't a misrepresentation. He said Tommy Robinson had called for beheading.

Until you provide a time stamp where you allege he said that, it is a misrepresentation of what was said.

[pErvinalia]

Why does a "left winger" give a shit about a far right thug? It's almost as if said left winger isn't a left winger at all.

[Hermit]

Why does a "left winger" give a shit about a far right thug? It's almost as if said left winger isn't a left winger at all.

Robinson is a left winger too, you know? Look at his passionate defence of freedom of speech, for instance!

You're just being misled by the fact that Robinson is the co-founder of the EDL, his association with UKIP and the company he keeps.

[JimC]

In the past, we knew how to deal with people who flew swastikas.

It involved a lot of killing.

[Brian Peacock]

If Robinson didn't call for the beheading of Muslims then everything else he's ever said and done is totally OK, right?

[Cunt]

It isn't a misrepresentation. He said Tommy Robinson had called for beheading.

Until you provide a time stamp where you allege he said that, it is a misrepresentation of what was said.

Let me give it a whirl, but I doubt it will help you.

You sound like you have 'TDS' (usually Trump derangement syndrome, but Tommy this time)

I doubt you want to give him a 'fair shake', so why ask? Seriously? You'll just swat this away, too.

https://youtu.be/BBOO7cpy82I?t=2426

I was focused on facebook's claims, but you all like Tommy SO much. Maybe you should malign the Danish Free Press Society as well.

But don't shit on facebook for their part.

Why is it that you all enjoy him so much, that you can't stick to the thread topic, but instead have to insist he is terrible. I thought I accepted the premise earlier that he was terrible.

And asked if facebook had ever unfairly removed someone.

This Tommy is like Trump to a democrat - you all lose your shit.

How about focus on a different 'banned from facebook' person, to see how they are 'killing freedom and liberty'? Or do you just want to go check out more about Tommy?

I'll accept him speaking for himself, or more real evidence (such as the evidence that he was photographed with a guy who got a swastika tattoo)

But the thread is about facebook. Who have they ever unfairly banned? Or have all their modern-day-bookburnings been cool with you?

[Brian Peacock]

What does 'a fair shake' for Tommy Robinson look like?

[Cunt]

I don't think you could give him one. I have a tough time myself. (being fair about it, I mean)

It would look like this old principle, about trying to see someone elses opinion / argument in the best possible light. (I think it's a yiddish word...can't remember it right now...)

Another way would be to assume that, with his being such an easy target, some lies HAVE been told about him, and try to sort those from the truth.

This brings me to the main point.

Let HIM say what he believes, and if someone says different, assume they are incorrect or lying.

Instead, what we have are people who, even if Tommy himself says he doesn't believe something, insist that he does. (like when someone says he made a claim about a race, but when I checked it was a claim about a religion)

But this is about facebook. Why not focus on them, why the TDS in this case?