Andy1976 Â Â 10 #1 Posted March 14, 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43398417 Â Facebook has decided that BF is a hate group, and therefore is banned. Â I've seen arguments that it's the right thing to do, as they are clearly inciting racial hatred, but also contrary arguments that they're just exercising freedom of speech. Â I'm personally on the former view. I think they're filth, desperate to cause hatred amongst their ranks of mouth breathers. Â Any views on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #2 Posted March 14, 2018 About time too. For once Bookyface get things right Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alchresearch   214 #3 Posted March 14, 2018 On the one hand, its brilliant. I hate seeing people recirculate their posts as truth.  But on the other, does it force them underground where we can't see what they're up to and ridicule them in public? Or are their followers too stupid to use any medium other than Facebook?  They certainly won't use the "dark net" because it has the word dark in it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #4 Posted March 14, 2018 They are not smart enough to use the dark net I dont think Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #5 Posted March 14, 2018 just saw this  one thing to say  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #6 Posted March 14, 2018 I'm of the opinion that it's a good thing, they spread lies and misinformation to stir up trouble and hatred and they shouldn't be given a platform. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Harrystottle   10 #7 Posted March 14, 2018 A precedent has been set Namely that politicians can pressure internet providers to censor views they don't agree with. So no problem with Britain First, but who will Yvette Cooper et all decide is going to be banned next? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RootsBooster   24 #8 Posted March 14, 2018 A precedent has been set Namely that politicians can pressure internet providers to censor views they don't agree with. So no problem with Britain First, but who will Yvette Cooper et all decide is going to be banned next?  Which politicians were involved? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #9 Posted March 14, 2018 A precedent has been set Namely that politicians can pressure internet providers to censor views they don't agree with. So no problem with Britain First, but who will Yvette Cooper et all decide is going to be banned next? They already set that when they drew up the list of proscribed organisations? we've had that years. It was mainly pro palastinian and islamic extremists on it for years tho so well done to Britain first and national action for making it.  also theres been news about national action videos on youtube not being taken off fast enough this week too.  Dont forget the "leaders" of britain first also got jailed recently for inciting hate...just like our hooky friend et al Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #10 Posted March 14, 2018 This wasnt the UK politicians putting them on a proscribed list. This was FB getting so jacked off with the flood of reports about them that they decided they were going against commuinity standards and they unilaterally booted them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Harrystottle   10 #11 Posted March 14, 2018 Which politicians were involved?  Try this one, for starters. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/19/mps-press-social-media-firms-over-failure-to-take-down-hate-speech  There is co-ordinated pressure in the western world to control social media.  In America. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/19/mps-press-social-media-firms-over-failure-to-take-down-hate-speech  In Sweden. https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-under-fire-for-anti-semitic-search-results-in-sweden/  In Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m  Look, there is literally tons of this stuff happening. It is a battle for influence. Mainstream politicians and the mainstream media both do not have the control and the influence that they used to have. Politicians especially want that control and influence back. This means trying to control what's available on line on Facebook, on Youtube and on Twitter.  My kids (late twenties and thirty) rarely buy a newspaper and never watch TV news, the traditional sources of how people are influenced. They get their news from the web. Which up to press is allowing a far greater variety of views than the UK media.  Given all that I think that this is just the start. In the future sites like the relentlessly anti-immigrant and anti-Islam Breitbart will certainly be closed down (or try to be closed down). After that maybe even sites like Spiked or Guido Fawkes.  We'll see. But to just think that this sanction is just being applied against one group in one country is wrong, and the idea that it will stop there is equally wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #12 Posted March 14, 2018 Try this one, for starters. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/19/mps-press-social-media-firms-over-failure-to-take-down-hate-speech  There is co-ordinated pressure in the western world to control social media.  In America. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/19/mps-press-social-media-firms-over-failure-to-take-down-hate-speech  In Sweden. https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-under-fire-for-anti-semitic-search-results-in-sweden/  In Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m  Look, there is literally tons of this stuff happening. It is a battle for influence. Mainstream politicians and the mainstream media both do not have the control and the influence that they used to have. Politicians especially want that control and influence back. This means trying to control what's available on line on Facebook, on Youtube and on Twitter.  My kids (late twenties and thirty) rarely buy a newspaper and never watch TV news, the traditional sources of how people are influenced. They get their news from the web. Which up to press is allowing a far greater variety of views than the UK media.  Given all that I think that this is just the start. In the future sites like the relentlessly anti-immigrant and anti-Islam Breitbart will certainly be closed down (or try to be closed down). After that maybe even sites like Spiked or Guido Fawkes.  We'll see. But to just think that this sanction is just being applied against one group in one country is wrong, and the idea that it will stop there is equally wrong.  Take off the tin helmet, this isnt about social media control, its about a group of hateful individuals who have spent the last few years steadily growing in influence peddling hate (race hate) they are EXACTLY the same as the islamic extremists, who have been banned, locked up, "censored" as much as we can for years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...