Facebook allows NASA child slave colony on Mars posts

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, ivan134 said:

 

 

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

They can do whatever they want but it's not going to implement a blocking policy that would be impossible to enforce. I mean who honestly cares that there are crazy conspiracy theories out there on Facebook? 

[GilmourD]

57 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They can do whatever they want but it's not going to implement a blocking policy that would be impossible to enforce. I mean who honestly cares that there are crazy conspiracy theories out there on Facebook? 

Most of my family believes that they're true. It's one of the reasons I don't talk to my parents anymore. No hyperbole here.

[Christophe Corazza]

The next president needs to take a serious look at having the FCC regulate what sources can and cannot call itself “news”, and institute minimum standards including a commitment to reporting the truth. Everything else can be opinion or entertainment, and should be represented as such with a gigantic disclaimer.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 hours ago, ivan134 said:

 

 

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

1. Just because they can legally do what they want is no excuse to shut down users complaining that they shouldn't on a moral basis. Hate this shit, see it to so much these days. X is a private company, they can legally censor something, so you can't complain about it. OF FUCKING COURSE we can complain. It's the only avenue of action we have. Especially when they are practically a monopoly like say YT

2. Breitbart is a right wing news publication. Facebook is a social media platform that happens to enable users to aggregate news.

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:28 AM, Sauron said:

I agree, but at this point they either get rid of all fake news or none of it... paradoxically, by removing other fake news but leaving infowars alone they are basically endorsing it.

More people than ever as a matter of fact. Also, let me remind you that facebook owns whatsapp and instagram too so you can expect this sort of policy to affect those platforms in the long run.

From what little I've seen of Alex Jones, even the stuff that isn't conspiracy theories is mostly bullshit or a selective, twisted outlook on the facts. Maybe he does tell the truth at times, but only if it suits him - I'd say he can't be trusted.

Legally they can do whatever they want on their own site (as long as it's not, well, illegal), and blocking content on their platform is not censorship - this doesn't mean we can't criticize them for what they do.

Yes they are, although it doesn't apply to this specifically. They must remove illegal stuff if it is brought to their attention, for instance.

I'd personally never take his advice at face value. He definitely has his own motives, I mean infowars sells health supplements for christ sakes. The only thing I support about infowars(and everyone) in this situation is the right to disperse their content without interference by social media.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 10:15 AM, Jtalk4456 said:

Actually I would argue that point. I'd heard about this and how it was supposed to be better than other of his stuff. Really it's poorly researched and he makes up a bunch of crap about it too. I found someone who described the problems well, and they are a conspiracy theorist themselves pointing out his crap

http://skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/dark-secrets-inside-bohemian-grove/

I guess I understand your criticism of viewpoints that he injects but the documentary contains at least an hours worth of raw footage of the events including the full ritual, it's basically indisputable evidence of what happens.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 9:35 AM, ivan134 said:

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. How many of you are complaining about the lack of pro Hillary articles on Breitbart?

Should of guessed the resident armchair extremist would rush in.

 

"FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want."

That means they can allow whatever they want as well... 

 

I noticed you targeted all opposition views while failing to criticize the OP, who made this thread criticizing Facebook for allowing infowars material.

 

XDDD

 

[Jtalk4456]

15 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I guess I understand your criticism of viewpoints that he injects but the documentary contains at least an hours worth of raw footage of the events including the full ritual, it's basically indisputable evidence of what happens.

maybe so, but his viewers aren't ONLY seeing the footage, they're listening to him intently, and they come out with some sort of religious cult idea that isn't real. If you really read into it, and the "ritual" it just amounts to a bunch of rich white guys calling themselves bohemians and putting on a show for fun

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, GilmourD said:

Most of my family believes that they're true. It's one of the reasons I don't talk to my parents anymore. No hyperbole here.

That's unfortunate but Facebook banning this type of content won't stop people from believing in conspiracy theories. I firmly believe that sheltering people isn't the answer as it makes people incapable of deciding what is real and what is not. If you let someone do something for you all the time then you never learn how to do it yourself. This concept when applied to fake news shows how Facebook determining what is fake and what is real would be bad. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

Facebook has a pretty liberal agenda tbh. I don't think Zuckerberg finished the 'ethics' subject of his course at Harvard haha. 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'd personally never take his advice at face value. He definitely has his own motives, I mean infowars sells health supplements for christ sakes. The only thing I support about infowars(and everyone) in this situation is the right to disperse their content without interference by social media.

They do have their own website though don't they? No rights are being stepped on, the question is simply whether or not facebook is/would be a worse website by virtue of banning certain pages.

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

Facebook has a pretty liberal agenda tbh. I don't think Zuckerberg finished the 'ethics' subject of his course at Harvard haha. 

Their "agenda" is to make as much money as possible as fast as possible, period. They'll do whatever it takes to entice the majority of users to join and use the site. Politics have nothing to do with it.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

Their "agenda" is to make as much money as possible as fast as possible, period. They'll do whatever it takes to entice the majority of users to join and use the site. Politics have nothing to do with it.

The whole thing with the russian propoganda acting like there isn't any other (like CNN)

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

The whole thing with the russian propoganda acting like there isn't any other (like CNN)

One of those might cause them to lose US users, the other won't. They also don't want this to be mandated by law so they try to appease lawmakers, mainly in the US where they are based.

[MGE Dawn]

9 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 

In short, he's only operating at 30% efficiency when taking a dump, eh?

[Taf the Ghost]

56 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They do have their own website though don't they? No rights are being stepped on, the question is simply whether or not facebook is/would be a worse website by virtue of banning certain pages.

Their "agenda" is to make as much money as possible as fast as possible, period. They'll do whatever it takes to entice the majority of users to join and use the site. Politics have nothing to do with it.

Facebook is a spy company. They care first about collecting as much information as possible, but their secondary function will always be to massage that information to keep the people that buy it happy. And the information buyers really haven't been happy with Facebook for a while, mostly because they didn't act fast enough to crush information flows that were counter to the objectives of the major players. 

 

There's a reason Zuckerberg got drug before Congress & humiliated. His presidential ambitions also got obliterated in the process. When you get piled on by both sides, it's clear you've fallen out of favor with the big players. Though one can appreciate that Facebook was the point-company for the "Fake News" push. Man, did that ever blow up in their faces spectacularly. 

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

 

On 7/13/2018 at 7:49 AM, rcmaehl said:

However, obvious repeat offenders of obvious Conspiracy theories should not be allowed.

You mean like Wallstreet Journal (PewDiePie), CNN, Vice and many others as well??

 

Its not like the list of those Conspiracy Theory Sites is particularly short, its quite the opposite!

Its rather long and ugly as many MSN Outlets fall under this due to reporting of some things without evidence or producing hit pieces against the opposition.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 9:35 AM, ivan134 said:

FaceBook is a private entity. The can block whatever the f**k they want. 

Well, you seem to have missed the Trump-Twitter Ruling, where a judge ruled that Twitter was a public Forum (and concluded that Trump could not block People)...

This case will be handled by the Supreme Court and it is possible that it will become law that Twitter is a Public Entity and thus has to abide by the laws and respect the 2nd Amenment...

 

Weren't there two black chicks censored on Facebook that also spoke in front of Congress??
I believe it was Diamond and Silk or so.

 

And that Japanese (american) dude, you would call Far Right, won his case against Twitter as well. But well, he kinda talks like a Japanese without the accent though...

[Taf the Ghost]

19 hours ago, Sauron said:

One of those might cause them to lose US users, the other won't. They also don't want this to be mandated by law so they try to appease lawmakers, mainly in the US where they are based.

Content rules wouldn't survive in the Courts, plus you'd need a Leftwing majority & Democratic President to pass those types of laws, in the current political alignment within the USA. It's pretty obvious, from across the world, who Censorship laws get applied to & who they don't. That's not what Facebook is worried about.

 

Their 3 majors worries, in no order are: 1) Anti-Trust Rules, 2) Losing Users to some other platform and 3) Zuckerberg & Execs getting drummed out of the "Club". The last one is actually Facebook's real worry, as a brick is more charismatic than Zuckerberg. That matters in business, especially when you look how Zuck got to where he is. 

 

18 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Well, you seem to have missed the Trump-Twitter Ruling, where a judge ruled that Twitter was a public Forum (and concluded that Trump could not block People)...

This case will be handled by the Supreme Court and it is possible that it will become law that Twitter is a Public Entity and thus has to abide by the laws and respect the 2nd Amenment...

 

Weren't there two black chicks censored on Facebook that also spoke in front of Congress??
I believe it was Diamond and Silk or so.

 

 

And that Japanese (american) dude, you would call Far Right, won his case against Twitter as well. But well, he kinda talks like a Japanese without the accent though...

It should be noted the "Private Businesses can do whatever they want" is utterly NOT true in the USA. There is all sorts of rules and they can get really, really specific. I'm waiting for someone to bring a Disparate Impact lawsuit against a Social Media company. That would be amazing.

[ivan134]

18 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Well, you seem to have missed the Trump-Twitter Ruling, where a judge ruled that Twitter was a public Forum (and concluded that Trump could not block People)...

This case will be handled by the Supreme Court and it is possible that it will become law that Twitter is a Public Entity and thus has to abide by the laws and respect the 2nd Amenment...

 

Weren't there two black chicks censored on Facebook that also spoke in front of Congress??
I believe it was Diamond and Silk or so.

 

And that Japanese (american) dude, you would call Far Right, won his case against Twitter as well. But well, he kinda talks like a Japanese without the accent though...

Lmao, no. The supreme court isn't going to do shit about this. Trump's case was special because he's the president and that's the platform he chooses to talk to citizens. The president works for the people, therefore he can't block people. Carry on with your wishful thinking though. 

 

On 7/13/2018 at 12:47 PM, Syntaxvgm said:

1. Just because they can legally do what they want is no excuse to shut down users complaining that they shouldn't on a moral basis. Hate this shit, see it to so much these days. X is a private company, they can legally censor something, so you can't complain about it. OF FUCKING COURSE we can complain. It's the only avenue of action we have. Especially when they are practically a monopoly like say YT

2. Breitbart is a right wing news publication. Facebook is a social media platform that happens to enable users to aggregate news.

Moral basis....of not allowing fake news to spread???? What????

 

On 7/13/2018 at 10:28 AM, sanfilippo12 said:

I’m really not making stuff up. Why would I do that?  I did research and posted my findings. Would you like my sources?

No, I meant making stuff up about what constitutes being a platform

[Vanderburg]

Facebook has already demonstrated that they suck at curating the news articles. This is a-ok by me.

[Stefan Payne]

14 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Lmao, no. The supreme court isn't going to do shit about this. Trump's case was special because he's the president and that's the platform he chooses to talk to citizens. The president works for the people, therefore he can't block people. Carry on with your wishful thinking though. 

that is where you are wrong.

There are already other rulings that go against your view.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

 

And there are also other cases in the courts, one got through in California.

Lets call him Mr. Taylor, who grew up in Japan and talks rather politely, who gots his Accounts suspended. And that one probably will end in the Supreme Courts...

 

14 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

Facebook has already demonstrated that they suck at curating the news articles. This is a-ok by me.

Yes, because all will suck.

Because there is no objective measure of this isue, so we're back to the political bias issue. 

 

And it seems that Facebook at least somewhat tries to not be too political biased, although that's impossible in the region where they are...

[Mooshi]

Anyone remember when Facebook was invite only for college students instead of stage 4 normie?

[Stefan Payne]

A bit better analysis from someone who knows more about News Media than most:

 

[asus killer]

18 hours ago, infamoustrey said:

Agreed, it's up to the individual not a corporation with it's own sets of interests and agendas to determine which information is relevant and factual. If you believe everything you see on the internet, that's your own fault. It's basic common sense to take everything you see on the web with a grain of salt.

the problem is:

 

1) people do believe and it has real world consequences, not going to mention the current most famous case not to be accused of politics, but anyone knows what it has

2) and that's exactly what those how create the fake news want

3) in fact you are enabling them, more than that you are doing them a service

4) lot's of people haven't got the means (education) to distinguish real from fake news, why would you believe ones over the others?

5) older people see the internet as a newspaper on a screen

6) for a lot younger people the internet and even facebook are the only source of news

 

there are lots of cases in the past of someone creating a narrative to serve a purpose, the most famous one the nazis against the jews, you can google images of newspaper covers from back them with the most creative conspiracies theories and we all know how that turned out.

 

and if you don't believe people can be so unprepared to know the difference; EVEN COLLAGE GRADUATES, i give you this:

 

[yian88]

Well they lied about every war ever in existance, especially WW2, so some facebook nonesense is nothing really.

[ivan134]

13 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

that is where you are wrong.

There are already other rulings that go against your view.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

 

And there are also other cases in the courts, one got through in California.

Lets call him Mr. Taylor, who grew up in Japan and talks rather politely, who gots his Accounts suspended. And that one probably will end in the Supreme Courts...

Lmao, did you even read your own link? The supreme didn't give complete freedom to do anything you want in the mall, and the fact that the students were trying to express grievance against their government helped their case. Perpetrators of fake news do not fall under any of these things. Again, continue with your wishful thinking 

 

Now that I think about it, with Trump appointing judges to the Supreme Court, you could be right.

[Syntaxvgm]

13 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Moral basis....of not allowing fake news to spread???? What????

Wutt? Herp derp. Treat me like what I said was retarted, but dont actually respond to what I said, Genius. 
Way to rephrase that in a way I never said. I'm talking about the morality of censorship, not specifically the morality of "allowing fake news to spread". And 'fake news' is almost up there with terrorism and "think of the children" as an excuse now. Not everyone believes it's anyone's "Moral duty" to police information people share, and many believe undertaking those actions has consequences that outweigh the benefits. I dont give a shit about what facebook is doing, but I dont like when twitter and youtube pick political favorites for example. I can complain about that all I want. I believe that a social media platform should not censor its users. That's my personal belief, and if enough people are of the same opinion, it's our right to pressure these platforms to behave the way we want. Telling people they cannot complain because a company can legally do something is bullshit. Bitching about what they do is our only avenue of change, as I said before, how hard is that to grasp? 
And believe me, facebook will sweep up political leanings it doesn't agree with along with actual fake news. I still wonder how people would feel if left of center politics were censored instead. But, I dont give a shit about FB, so I really have no strong feeling one way or the other there. 

[Coaxialgamer]

On 7/13/2018 at 2:57 PM, LordOTaco said:

I'll take the potentially unpopular opinion here.  Why should I let Facebook...no anyone for that matter tell me what is fake news?  Are they basically trying to tell the individual that they are incapable of doing that themselves and we need Big Brother Zucc to do it for us?

As much as i can clearly see the cons a scheme like this  , the fact that websites sites like breitbart and infowars are thriving right now very much shows that no , most people are not capable of doing so.