1984 in 2018

[_canpakes]

Ben Shapiro's thoughts on the matter;

“Social-media giants had a choice here. If they wanted Jones gone, they could simply have defined a standard limit on the number of debunked conspiracy theories one could peddle on the site before being banned, or they could have created a standard prohibiting public threats.

Instead, they chose the most politically correct way of booting Jones: They claimed he’d violated undefined standards regarding “hate.”“

Oh, really, Ben?

Who’s going to be deciding what qualifies as a conspiracy theory, and will those verdicts - or the people rendering them - be acceptable to conservatives?

Shapiro replaces a methodology that he claims is defective in order to suggest his own, no-less-defective methodology that will be certain to be ignored and maligned, especially given that the Right has, in general, never once policed itself based on this criteria. Just who will do it, then?

There’s a reason why Shapiro chafes at the use of ‘hate speech’ as a criteria - it’s because it’s a nebulous enough category now to allow himself and his fellows to skirt as close to that edge as can be determined to be permissible at any moment, while pushing that edge bit by bit into ever-more-dangerous territory. And he doesn’t like that anyone will start to set limits by example and call his cohort on to the carpet for testing those limits.

[_Kishkumen]

canpakes:

How has the action against Jones brought greater clarity to the definition of hate speech or the location of the boundaries?

[_schreech]

The answer to the question of whether Facebook is a monopoly or not is subjective. It depends on how influence is defined and measured and likewise how the market is being defined and measured and the extent of their penetration and control over said market. You argue Facebook can never be a monopoly so long as any other website exists. This is a weak argument, one which completely fails to address the question.

Aside from the above, the rest of your post was gibberish as I have no idea what your point is. You downplay competitors to Facebook (Youtube - 1.9 billion active users, instagram - 1billion + active users, google+ - 2.2 billion profiles and 111million active accounts, Twitter - 328 million active users, snapchat - 191 million DAILY active users, reddit - 330 million monthly active users, etc. - this is only including US based social media platforms), your understanding of monopolies and what constitutes a monopoly is ignorant and your repeated calls of "apples to oranges" is somewhat laughable considering you were comparing shopping malls in california to Facebook (rotflol!). There are literally hundreds of other up and coming platforms that are not hindered by the popularity of Facebook. You really need to read up a bit on anti trust law. Your warped perception about the influence of Facebook makes you sound both old and way too influenced by Facebook in our own life.

As for the quoted part of your post, you are right, its subjective but its not subjective in a way that makes what you are saying in any way a competent, rational argument. Verizon has penetrated THE ENTIRE US MARKET and controls several aspects of the 4g and cable markets and is the sole provider in some areas. Not a monopoly. I can name hundreds of companies that meet your conveniently narrow criteria for a monopoly that are not considered monopolies (amazon, microsoft, apple, monsanto, Anheuser-Busch, sirius xm, etc). THAT SAID, You can continue to imagine that Facebook fits the definition of a monopoly to try to distract from the fact that you think the govt should step in and force a private business to be a "free speech" platform for any crackpot that can create a FREE account. You are wrong and will continue to be wrong.

Like I said, I don't have any illusion that I am going to change your mind, you seem completely impervious to information that runs counter to what you have chosen to believe. Facebook will not get broken up or treated as a utility no matter how infatuated you are with that fantasy since consumers are not worse off due to their current state. Facebook isn't using their influence to raise or fix prices on anything and they arent driving out competition - again, read up on anti-trust law. No regulator is going to step in until consumers are negatively affected. So I will just leave you with these:









But, hey, thanks for entertaining me.

[_schreech]

How has the action against Jones brought greater clarity to the definition of hate speech or the location of the boundaries?

didn't Facebook indicate that they considered his speech "hate" speech because it could be linked directly to violent acts committed by his listeners? Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories. And to think, our president turns to him for advice. maga!!!!...

[_subgenius]

Oh, now I get it..when the poster said "why?" (as in why should that be Facebook policy)and then I said "why not?"(as in why should it not be Facebook policy)...your extra chromosome 21 thought (after exhausting value pack of Kleenex and Jergen's).... *why not? hmm, it must be because they have a policy*.

*click here for detailed prophecy of Schreech's next post....and be amazed.

[_Some Schmo]

Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's much doubt that what Jones has been peddling can be considered "hate speech" (if anything can) but as far as terms and conditions go, it does seem to me to be a pretty subjective standard wide open to interpretation and subsequent abuse.

I think it's fair to expect companies are going to make some judgment calls, and you're right; they can ban anyone they want. It's just that as a user having to follow their rules, it would be nice to know with fair certainty what the standard is, if you care to use their service.

I hate stupidity and willful ignorance. I say that kind of thing online all the time. Is that hate speech? I'm targeting a specific demographic when I say it (stupid people).

I've never been a fan of the term "hate speech" for the same reason I'm not a fan of the word "atheist." It means too many different things to different people.

[Guest]

Jesus Christ, your masturbation fantasies involving me are getting pretty specific and really pathetic - the fact that you have the brand of lotion picked out in your head is super creepy but you look like the kind of guy that sits in his basement concocting detailed fantasies about people you are infatuated with.

Im also not at all surprised that the best you can come with in your never-ending parade of humiliation and failure is calling someone re-tarded. For someone as old as you, and you are old, you would think that you could do better than a below average 3rd grader but, hey, its you and you are a barely literate tool with nothing better to do than spend endless amounts of time here indulging you humiliation fetish.

But, hey:

[_schreech]

Honestly, I don't really care much about the reason a private company chooses to enforce their own terms and conditions but it seems like Facebook was somewhat specific in that Alex Jones "hate" speech has led directly to violence and death threats against the people he targeted in his ____ crazy conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's much doubt that what Jones has been peddling can be considered "hate speech" (if anything can) but as far as terms and conditions go, it does seem to me to be a pretty subjective standard wide open to interpretation and subsequent abuse.

I think it's fair to expect companies are going to make some judgment calls, and you're right; they can ban anyone they want. It's just that as a user having to follow their rules, it would be nice to know with fair certainty what the standard is, if you care to use their service.

I hate stupidity and willful ignorance. I say that kind of thing online all the time. Is that hate speech? I'm targeting a specific demographic when I say it (stupid people).

I've never been a fan of the term "hate speech" for the same reason I'm not a fan of the word "atheist." It means too many different things to different people.

I don't disagree but here is part of the terms and conditions Facebook employs:

"1. Credible Violence
We aim to prevent potential real-world harm that may be related to content on Facebook. We understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in facetious and non-serious ways. That's why we try to consider the language, context and details in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information like a targeted person's public visibility and vulnerability. We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.

Do not post:
The following threats:

Credible statements of intent to commit violence against any person, groups of people, or place (city or smaller). We assess credibility based upon the information available to us and generally consider statements credible if the following are present:
A target (person, group of people, or place) and
Bounty/demand for payment, or
Mention or image of specific weapon, or
Sales offer or ask to purchase weapon, or
Spelled-out address or named building, or
A target and two or more of the following details (can be two of the same detail):
Location
Timing
Method
Any statement of intent to commit violence against a vulnerable person (identified by name, title, image, or other reference) or vulnerable group, including (but not limited to) heads-of-state, witnesses and confidential informants, activists, and journalists

Calls for violence or statements advocating violence against the following targets (identified by name, title, image, or other reference)

Any vulnerable person or group including (but not limited to) heads of state, national elected officials, witnesses and confidential informants, activists, and journalists
Public individuals, if credible as defined above
Groups of people or unnamed specific person(s), if credible
Places, if credible
Where no target is specified but a symbol representing the target or a visual of weapons is included

Aspirational and conditional statements of violence against

Any vulnerable groups
Public individuals, if credible (unless the individual is convicted of certain crimes or is a member of a dangerous organization)
Vulnerable person(s), if credible
Groups of people or unnamed specific person(s), if credible
Places, if credible

Any content created for the express purpose of outing an individual as a member of a designated and recognizable at-risk group

Instructions on how to make or use weapons if the goal is to injure or kill people as may be evident from:

As evident from language explicitly stating that goal, or
As evident from imagery that shows or simulates the end result (serious injury or death) as part of the instruction
Unless there is clear context that the content is for an alternative purpose (for example, shared as part of recreational self-defense activities, training by a country’s military, commercial video games, or news coverage)

Instructions on how to make or use explosives, unless there is clear context that the content is for a non-violent purpose (for example, clear scientific/educational purpose use or fireworks)

Exposure of vulnerable individuals' identities without their permission

Any content containing statements of intent, calls for action, representation, support or advocation for violence due to the outcome of an election

Misinformation that contributes to imminent violence or physical harm"

There is a lot of information here about their community standards and its not terribly ambiguous but I get your point:

https://www.Facebook.com/communitystandards/violence_criminal_behavior

[_Ceeboo]

Subgenius,

I completely recognize that you are mocked incessantly and called vile things quite often on this board - Much of which is supported and encouraged by those here who pile on.

But, do you think you could refrain from using Down Syndrome as a personal insult at someone? (This isn't the first time that I have seen you do this). For the people who have this genetic disorder, as well as the many loved ones around them, it is a very challenging and difficult journey to manage, on many levels. Please stop.

[Guest]

.