LOL. I'm sorry but this is fucking hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for platforms banning alt-right members like Milo Yiannopoulos and Info Wars that on the regular are screaming...
LOL. I'm sorry but this is fucking hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for platforms banning alt-right members like Milo Yiannopoulos and Info Wars that on the regular are screaming racist, sexist, homophobic shit, or in some cases just straight up liable/slander. But Facebook is always the last platform to ban after other sites do. Milo Yiannopoulos hasn't been a major figure in the alt-right in a while since he got taken off twitter and pressured not to give speeches at universities. They didn't ban him when he was opening breaking their ToS and popular. They wait until he has gone nearly bankrupt and almost completely out of the public eye. This feels to me like a feel-good move so when people complain that they're hosting white supremacists they can point at this and go "no look we banned some. We're working hard." Yeah. You're banning white supremacists way after they've done all the damage they were going to do because you're a shit company trying to do damage control while still not taking any accountability.
Absolutely. It will always warm my heart when toxic people get deplatformed, but zero points to Facebook for submitting looong after the due date. I mean, hell, this is the first time I've even...
Absolutely. It will always warm my heart when toxic people get deplatformed, but zero points to Facebook for submitting looong after the due date.
I mean, hell, this is the first time I've even heard of Milo in ages. It's so overdue that it brought him back into the limelight, if only for a moment, when he was already gone.
milo actually has a pretty big, silent following on facebook. as i recall, even in his irrelevance he actually had about 2 million followers there (how many of those were legitimate is beyond me)...
I mean, hell, this is the first time I've even heard of Milo in ages. It's so overdue that it brought him back into the limelight, if only for a moment, when he was already gone.
milo actually has a pretty big, silent following on facebook. as i recall, even in his irrelevance he actually had about 2 million followers there (how many of those were legitimate is beyond me) prior to getting banned.
Ah, okay. I guess even if he wasn't a part of the broader conversation, he still had his fans on that platform (and exposure through anyone sharing his posts). I wonder how many of them will...
Ah, okay. I guess even if he wasn't a part of the broader conversation, he still had his fans on that platform (and exposure through anyone sharing his posts).
I wonder how many of them will follow him to whatever platform he goes to next, though without the major ones, I suspect he's just going to self-host.
probably not that many, honestly. now that he's fallen out of favor with the broader extremely-online conservative movement and the alt-right as a whole, milo's increasingly a liability for...
probably not that many, honestly. now that he's fallen out of favor with the broader extremely-online conservative movement and the alt-right as a whole, milo's increasingly a liability for people, and he's a lot less interesting because his whole shtick pretty much only worked because he was a name with power and that in kind fueled his trademark arrogance and cockiness (and now he's just That Guy and has no power). he'll still have fans, but he's on the wrong side of the traintracks if he ever wants to be a significant figure again.
Unfortunately they're about 3 years too late. The damage is done; banning them now will of course prevent them from further spreading their message on the platform but that hardly matters, given...
Unfortunately they're about 3 years too late. The damage is done; banning them now will of course prevent them from further spreading their message on the platform but that hardly matters, given that Americans on the whole are already becoming more aware and critical of Trump-and-Co's hesitance to distance themselves from these types of groups. On top of that, those who already back the camp seem unlikely to be phased in any capacity by this change because they already either go to the source for their info (meaning they bypass facebook entirely) or don't care because they believe it's little more than another unjustified attack on freedom of speech.
The cry for culpability isn't quite as loud as it should be, nor do I expect it will be for a long time. Companies have no moral or ethical grounds to allow this type of stuff to proliferate, profit off it, and then "make nice" by removing the content after the fact, and they shouldn't have any legal ground for it either. But before we can even start having that conversation, we also need to just ACKNOWLEDGE that the internet is ubiquitous enough in this country that it deserves (and desperately needs) to be treated as a utility. Barring some sort of grand shift in social opinon a-la 2016 (which is very, very unlikely to happen again in the near future), I don't see any of this happening in the next decade. So as always we'll just have to suck it up, eat the shit sandwich with a smile, and wait.
According to The Atlantic's article about this: That's especially interesting, has Facebook ever completely banned sharing a particular site like that before (outside of terrorist sites or other...
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson.
That's especially interesting, has Facebook ever completely banned sharing a particular site like that before (outside of terrorist sites or other extreme cases)?
probably not for any site worthy of note, or else we'd have presumably heard about it by now given all the shit Facebook's gotten itself into with pundits and governments.
That's especially interesting, has Facebook ever completely banned sharing a particular site like that before (outside of terrorist sites or other extreme cases)?
probably not for any site worthy of note, or else we'd have presumably heard about it by now given all the shit Facebook's gotten itself into with pundits and governments.
You may give as little respect to Facebook as you want: it's still a massive online platform that has the capacity to influence world events and make people famous simply by giving them platform....
You may give as little respect to Facebook as you want: it's still a massive online platform that has the capacity to influence world events and make people famous simply by giving them platform. They, like Heisenberg, are "in the empire business". It's best for us to watch what it's doing, lest we find ourselves with our pants down when something important happens about it.
LOL. I'm sorry but this is fucking hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for platforms banning alt-right members like Milo Yiannopoulos and Info Wars that on the regular are screaming racist, sexist, homophobic shit, or in some cases just straight up liable/slander. But Facebook is always the last platform to ban after other sites do. Milo Yiannopoulos hasn't been a major figure in the alt-right in a while since he got taken off twitter and pressured not to give speeches at universities. They didn't ban him when he was opening breaking their ToS and popular. They wait until he has gone nearly bankrupt and almost completely out of the public eye. This feels to me like a feel-good move so when people complain that they're hosting white supremacists they can point at this and go "no look we banned some. We're working hard." Yeah. You're banning white supremacists way after they've done all the damage they were going to do because you're a shit company trying to do damage control while still not taking any accountability.
Absolutely. It will always warm my heart when toxic people get deplatformed, but zero points to Facebook for submitting looong after the due date.
I mean, hell, this is the first time I've even heard of Milo in ages. It's so overdue that it brought him back into the limelight, if only for a moment, when he was already gone.
milo actually has a pretty big, silent following on facebook. as i recall, even in his irrelevance he actually had about 2 million followers there (how many of those were legitimate is beyond me) prior to getting banned.
Ah, okay. I guess even if he wasn't a part of the broader conversation, he still had his fans on that platform (and exposure through anyone sharing his posts).
I wonder how many of them will follow him to whatever platform he goes to next, though without the major ones, I suspect he's just going to self-host.
probably not that many, honestly. now that he's fallen out of favor with the broader extremely-online conservative movement and the alt-right as a whole, milo's increasingly a liability for people, and he's a lot less interesting because his whole shtick pretty much only worked because he was a name with power and that in kind fueled his trademark arrogance and cockiness (and now he's just That Guy and has no power). he'll still have fans, but he's on the wrong side of the traintracks if he ever wants to be a significant figure again.
Fuckin preach, my dude.
Unfortunately they're about 3 years too late. The damage is done; banning them now will of course prevent them from further spreading their message on the platform but that hardly matters, given that Americans on the whole are already becoming more aware and critical of Trump-and-Co's hesitance to distance themselves from these types of groups. On top of that, those who already back the camp seem unlikely to be phased in any capacity by this change because they already either go to the source for their info (meaning they bypass facebook entirely) or don't care because they believe it's little more than another unjustified attack on freedom of speech.
The cry for culpability isn't quite as loud as it should be, nor do I expect it will be for a long time. Companies have no moral or ethical grounds to allow this type of stuff to proliferate, profit off it, and then "make nice" by removing the content after the fact, and they shouldn't have any legal ground for it either. But before we can even start having that conversation, we also need to just ACKNOWLEDGE that the internet is ubiquitous enough in this country that it deserves (and desperately needs) to be treated as a utility. Barring some sort of grand shift in social opinon a-la 2016 (which is very, very unlikely to happen again in the near future), I don't see any of this happening in the next decade. So as always we'll just have to suck it up, eat the shit sandwich with a smile, and wait.
So fucking frustrating.
According to The Atlantic's article about this:
That's especially interesting, has Facebook ever completely banned sharing a particular site like that before (outside of terrorist sites or other extreme cases)?
probably not for any site worthy of note, or else we'd have presumably heard about it by now given all the shit Facebook's gotten itself into with pundits and governments.
I'm pretty sure piracy sites have been blanket banned for years.
Does it matter? That site is dying a slow death.
You may give as little respect to Facebook as you want: it's still a massive online platform that has the capacity to influence world events and make people famous simply by giving them platform. They, like Heisenberg, are "in the empire business". It's best for us to watch what it's doing, lest we find ourselves with our pants down when something important happens about it.
...but some of my happiest moments occur when I have my pants down. :)