Facebook has very lenient moderation policies. Michael Savage was perma-banned from the FFA within two weeks after he registered.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Fascist Facebook blocks/suspends Michael Savage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ministry of Pain
- Start date
massraider
Footballguy
From one of the crazy pants websites that follows this kind of scandal:
Wake up sheeple, could it be more obvious?!?!
Blocked for 21 hours=rigged American Presidential Election. Copy that.
Wake up sheeple, could it be more obvious?!?!
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37
Footballguy
problem is the term "Hate Speech" is too broad a term and is being used as a default excuse for when ever anyone doesn't like what someone else says. Its a blanket excuse used b/c its essentially up to personal interpretation and emotion, making it impossible to defend it . Just like "Hate crime"
glvsav37
Footballguy
I think 'vital' means that many people are emotionally invested in it and it has become an outlet that many people are oblivious to the fact that it is a private company and not an actual platform for free speech.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31
Footballguy
Whenever an explanation starts with "All he did was ...", you know that's not all he did.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
1) This has about as much to do with a "rigged election" as Eminence getting a timeout on FBG does. Zuckerberg could come out tomorrow and say he endorses Hillary Clinton and he'd be well within his rights to do so, the same way Dana White did for Trump.
2) As others have pointed out, he most likely violated some other community standards and is trying to swing this into him being a victim of his conservatism. This wreaks of FBGs who post "#### that stupid ####er I hope his kids die in a fire" and then come back from their timeout and say "Guys all I did was voice my opinion on a social issue and the tyrannical dictators here banned me. I guess thoughtful opinions and insight aren't welcome on FBG!". There are like a billion conservative articles linked to on Facebook every day that go through fine, there's a reason this one was blocked.
3) As to not understanding why people use facebook, well if you just use facebook for social #### measuring contests and to argue about why your political candidate is going to save the world then yea, I can see why you're not having the best time on there. I keep up with my old friends, they keep up with me. My old group of high school friends still gets together every year, arranged all through Facebook. I know where all my old high school and college half-friends live and what they're up to so if I'm ever in town we get together. I know what's going on in all my friend's lives and we are able to arrange get-togethers fairly regularly despite being spread around the country. Let's be real, without the internet that's not happening because a bunch of middle aged men aren't exactly the demographic that picks up the phone regularly just to chat. It also doesn't hurt to know that an old high school friend that's coming to town next week lost her baby last year in a late term miscarriage so I don't make a complete ### of myself rambling on about how great my kids are before we get to the part of the conversation where she tells me.
2) As others have pointed out, he most likely violated some other community standards and is trying to swing this into him being a victim of his conservatism. This wreaks of FBGs who post "#### that stupid ####er I hope his kids die in a fire" and then come back from their timeout and say "Guys all I did was voice my opinion on a social issue and the tyrannical dictators here banned me. I guess thoughtful opinions and insight aren't welcome on FBG!". There are like a billion conservative articles linked to on Facebook every day that go through fine, there's a reason this one was blocked.
3) As to not understanding why people use facebook, well if you just use facebook for social #### measuring contests and to argue about why your political candidate is going to save the world then yea, I can see why you're not having the best time on there. I keep up with my old friends, they keep up with me. My old group of high school friends still gets together every year, arranged all through Facebook. I know where all my old high school and college half-friends live and what they're up to so if I'm ever in town we get together. I know what's going on in all my friend's lives and we are able to arrange get-togethers fairly regularly despite being spread around the country. Let's be real, without the internet that's not happening because a bunch of middle aged men aren't exactly the demographic that picks up the phone regularly just to chat. It also doesn't hurt to know that an old high school friend that's coming to town next week lost her baby last year in a late term miscarriage so I don't make a complete ### of myself rambling on about how great my kids are before we get to the part of the conversation where she tells me.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
HOW DARE THIS PRIVATE COMPANY DECIDE WHAT CONTENT IS DISPLAYED ON IT'S OWN SERVICE!!! I MEAN HOW DARE THEY THINK THAT.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Conservative asholes aren't a protected class. Yet. Conservative asholes have generally been running the country since WWII, not victims of discimination.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Ok. I have no problem with that just like I don't have a problem with Facebook banning Michael Savage.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Do they live in a jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?Walking Boot said:
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Just sounds like Zucky wanted to muslim on him...I mean a muzzle on him.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Wow, how black is the sky in your world? How many black helicopters can you see? "Political affiliation discrimination" is that the new buz word/phrase of the talk radio world? No one is trying to censor internet content based on their political bent. If Facebook does not want disturbing content shown on its service IT HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE IT. Just like Joe does here. We have more media outlets now than ever before and the internet is always growing more of them and the only type of censorship on the internet the government should be involved in is cheese pizza. But comparisons of that to political affiliation is asinine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
You keep-a using that word, ''Net Neutrality". I don' think it-a means what you think it-a means.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Would Joe Bryant have allowed anyone to post the same links?
And if so, would MoP call Joe Bryant a fascist?
And if so, would MoP call Joe Bryant a fascist?
massraider
Footballguy
Is Joe Bryant fixing the presidential election?
Come on guy, keep your eye on the ball.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Fascist Facebook sounds like something that should have made an appearance in the Lies About Hitler thread.
Harry Manback
Footballguy
Does Savage post articles about murderers who happen to be Christian? If he doesn't does that make him an Islam hating racist?Ministry of Pain said:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
We are. Michael Savage is a fascist and facebook defended their customers from objectionable material as outlined in their TOS document.
Sconch
Footballguy
"the same kind".Ministry of Pain said:
Hey aren't you in Florida?
https://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan/?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Maurile Tremblay said:
Harry Manback
Footballguy
People do know this was seemingly unrelated to terrorism or religion, right?
HellToupee
Footballguy
Zuckerberg is a huge hypocriteCourtjester said:
adonis
Footballguy
It's nice when reputable sites like InfoWars tell us who and what we should be angry about.
Higgs
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
But seriously, how has infowars not been completely delegitimized as a news source? I'd say the same thing about the New York Times if it was behind pizzagate, or anything of a similar scale.DRINK!
Higgs
Footballguy
This isn't about Infowars. It's about Facebook's bias. The story is on the front page of Drudge. (Infowars is crap btw. But the MSM obviously doesn't care to report on things like this)
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
Drudge is just an aggregator, and that link goes back to infowars. Tell me again how this story isn't questionable merely because it's on infowars?
Higgs
Footballguy
Drudge aggregates but he also vettes the stories. How well he does is up for debate. I guess we'll find out on this one. The story's been out there for a day and Facebook hasn't repudiated it yet.
I know from firsthand experience that Facebook does a ####ty job applying a consistent, fair standard when it comes to hate speech. In the days following the murder of the Dallas cops I lodged a complaint with facebook against a black radical site that had a graphic picture of a black man slitting a white cop's throat. Facebook came back and said it didn't violate their decency standards. I appealed it and they came back with the same response. Eventually public pressure mounted and about a week later they changed their mind and made the site take the picture down.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
That's like saying "The mainstream media doesn't care to report on arbitrary suspensions from Footballguys!"
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I hadn't even heard of the Savage story in the OP, and gosh it would be great to have this from a better (i.e. a real) source than IW, but no, FB and Twitter need to stay out of the business of monitoring content. Isis/AQ or fascist/supremacist groups, maybe, but once they start blocking content based on just that, content, they're in the wrong business.
Higgs
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
Private company can do what they want unless you are advocating a bigger government to step in?
Higgs
Footballguy
Facebook isn't just a run of the mill private company. A company this big, with so much reach into how people receive their news, better be right down the middle or they'll invite government intervention.Private company can do what they want unless you are advocating a bigger government to step in?
skol asylum
Footballguy
Michael Savage Wiener is a terrible human being.
adonis
Footballguy
It's incredibly hard to be consistent on issues that require a judgment call. Yes, that should be their goal, but pointing to individual stories and saying they're failing is very likely to be making a mountain out of a molehill. It serves the narrative though that those in charge of media are liberal and biased and shouldn't be believe - reports InfoWars, famous promoters of PizzaGate.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well outside of specific identified groups like I mentioned, I would argue in favor of not blocking any of it. I think FB getting into calling shots leads to just this kind of thing. That would be consistent.
Last edited by a moderator:
bagger
Footballguy
Higgs
Footballguy
Yeah but even that gets dicey. Determining what constitutes a "supremacist group" is by its very nature subjective. There are many in here that think Breitbart is a white supremacist mouthpiece.
I say concentrate on the words and images themselves. Are they calling for murder?
Higgs
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Newspapers and television/cable provide much more news than Facebook, and not all of them are "right down the middle" - and I could never imagine you calling for government intervention into Fox or Breitbart to regulate their content.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'd keep it to groups advocating violence. AQ, Isis, Stormfront, KKK, which we have consensus about. I think as soon as you have to debate it morally, then don't exclude it. In general I tend to agree with you that a private space can become so integral as a public space that the private entity providing it can be deemed a quasi-public function. My inclination is to argue against censorship, even private, in any large scale forum. So if it was up to me Savage wouldn't be censored but neither would the post IW is complaining about.
Higgs
Footballguy
And who determines which websites / groups advocate violence? The liberally biased SPLC? I despise Stormfront, but is there anything overt on their website calling for violence? And if it's just based on results (we know that Stormfront adherents have committed murder) then would you consider Black Lives Matter in the same regard?
skol asylum
Footballguy
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[28] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[29][30]
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[31]However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[32] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[33] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[34]
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39]
Not sure why pasting this causes the strike through.
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[31]However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[32] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[33] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[34]
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39]
Not sure why pasting this causes the strike through.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
