Facebook censoring election articles even in your own private messages.

Do you? And be honest.....it is okay if you do.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I'm going to be that guy again, and I already know the reasons and excuses that will be forthcoming, but....

(I'll preface my question as rhetorical if that helps..)

Why does anyone at this point STILL have Facebook?🤷🏾‍♂️🤮🤮🤮🤮

Says who and what evidence have you for this? I've worked with him, can you say you know him other than the internet?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Natural news isn’t one of the good guys.

a reply to: pointr97

Ok how about his search engine good gopher?

Where there is rampant censoring....

And of you really want evidence, best you get comfortable..

rationalwiki.org...

So you are condoning it and don't see this as a problem.....kudos for you. I hope you are happy with the tyrannical leadership that is coming next.....but gosh, censorship is a thing and no one should care.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: pointr97

Ok how about his search engine good gopher?

Where there is rampant censoring....

And of you really want evidence, best you get comfortable..

rationalwiki.org...

a reply to: pointr97

Mike Adams does it himself.

And you support him.

a reply to: pointr97

and? are you supporting the censorship or just placating it?

Excuse me? Neither/nor. I was offering additional information and a possible explanation. I used no adjectives nor adverbs. I did not qualify my thoughts on it in any way.

And I'll offer a little more information, since you seem to be short on proper definitions of words.

Only government can "censor." Anything by a private party is not censorship.

Nor can an "it" be placated. A person can be placated. But you didn't ask if I was placating YOU.

I believe what you really wanted to ask is if I'm condoning or just excusing it? Neither. If I had wanted to do either, I would have.

No, and again...it isn't his article but the action that I can't send between, that your messages are being picked in private messages....and you just don't seem to care. you will probably be the first to just waddle to the wall without a clue.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: pointr97

Mike Adams does it himself.

And you support him.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: pointr97

and? are you supporting the censorship or just placating it?

Excuse me? Neither/nor. I was offering additional information and a possible explanation. I used no adjectives nor adverbs. I did not qualify my thoughts on it in any way.

And I'll offer a little more information, since you seem to be short on proper definitions of words.

Only government can "censor." Anything by a private party is not censorship.

Nor can an "it" be placated. A person can be placated. But you didn't ask if I was placating YOU.

I believe what you really wanted to ask is if I'm condoning or just excusing it? Neither. If I had wanted to do either, I would have.

'only the government can censor, anything private party is not censorship'......you are sooooooooooooooooo cute.

This was a simple warning....something I noticed....This wasn't a debate, I witnessed it. There isn't really anything you can say to disprove it.........So just keep sticking your head in the sand and ignore it for what it was meant to be.

This is why people are leaving ATS....You people are beyond looking, learning and advising.

ten years on this board, and i understand why everyone is leaving.

And you are just an ass twat......nothing to do with sticking your head in the sand.....you know exactly what you are a total douche twat.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: pointr97

Ok how about his search engine good gopher?

Where there is rampant censoring....

And of you really want evidence, best you get comfortable..

rationalwiki.org...

I know him, I don't know you.....So, you saying he is bad is the same as a stranger saying your friend is wrong. so diddle off twat.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: pointr97

Mike Adams does it himself.

And you support him.

a reply to: pointr97

'only the government can censor, anything private party is not censorship'......you are sooooooooooooooooo cute.

Yes, actually, I am quite lovely -- thank you for noticing!

As for the subject at hand, I think so little of FB that I de-activated my account years ago. And even then, I only had it long enough to keep my family updated on a particular matter that took some time to resolve. I used it while it served my purposes and then I dropped it like a hot potato and never regretted it. That's why I'm here and not there. I also have email. I have text messaging. I used my free will to make other choices for communicating with loved ones.

While you mock the fundamental principle that only government can censor, you necessarily ignore the very real and legitimate related principles involved, and the responsibility to balance those conflicting needs. Such as the fundamental principle that the powers and authority of government is enumerated, while our freedoms are not. Such as the right to freedom of association among individuals and private businesses, including their right to refuse service... and/or to live in an echo chamber. Such as the liability issues facing businesses that offer a free speech platform to the world that they must protect themselves from.

As long as FB has no power over me, they can do what they will. I am far more concerned about the very real efforts by government to censor our free speech and the free exchange of information and ideas. We can walk away from FB. We cannot walk away from laws that are enforced at the barrel of a government gun.

probably cute, I'm sure....but all be it, the platform does not need to protect itself.....it is protected by being a platform.

When they act as publisher and control content, they give up their neutral status and become a publisher, and open themselves up to liability. not my rules.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: pointr97

'only the government can censor, anything private party is not censorship'......you are sooooooooooooooooo cute.

Yes, actually, I am quite lovely -- thank you for noticing!

As for the subject at hand, I think so little of FB that I de-activated my account years ago. And even then, I only had it long enough to keep my family updated on a particular matter that took some time to resolve. I used it while it served my purposes and then I dropped it like a hot potato and never regretted it. That's why I'm here and not there. I also have email. I have text messaging. I used my free will to make other choices for communicating with loved ones.

While you mock the fundamental principle that only government can censor, you necessarily ignore the very real and legitimate related principles involved, and the responsibility to balance those conflicting needs. Such as the fundamental principle that the powers and authority of government is enumerated, while our freedoms are not. Such as the right to freedom of association among individuals and private businesses, including their right to refuse service... and/or to live in an echo chamber. Such as the liability issues facing businesses that offer a free speech platform to the world that they must protect themselves from.

As long as FB has no power over me, they can do what they will. I am far more concerned about the very real efforts by government to censor our free speech and the free exchange of information and ideas. We can walk away from FB. We cannot walk away from laws that are enforced at the barrel of a government gun.

Not one of you get that we all know Facebook censors posts.

I'm as far down the hole as anyone. However, I was not aware that facebook was actively controlling what i sent in DM's.

If you knew that, I haven't seen it posted. There is fact checking and there is FB jail.....but then there is subtly refraining from sending your private messages to another person.

There is no justification for that, and if any of you think that my private messages should be censored......Please....go for it.

a reply to: pointr97

When they act as publisher and control content, they give up their neutral status and become a publisher, and open themselves up to liability. not my rules.

What a cop out. "The rules say so!" Just because it's a "rule" doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it just. Doesn't make it better. Doesn't necessarily make it anything. Can you actually discuss the principles involved? Or do you limit yourself to what the government tells you is "okay"?

Whose "rule" is this? Is it codified? Should it be? And if so, who gets to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not? Who gets to decide what someone must publish or who they must associate with or not? In this case, we're probably talking about the de-platforming of a person, as opposed to information or ideas. Both need to be addressed. Should anyone be forced to give a platform to Charles Manson? Pedophiles? Terrorists? Is there anyone that you would consider acceptable to not host and provide a platform to? If so, where do you draw the line? If not, what gives you the right to demand someone else provide support to someone or something which they do not want to be associated with, much less promote? As long as a company is not trying to tell others what to publish or not, why should they not be free to decide that for themselves?

Again, private parties can do as they will. And you are free to call them out on it. And I am free to walk away. That's as it should be. It's not a right if it can be denied by government to anyone, in which case it can be denied by government to everyone. And if it can be denied to anyone/everyone, then it's a privilege for the rest.

Do you want free speech to be a right or a privilege?

No, but I love your attempt. The entire point of platform protection is to protect them from liabilities. If they are going to then start to act like publishers, they are now an active part of publishing what is on their platform, they are no longer neutral......

But nice try.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: pointr97

When they act as publisher and control content, they give up their neutral status and become a publisher, and open themselves up to liability. not my rules.

What a cop out. "The rules say so!" Just because it's a "rule" doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it just. Doesn't make it better. Doesn't necessarily make it anything. Can you actually discuss the principles involved? Or do you limit yourself to what the government tells you is "okay"?

Whose "rule" is this? Is it codified? Should it be? And if so, who gets to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not? Who gets to decide what someone must publish or who they must associate with or not? In this case, we're probably talking about the de-platforming of a person, as opposed to information or ideas. Both need to be addressed. Should anyone be forced to give a platform to Charles Manson? Pedophiles? Terrorists? Is there anyone that you would consider acceptable to not host and provide a platform to? If so, where do you draw the line? If not, what gives you the right to demand someone else provide support to someone or something which they do not want to be associated with, much less promote? As long as a company is not trying to tell others what to publish or not, why should they not be free to decide that for themselves?

Again, private parties can do as they will. And you are free to call them out on it. And I am free to walk away. That's as it should be. It's not a right if it can be denied by government to anyone, in which case it can be denied by government to everyone. And if it can be denied to anyone/everyone, then it's a privilege for the rest.

Do you want free speech to be a right or a privilege?

originally posted by: pointr97
I was doing the linkage between the US election mess, the Dominion stuff, then over to the Scytl raid. Ignoring all the 'ownership' stuff, just was looking at all the front line stuff. Ran across an article by Mike Adams. Say what you want about him, but I have worked with him a couple of times, and in my opinion, he is genuine. He has never given me reason to question him. However, He and His article are not exactly what is in question.

What is in question....through my personal rabbit hole, I found the article, and it was the best laid out article on the Dominion/Scytl/2018 EO/Election results. So I went to send the article to a friend on facebook.

BOMBSHELL: The 2020 election took place under a Trump-declared....

So I sent that article to a friend because she was asking for info on the EO and what it means.......but come to find out, it never got there. She never received it. I sent her a screenshot of my side, and asked for one from hers.

Some are questioning the verification of the raid on the server, or if there was questionable stuff in Dominion, or if there is even censorship going on. However, I repeated this experiment with a different friend was exactly the same, they didn't get the article. If there is not meat to this story, then why are they going through so much effort to silence it? They aren't even telling you it is happening, it is just not received and no one is the wiser.

Go on, and try it. Link the Natural news to someone in facebook, see if they get it. I don't care if you like Natural news or not.....I don't expect to have my private messages censored.

Don't be a Facebook user. Problem solved.

a reply to: pointr97

No, but I love your attempt.

You don't even understand what I'm attempting...

The entire point of platform protection is to protect them from liabilities.

But we're not just talking about liabilities. So government granted them the special privilege of non-liability. It still doesn't mean they have to allow anyone to post anything. Nor should it. FB and anyone else can decide who they choose to host or not host. Just as a book publisher chooses who to host or not to host. Just as magazine publishers choose who to host and who not to host.

The difference between a private business having that right of freedom of association and the government having the power of censorship, is that the private company can only make that choice for themselves. Unlike the government, a private business cannot stop another private business from hosting someone, a private business cannot stop someone from posting/publishing elsewhere. And most important, a private business cannot prosecute and penalize someone for posting anywhere.

If they are going to then start to act like publishers, they are now an active part of publishing what is on their platform, they are no longer neutral...... But nice try.

Private parties do not have to be neutral. It is because they are an "active part of publishing what is on their platform," they do have an interest and a right to accept and/or deny whatever they so choose. Private parties have no obligation to provide due process and equal application of their policies. If someone wants to start a Christian magazine, they are under no obligation to publish Pagan material. If someone wants to start a Pagan publishing company, they are under no obligation to publish Christian material. Why should social media platforms be held to a higher/different standard than traditional paper publishers?

Only government must be impartial, guarantee due process of the law and all rights, and equal application of the law to all.

I don't know what you think you are arguing for, but it is not free speech. And no, I will not condone government forcing speech just as I will not condone government denying speech. Free speech is what WE choose to make of it -- NOT government.

a reply to: Dumbass

Hasn't bothered me a bit for going on 8 years now. The funny thing is most people I tell that to always say they want to stop using it too and agree they dislike their business practices. They always have some excuse for needing it though...usually to "keep in touch with so and so or distant whatevers" as if its the only way to do that.

Its so simple people...just don't use it...I can say its pretty freeing!

a reply to: chr0naut

Correct. Common sense. Social media is still "media"...and since that's true....