Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Facebook anti Semitic?



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother
OP


 

Post Wed, May 15 2019, 2:10 pm
Why was Dov Hikind’s post taken down? Why are they protecting the anti semitic Tlaib?

https://www.theyeshivaworld.co......html
Back to top

FranticFrummie




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, May 15 2019, 3:45 pm
Facebook has always leaned far to the Left. They'll allow pretty much anyone to say anything, unless it's from a Jew.

Even neo-Nazis and hard core Islamists get a pass, but posters like Ben Shapiro get shut down on a regular basis.
Back to top

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, May 15 2019, 10:55 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Why was Dov Hikind’s post taken down? Why are they protecting the anti semitic Tlaib?

https://www.theyeshivaworld.co......html


Had Facebook done anything that might have made any of the three new Congresswomen look bad, Muslims would be preparing a 9/11 type hit on Facebook.
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, May 15 2019, 10:57 pm
Yes, Facebook is anti semitic. I've known that for years.

They shut down Imam Tawhidi recently. A Muslim Imam who speaks out against terrorism and Islamic extremism.
Back to top

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, May 15 2019, 11:03 pm
Facebook is so blatantly anti-semitic, I strongly suspect theres big Muslim money coming into Facebook or some other back room deal with advantages to Facebook.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 12:00 am
If you aren't terrified of deplatforming, you are in for a world of surprise and hurt.

I started writing about this 3+ years ago, during the initial Twitter purge. I was recently re-reading that thread, and everything I warned about has come true.

Twitter proved that social media companies can deplatform people without any serious consequences, so they're becoming bolder and bolder, particularly as we near another election.

You may have heard about Facebook/Instagram locking the accounts recently of Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, theGayThatStrayed, and Louis Farrakhan.

But there's more:

There have been hundreds if not thousands of accounts deleted that were active as of a few months ago. Not all are political, either. One account focused on low-carb dieting with hundreds of thousands of subscribers was shut down.

Oh, and if you put a photo of any of the banned individuals on your Facebook page or speak positively about them? Suspension or ban.

Wondering why you were banned. Sorry. You are just told your post or account is not in line with "community standards."

This week, Twitter temporarily closed the account of one of the foremost researchers in gender dysphoria because his research constituted "hate speech." He was eventually reinstated after a huge outcry.

It doesn't end with social media, either.

Paypal, Patreon, EventBrite, and a host of other transaction sites can shut down your account if they don't like your opinions.

Chase Bank can close your account if they don't like your opinions, which a representative has admitted to an investigative reporter.
_______________________________________

Why does this have anything to do with Imamother and a bunch of frum women? Why should we care if private companies choose to refrain from doing business with certain people or organizations?

Because by definition, being an Orthodox Jew means that you probably think some of the "wrong" things.

I have no doubt whatsoever that at any given time, Yael could be kicked off her servers or shut off by her ISP because activists complain that we engage in "hate speech" by not adequately endorsing transgenderism, intersectionalism, Palestinian rights, or whatever bee they have in their particular bonnet.

In fact, there are organizations such as Sleeping Giants that actively target corporations and pressure them to remove advertisements or accounts on media that dissent from their progressive worldview.

Among other actions, they are hoping to force MasterCard shareholders this summer to approve some kind of resolution to kick off any merchants who engage in "hate."

And, naturally, they are the ones who will decide what is hateful.
_______________________________________

Though I was never a big Facebook user, I have deleted both Facebook and Instagram. Not only are they anti-Semitic, they are anti-Christian, anti-women, anti-men, anti-children, and anti-family. Telegram seems to be picking up most members of the salon des refuses.

If you think, "Well, they should ban Louis Farrakhan," keep in mind that they have put Farrakhan and Laura Loomer in the same category.

And if you think that this will end before it reaches Imamother or that non-political speech won't be targeted? You are deluding yourself.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 12:08 am
Telegram has its own issues.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 12:36 am
Fox, this is a new phase in an ongoing debate.

Companies have been fighting for the right to discriminate based on personal values for a while now. See Hobby Lobby and the Great Gay Cake Bake Scandal, to name two.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 12:59 am
youngishbear wrote:
Fox, this is a new phase in an ongoing debate.

Companies have been fighting for the right to discriminate based on personal values for a while now. See Hobby Lobby and the Great Gay Cake Bake Scandal, to name two.

Completely different issues. Social media can't decide if they want to be publishers or platforms.

If they want to be platforms, they must allow any legal speech, not matter how repugnant.

If they want to be publishers and curate what is posted, then they must assume responsibility for whatever is posted.

They can't have it both ways, enjoying the benefits of both categories and the costs of neither.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 1:23 am
Fox wrote:
Completely different issues. Social media can't decide if they want to be publishers or platforms.

If they want to be platforms, they must allow any legal speech, not matter how repugnant.

If they want to be publishers and curate what is posted, then they must assume responsibility for whatever is posted.

They can't have it both ways, enjoying the benefits of both categories and the costs of neither.


Are you saying the bolded in the legal sense, as a moral imperative, or in your opinion?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, May 16 2019, 2:12 am
youngishbear wrote:
Are you saying the bolded in the legal sense, as a moral imperative, or in your opinion?

"Legal speech" was a bad way to phrase it, though that is often the end result.

If a social media company wants to be considered a platform, they must act with neutrality. They may impose whatever rules they like, but they must show that the rules are enforced without regard to the interests or opinions of the owners.

They could, if they liked, ban certain words, just as Imamother does. What they would not be allowed to do, however, is suspend/ban you for using one of those words while simply ignoring my use of the same word.

Think of it as the proverbial public square. Rules may be set for how long someone may speak; how loud his megaphone is; whether he is allowed to use certain potentially offensive words, etc. But everyone must be held to the same rules.

A publisher, on the other hand, has the right to allow or disallow whatever he likes -- but he assumes legal liability for anything published. Have you ever seen notices saying, "The publisher does not take responsibility for the kashrus of establishments advertising within these pages"? That's not just a friendly notice; that's an example of a publisher placing a legal limit on his liability.

So far, social media outlets have tried to play it from both ends. They claim that they are platforms with no legal responsibility for whatever is posted. Given that reasoning, they claim that they are unable to police, say, Hamas or Hezbollah accounts. Yet at the same time, they actively curate information and refuse to publicize the "rules," let alone apply them consistently. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but doing so makes them publishers, not platforms.
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Facial moisturizer- anti-aging, sensitive, dry skin
by amother
1 Tue, Mar 05 2024, 12:29 pm View last post
Has anyone tried AHAVA skin care products- anti aging?
by amother
6 Sun, Mar 03 2024, 12:16 am View last post
Anti-Semitism in hiring
by amother
2 Tue, Feb 06 2024, 9:35 pm View last post
Anti-aging cream for 30 yr old?
by amother
1 Mon, Jan 08 2024, 11:11 am View last post
Facebook For Dummies
by amother
5 Thu, Dec 21 2023, 9:28 am View last post