Facebook Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Other Dangerous Figures

[impuretrash]

Lol. LIbtards are gonna ban the whole internet in 2020 when Trump wins reelection.

For no reason either.

Also CNN, Atlantic and other left propoganda sites released NEWS of these bans 2 HOURS before these people actually got banned. Paul Watson and Loomer were able to post on their accounts announcing the news of their bans on their own facebook and instagram accounts before they themselves got banned. Facebook and instagram are conspiring with CNN & Friends to ban conservatives.

Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter

Facebook Blacklists Prominent Conservatives Including Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer | Breitbart

This is too funny.

You don't know that facebook is a private company and can ban anyone they want. Especially those who violate their TOS rules.

There's a very good way to not get banned.

Don't violate the rules.

PJW did nothing to violate the Fakebook TOS...He got run off primarily because he's associated with Alex Jones.

PJW is tame. He's a total cuckservative. If his brand of politics is deemed too extreme for public consumption then we are in big trouble.

I think it's because he's funny...There's nothing the humorless leftbats hate more than someone who points out their sheer stupidity, and is entertaining in doing so.

He's ok, sometimes. But he tries too hard to be inoffensive and moderate. He's never promoted "hate" or said anything "dangerous". Not like the numerous left-biased types on facebook who constantly agitate for "revolution".

 

[OldLady]

There are consequences to acting like an ass on social media. If you come into a restaurant and take a shit on the floor, they are likely to remove you too. Same fucking thing here. How about you act like a fucking adult, and perhaps you will have less problems.

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

 

[impuretrash]

There are consequences to acting like an ass on social media. If you come into a restaurant and take a shit on the floor, they are likely to remove you too. Same fucking thing here. How about you act like a fucking adult, and perhaps you will have less problems.

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

 

[beagle9]

He did nothing! he is a conservative ....that's all

Then that is a sad comment on conservatism. Also, that amounts to a prediction that all conservatives will get banned... as he is "just a conservative"...

Or not, and instead what you said is stupid on all counts.

Perfect example of why they are being banned. Propaganda is not dissension. Right wing extremism isn’t conservatism. They just thought they could sell it that way on the sites that are now banning them. If they think there crap sells, they are welcome to try to sell it on their own media.

So you are saying that all media is owned by the left, and they will have to go out and create their own platforms now ???

 

[beagle9]

There are consequences to acting like an ass on social media. If you come into a restaurant and take a shit on the floor, they are likely to remove you too. Same fucking thing here. How about you act like a fucking adult, and perhaps you will have less problems.

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

A good fit is infanticide, and the agreement of it or else ??

 

[Norman]

"Facebook will remove any infowars content"

Holy fuck... they went full regressive. Good, now there is no question who the enemy is.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

There are consequences to acting like an ass on social media. If you come into a restaurant and take a shit on the floor, they are likely to remove you too. Same fucking thing here. How about you act like a fucking adult, and perhaps you will have less problems.

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

 

[impuretrash]

What a pleasant little boy you are

So.......what if Social Media acted like adults and tolerated dissenting thoughts and speech?

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

PJW and Milo have said next to nothing about Sandy Hook...What's your excuse now

Milo has made a career of getting attention by trolling. Now gets kicked off facebook for it. What kind of retard is scratching their head over this, wondering what happened?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

How about not tolerating intolerance in this country? Try that on for starters.

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

 

[emilynghiem]

Earth to Death Angel
Note that Facebook and Instagram are free market companies.
If they are offering services under their terms, they have the
right to enforce those.

What I will agree with protestors on:
If a company falsely ADVERTISES or MISREPRESENTS
that it is open to all users regardless of views or content,
as long as you meet given standards of use such as not to abuse or harass,
and the people banned DID NOT VIOLATE any of these rules but
barring from services was due to "discriminate against the person"
and not because of their actions breaking rules, then this is
a violating act of discrimination similar to barring gay customers
because of "who they are and what they believe"
as OPPOSED TO just refusing service to specific requests
(such as gay weddings that go outside the agreed services and against
the beliefs of the business operators).

In both cases:
A. it is wrongful discrimination to refuse to serve customers
just because of their beliefs
B. but it is within the discretion of business service providers
to refuse certain content if their policies make it clear they
have this discretion. Such as a disclaimer that the service
providers may refuse to accommodate content they find
in conflict with their own philosophies or beliefs.

C. To make this perfectly fair and distinct between A and B,
I strongly urge that customers and businesses sign MEDIATION WAIVERS
and DISCLAIMERS in advance, where they agree that any conflict
concerning beliefs or content be resolved by free mediation to the
satisfaction of both parties, in order to prevent any legal action
or costs to any party to disputes; and if such disputes cannot
be resolved, the parties agree to refrain from conducting
business together so that beliefs of both are respected equally.

If businesses require customers to sign these waivers in advance
before using services, then any dispute either has to be resolved
amicably and consensually by mediation, or they don't do business together.

Facebook is chock full of horrific animal abuse videos and even videos of children being strangled, run over and beaten. That sort of content is very popular with southeast asians for some reason. But that's not what's being censored. Opinions are. the opinions of western conservatives.

Unless they misrepresent their policies to paid users and advertisers,
can't any private individual or company decide what they want or don't
want on their servers or through their networks.

Fox News picks and chooses which anchors or which advertisers or messages,
which letters from the audience get airtime etc. It's not a public channel open to just anyone.

impuretrash from what I understand:
The legal disputes where there was standing to enforce laws and policies
involved MISREPRESENTATION of the services.

So yes, if they claimed not to discriminate on the basis of content and did,
that is a violation of their advertised policies.

If they claimed not to sell or abuse user information for marketing or profit,
for example, but did such abuses of private information, yes that has been
used as the basis of taking legal action for violations of user policy.

For content, however, I am more in agreement
with Constitutionalist Mark Levin who argues that
we don't want to get into this business of trying to
regulate anyone's discretionary choices on freedom of speech and of the press.

You don't want govt REGULATING media, so whatever
Fox News or Facebook publish or don't publish, you don't
want to go down that road. Because, as Mark Levin says it:
NOTHING IS REQUIRING YOU TO USE THESE NETWORKS OR PLATFORMS.

What I will CLARIFY is IF these outlets
MISREPRESENT, VIOLATE OR ABUSE their own POSTED terms
and user agreements and/or advertising policy
SURE they can be sued for breach of contracts like any other company.

So they just need to clarify VERY specifically their right to regulate
content through their platforms and not claim to be equally inclusive or exclusive.

If they claim not to post illegal activities, yes
they should take every effort to remove those.
The problem is if extra costs or resources are needed,
then platforms such as Facebook cannot completely remove content
but can only block the public access. If you bring up the old links,
you can still find those images left online, and no group has been
able to solve this since the backlog is so huge it would take years.

(My solution to that is to enlist the efforts of all spammers, online
frauds, identity theft hackers, and make it part of their restitution
to pay the cost of hiring IT staff to remove all these images offline)

Let me get this straight. We absolutely DON'T want the govt to regulate and censor free speech but we absolutely DO want to give that power to massive multinational corporations who have NO loyalty to any nation.

No impuretrash
the corporations can be policed at the state level where they receive
licensing to operate. Any COLLECTIVE entity should and can be
held to a process of "redressing grievances" so no "collective
authority" is abused. The entities still retain equal free speech
as any individual. But we do need to end the monopoly on redressing
grievances and resolving conflicts, by implementing mediation
and conflict resolution assistance at local and state levels.

This isn't about punishing and restricting free speech and media.
But setting up access to use that to resolve conflicts to correct any abuses.

What a free mediation process depends on is equal respect for
freedom by all parties using that system.

If complainants want to abuse the system to FORCE a certain
outcome or change on the other side, that makes mediation fail.

so that's why our legal system and current mediation provisions
tend to fail, is that people abuse this for adversarial coercion
instead of REAL mediation which is about respecting and protecting
the freedom of choice of all parties to conflicts so people are truly equal.​

 

[Dana7360]

View attachment 259184

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

They love big government nanny telling everyone who they can love, who they can marry, how they have to dress, what faith they should follow, who can or can't have reproductive freedom, who has the rights guaranteed in the constitution and amendments, who lives and who dies.

They would quickly take away freedom and rights from everyone who doesn't agree with them yet they wine when a private company does what conservatives have been screaming they have a right to do for years. They chose who they do business with and on what terms.

One day they say the internet isn't a utility and shouldn't be regulated then the next they say it's a utility and should be regulated.

They have no morals or decency so they change their beliefs with the political winds and sure do love playing the poor victim.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

They love big government nanny telling everyone who they can love, who they can marry, how they have to dress, what faith they should follow, who can or can't have reproductive freedom, who has the rights guaranteed in the constitution and amendments, who lives and who dies.

They would quickly take away freedom and rights from everyone who doesn't agree with them yet they wine when a private company does what conservatives have been screaming they have a right to do for years. They chose who they do business with and on what terms.

One day they say the internet isn't a utility and shouldn't be regulated then the next they say it's a utility and should be regulated.

They have no morals or decency so they change their beliefs with the political winds and sure do love playing the poor victim.

And as a strong advocate of net neutrality, I will now only say to those affected: 'told ya so'.

 

[dblack]

You're right. I am not tolerant of intolerance, nor should I be. It is not a good fit in this country. If some yahoo wants to be a racist fascist, there are plenty of countries they can apply to.

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's certainly seems to be the case for a lot of them. But their hypocrisy has no bearing on whether smaller government is a good idea or not.

 

[impuretrash]

Theres millions of people in this country and millions more abroad that do not agree with the left-wing agenda. Those are the ones being censored from the internet, in the name of promoting "tolerance".

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's certainly seems to be the case for a lot of them. But their hypocrisy has no bearing on whether smaller government is a good idea or not.

"Small gubmint" free market conservatives have been dupes for a long time. There's nothing "conservative" about multinational corporations or unrestrained selfish greed. It's the complete opposite.

 

[dblack]

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda. I also don't use social media. Do you see me bellyaching about the gov't taking over private industry because they won't allow me to play in their sandbox? No, because I'm not a bat shit statist winger. It would seem millions of people (Cult45) have a problem with their message: few want to hear it.

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's certainly seems to be the case for a lot of them. But their hypocrisy has no bearing on whether smaller government is a good idea or not.

"Small gubmint" free market conservatives have been dupes for a long time. There's nothing "conservative" about multinational corporations or unrestrained selfish greed. It's the complete opposite.

There are genuine free-market conservatives out there. But they're not following Trump.

 

[impuretrash]

I do not agree with the left-wing agenda.

Could have fooled me.

You're using social media right now, bonehead.

Millions of people don't want to hear the LGBTQ message either. Or a pro-communist message. But they're not the ones being censored, are they?

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's certainly seems to be the case for a lot of them. But their hypocrisy has no bearing on whether smaller government is a good idea or not.

"Small gubmint" free market conservatives have been dupes for a long time. There's nothing "conservative" about multinational corporations or unrestrained selfish greed. It's the complete opposite.

There are genuine free-market conservatives out there. But they're not following Trump.

"Free market" is not conservative. It's the vehicle which drives the degradation of cultural and moral values, and opens the door to one world government, the antithesis of everything patriotic people stand for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The irony here would be funnier, if it werent so painfully idiotic.

Complain that a platform bans people and material it doesnt want on its platform. Then call that censorship.

Then propose the platform be taken over and what it displays and does not display be completely determined by the government. But that's not censorship, and banning a few trolls is.

My brain needs a shower. This place is overflowing with morons.

 

[impuretrash]

The irony here would be funnier, if it werent so painfully idiotic.

Complain that a platform bans people and material it doesnt want on its platform. The call that censorship.

Then propose the platform be taken over and what it displays and does not display be completely determined by the government. But that's not censorship, and banning a few trolls is.

My brain needs a shower. This place is overflowing with morons.

Is that what people are asking for? I thought we were asking for equality and fairness. Isn't that what you guys are all about?

 

[dblack]

You wingers want a small government only when it fits you. You are no different than the other wingers in this respect. Are you looking for my sympathy?

Let me look in my fucks to give drawer... ...damn, sorry, all out.

Conservatives never wanted smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's what they mean when they want smaller government. They don't want to pay taxes.

That's certainly seems to be the case for a lot of them. But their hypocrisy has no bearing on whether smaller government is a good idea or not.

"Small gubmint" free market conservatives have been dupes for a long time. There's nothing "conservative" about multinational corporations or unrestrained selfish greed. It's the complete opposite.

There are genuine free-market conservatives out there. But they're not following Trump.

"Free market" is not conservative. It's the vehicle which drives the degradation of cultural and moral values, and opens the door to one world government, the antithesis of everything patriotic people stand for.

I disagree. Freedom is freedom.