Oh Dear: Facebook bans 'dangerous individuals'

[Zigenare]

Mor On is the CUK Village Idiot of the year 2019 surely?

Having said that plenty of contenders on here these days.

"Wrap a new Mercedes round an old stone wall" To the music of "Tie A Yellow Ribbon"

[AtW]

Oh the runners up for the award have arrived, did not take long

[Zigenare]

Oh the runners up for the award have arrived, did not take long

Seriously my friend, you should find someone to talk to.

Your achievements stand tall, you worked your arse off saving to build a business that only you at the time recognised would be there! Some of us helped you in the past to gain your data and help in whichever way we could. However, it was you that struggled to make what you have today real.

You've done fantastically well.

If you want to have a relationship with someone then maybe you should seek help from a professional to understand what that means.

Good luck my little friend, and you still owe me a beer.

[GJABS]

The consequence here is that a privately owned company has decided that it doesn’t want to provide a platform. It’s their decision whether or not to provide that platform, but it’s not removal of free speech.

That is technically correct, but so many people use Facebook that a discussion around a particular subject takes on the appearance as being that of an open public forum. People reading posts and comments will pick up what appears to be a consensus opinion on a subject, when in fact that view is only held by a proportion of society, the other views being hidden by Facebook by bans for "Hate Speech" and the like.

So yes it is not removal of free speech, but it has the same negative effect as if it was the removal of free speech, and should in my opinion be subject to laws affirming the right to have free speech (within the law).

[shaunbhoy]

Seriously my friend, you should find someone to talk to.

Your achievements stand tall, you worked your arse off saving to build a business that only you at the time recognised would be there! Some of us helped you in the past to gain your data and help in whichever way we could. However, it was you that struggled to make what you have today real.

You've done fantastically well.

If you want to have a relationship with someone then maybe you should seek help from a professional to understand what that means.

Good luck my little friend, and you still owe me a beer.

Who are you and how did you get hold of Churchy's login??

[meridian]

That is technically correct, but so many people use Facebook that a discussion around a particular subject takes on the appearance as being that of an open public forum. People reading posts and comments will pick up what appears to be a consensus opinion on a subject, when in fact that view is only held by a proportion of society, the other views being hidden by Facebook by bans for "Hate Speech" and the like.

So yes it is not removal of free speech, but it has the same negative effect as if it was the removal of free speech, and should in my opinion be subject to laws affirming the right to have free speech (within the law).

“Technically correct”
“Within the law”

What you appear to be proposing is a change to the law, to force private companies to provide platforms to extreme views?

I’m sure there are no unintended consequences there, and that it will all end well.

[AtW]

So yes it is not removal of free speech, but it has the same negative effect as if it was the removal of free speech, and should in my opinion be subject to laws affirming the right to have free speech (within the law).

Your opinion ends where private property starts.

[GJABS]

“Technically correct”
“Within the law”

What you appear to be proposing is a change to the law, to force private companies to provide platforms to extreme views?

I’m sure there are no unintended consequences there, and that it will all end well.

Yes I'm proposing a change to the law.

Could there be any unintended consequences? Maybe, and to be fair I haven't thought it through.

Your opinion ends where private property starts.

I'm not sure there is any such thing as really private property when the state gets involved.

[AtW]

You should also fook off to Russia where there is indeed no private property when State gets involved

[meridian]

Yes I'm proposing a change to the law.

Could there be any unintended consequences? Maybe, and to be fair I haven't thought it through.

Possibly.

A brief period of thought would probably lead to the realisation that even CUK is moderated. If you host your own website, you’ve possibly turned off comments, or you at least moderate for spam or unrelated comments on any blog post or web page. How far down the rabbit hole would you want to go in forcing private companies and individuals to provide a platform?

Any law would also only be relevant to the U.K. Presumably in the USA anyone affected can already sue under infringement of their First Amendment?.....