Facebook is Dangerous! Delete Your Acount Now!

samsmoot

Tommy Robinson's Facebook account got deleted for, amongst other things, a post urging people to '...behead those who follow the Koran', according to the BBC.

If he did say this, then got banned, I'd have no problem with it. But it's not quite clear that they are saying that HE said it - it may refer to a third-party comment perhaps. I'm pretty sure he didn't say it - if he did he'd be back inside prison, wouldn't you think?

There's no screen shots to be seen but they are either lying about Mr Robinson or blaming him for what others have said on an open forum.

Either way it makes Facebook a scummy piece of work, and potentially dangerous to anyone who participates in it.

They also deleted his Instagram.

It's not even a freedom of speech issue - it's about protecting yourself from those who would inflict harm if required to.

You may think that Facebook couldn't possibly impact your life to such an extent, but they could and would make you look bad if asked to by the authorities - even if they have to make it up, apparently.

A little bit of spin on top of that, and voila! Instant guilt!

Best not to provide any potential ammunition IMO, because you don't know which words you say (or don't say) today will get you into trouble next week. Don't even get me started on them photos.

Pollycat

samsmoot wrote: »

Tommy Robinson's Facebook account got deleted for, amongst other things, a post urging people to '...behead those who follow the Koran', according to the BBC.

If he did say this, then got banned, I'd have no problem with it. But it's not quite clear that they are saying that HE said it - it may refer to a third-party comment perhaps. I'm pretty sure he didn't say it - if he did he'd be back inside prison, wouldn't you think?

There's no screen shots to be seen but they are either lying about Mr Robinson or blaming him for what others have said on an open forum.

Either way it makes Facebook a scummy piece of work, and potentially dangerous to anyone who participates in it.

They also deleted his Instagram.

It's not even a freedom of speech issue - it's about protecting yourself from those who would inflict harm if required to.

You may think that Facebook couldn't possibly impact your life to such an extent, but they could and would make you look bad if asked to by the authorities - even if they have to make it up, apparently.

A little bit of spin on top of that, and voila! Instant guilt!

Best not to provide any potential ammunition IMO, because you don't know which words you say (or don't say) today will get you into trouble next week. Don't even get me started on them photos.

He's also banned from Twitter.
He should be getting the message by now. :whistle:

'scummy' is a pretty accurate description, but I'd point it somewhere else rather than at Facebook (which I don't use anyway) but thanks for the 'warning'.

KatrinaWaves

Tommy Robinson (or my accurately, the less ‘of the people’ sounding Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) is a disgusting human being who should be banned from whatever social media he spouts his hatred on.

I can not believe someone is white knighting over a far right activist. Seriously.

(White knighting was an unintended double entendre, but quite apt in the circumstances...)

martinthebandit

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

Tommy Robinson (or my accurately, the less ‘of the people’ sounding Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) is a disgusting human being who should be banned from whatever social media he spouts his hatred on.

I can not believe someone is white knighting over a far right activist. Seriously.

(White knighting was an unintended double entendre, but quite apt in the circumstances...)

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the above I do have some concerns mainly about freedom of speech.

I am not entirely convinced that American tech companies are the best guardians of it, I am entirely convinced that politicians are not though.

Comms69

Facebook is not obliged to allow freedom of speech; it's a private business.


It's likely he didn't say that, but ultimately if they do not want his custom, they are free to remove him from their service.

martinthebandit

Comms69 wrote: »

Facebook is not obliged to allow freedom of speech; it's a private business.


It's likely he didn't say that, but ultimately if they do not want his custom, they are free to remove him from their service.

I know but, as I said, I'm uncomfortable with them being a moral guardian and, let's be honest, they are only becoming so because of political pressure.

meer53

I don't worry about my posts on Facebook thank you, because i'm a grown up who thinks before posting anything. Your post is ridiculous.

Comms69

martinthebandit wrote: »

I know but, as I said, I'm uncomfortable with them being a moral guardian and, let's be honest, they are only becoming so because of political pressure.

Again it's up to them.


I fully support freedom of speech, it's fundamental.


But facebook is a private company and can do as it likes.

hollydays

Samsmoots a bigot, block him now.

KatrinaWaves

This is not an issue of freedom of speech but about hate speech.

Hate speech is not protected under freedom of speech.

Comms69

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

This is not an issue of freedom of speech but about hate speech.

Hate speech is not protected under freedom of speech.

Ooh whilst we often agree, on this I disagree.


But I know we can have a normal discussion about this.


I don't believe Hate Speech is a thing. I understand what people mean by it, but I absolutely believe that all speech should be protected - that with which I agree and that with which I disagree.


Whilst I have many reasons for this, here is one:


Let's hypothetically say 'Bill' - a local shopkeeper, is racist.


In scenario 1: You and I know he is racist, he is open about it, because the law does not look to stifle his freedom of speech. We both decide not to support Bill's business enterprise, we shop elsewhere. - now if we accept that society as a whole agrees with our stance (ie that racism is wrong) Bill will be out of business rather quickly.


In scenario 2: The law prevents Bill from expressing his thoughts, we don't know he's secretly a racist. We continue to use his business and give him money. Is that morally better?






Just for edification any speech which 'calls for action'


IE to harm someone is not the same thing; additionally shouting fire in a crowded room etc.


Should not be classed as free speech.


In other words: "I may not agree with what you say, but I agree with your right to say it"