Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech
NewsCloud writes "Does Facebook believe that no publicity is bad publicity? Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group? Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages. Shouldn't a startup like Facebook, reportedly worth more than a billion dollars and with over a hundred employees, be expected to enforce its own Terms of Use in less than six weeks?"
Does anyone else think that starting a petition threatening to leave the site on which the petition is hosted...? Oh, nevermind.
I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.
Clicking on the link to the group f**k Islam takes me to the Facebook homepage, but clicking on the other link works. The f**k islam group is also linked from the petition, but it too takes me to the Facebook home page. Looks to me that the group was removed...
sigfault. core dumped.
Fuck Digg.
I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
If this is a threat you have to do better than that! It's no skin off my back if you quit for being a whiner.
Sincerely Yours,
Mark Zuckerberg
The game.
Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?
props to the slashdot strawman.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Digg doesn't exist any more after their userbase said they would quit over the DVD encryption key fiasco. Kinda like Facebook. Oh wait...
I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.
I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.
::shrugs::
/. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.
I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?
Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?
I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?
Can I not hate?
Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.
I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.
If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.
As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them.
I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being
Some of those fuck Islam people might even live in our town! Quick, create a petition to drive them out of their homes as well! I'm a buddhist, and I'd be quite annoyed if a 'fuck buddhism' group were removed. I'd probably even join if they'd have me, I don't think any honest person can look at his religion and not see huge room for criticism. But trying to force someone into your own belief system is a dangerous path to walk. I think this group is flirting with turning into the exact thing they intend to get rid of.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Remember that it's acceptable to make fun of Geeks, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, and LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot). But never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends.
Am I wrong when I think that if there were a site on Facebook call F*ck Chistianity, with a similar petition of outraged Facebook users saying they would quit unless the site was taken down, that the story would get the entirely opposite spin when it ran on Slashdot, with the writer coming down on the side of free speech over protecting outraged religionists from being offended? And I am no Christian zealot, either. However, sites like Slashdot and Digg skew to the liberal/moonbatty side, and unfortunately there is an all-to-apparent double-standard / hypocritical attitude that Islam deserves special treatment compared to Christianity and Judaism. Free speech should come first in all cases -- I don't care which group is offended.
FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
/.
You are a very brave person to post that sentiment on
I can has sig?
The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.
I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The submitter is obviously just trying to drum up traffic to his page with a troll post. The submitter linked to his own news site. Great for SEO.
I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.
With Bob Dole as their spokesperson and a great catchy line like, "I chose the little blue pill and plugged myself right into her Matrix."
I am extremely angry they took down the F*ck Islam thread. It's a win for censorship, and from all accounts it was a critique of Islam more then a needless hate thread. Islam need some very aggressive critiquing. It has many modern flaws systemic within it and has it's head buried far far far into the sand. Mod me down but it greatly angers me that no one can critique Islam. That people die for doing nothing more then pointing out it's flaws. At some point we need to push back. Poor beleaguered Muslims in US, probably. But Almost any country that is Muslim majority is a oppressive to it's religious and ethnic minorities. From indonesia to UAE. Muslims aren't bad people but they are set up systemically to be used by what ever power broker can incite religious fervor. And most of the Muslim power broker are bad people.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
What's the big deal? That happened centuries ago, hence Sunni and Shia Islam.
-- Alastair
1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West.
2) Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
The only group worth joining:
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
That basically takes care of everything.
Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that there are people out there that hate us (no matter whom the "us" are), and that, fundamentally, it's their right to do so? If you don't like me because I'm a male, an American, without a degree, overweight, a Christian, from Texas, or whatever, I just flat don't care. I have more important stuff to worry about, and criticism to notice from people whose opinions actually matter to me. A life so empty of strife an conflict that it can be shaken just by someone forming a group called "Fuck <some group that I happen to identify with>" is a life to be envied, I suppose.
Nobody is going to please everyone he meets in life, and if you don't make any enemies along the way, you're probably not doing anything meaningful. If someone is going to waste time and energy hating me, I don't feel threatened. I don't feel endangered. If there existed a group called "Fuck all fat egocentric Texan assholes," I'd get a good chuckle out of it. Because, really, we can be pretty overbearing at times; we all can, though you'd probably never see fat egocentric Texan assholes shooting up the place and lighting fires because someone circulated cartoons of Sam Houston or Stephen Austin.
I mean, really, what's the harm? Short of the US military, there isn't a single group of people organized and equipped to exterminate or even cause widespread inconvenience to all fat egocentric Texan assholes--or all adherents of Islam, for that matter. And, really, if I were Islamic, I'd be a lot more worried about the US military than a club on a social networking website.
We need to all grow up (grow a pair, as the saying goes). Every person on this planet is a pathetic loser in one way or another. Thankfully we're all pathetic losers in different ways. Grow from the worthwhile criticism, and laugh at the rest. Whining for censorship is picking a fight in the parking lot because you lost on the mat. Call me an asshole, and be happy you can; I'll gladly return the favor.
The day we can't is the day we really have something to worry about.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
You know, fuck whom? Fuck web designers that think that a) screwing with your cursor is acceptable, and b) a cross-hair is a good cursor for links.
(also fuck people with pointless blogs, but that's kind of a standing sentiment)
sic transit gloria mundi
The people in this anti-group claim that it exists only because the hate group "Fuck Islam" violates Facebook's own terms of service. They say that it has nothing to do with free speech or their opinions on the subject.
If that is true, then were are all of the other anti-groups protesting these hate groups, which I found on FaceBook in about three minutes of searching:
ALL CHILD MOLESTERS SHOULD HAVE THERE DICKS GET CUT OFF
Fuck The Fucking KKK
FUCK THE KKK FUCK THOSE RACIST BITCHES!!!!
All unite against the group(fuck uslimsand palestine)
FUCK ISRAEL!!! EVERONE HATES IT SO WHY IS IT STILL AROUND?!
Fuck Nazis
Fuck The Enemies of Israel
It seems to me that if they were really concerned, they would protest ALL of these hate groups, and not just the one they selected. After all, if they are truly okay with free speech but not hate groups, then shouldn't they take equal protest against the anti-KKK group, the anti-Nazi group, and the anti-Israel group?
-David
If Slashdot doesn't bring back the hot grits and Natalie Portman, then I propose we quit.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
If someone I disagree with isn't allowed to express their views in an open forum they will find some other way of promoting their viewpoint.
If one person is willing to express a view then many other people probably also believe the same thing. If they are allowed to express their views openly then those views can be openly rebutted. That's the reason I never mod down people I disagree with on slashtot. Its better to post my on response or mod up a good response.
"The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion."
IOW it's mainly Muslims killing each other, so the GPs point about us "still killing them in mass" is bullshit. The main reason we're still there four years later is to try to stop Muslim deaths. (Of course, whether our continued presence is actually helping is very debatable.)
I also have to wonder what exactly the numerous Islamic terrorist atrocities commited before any western involvement in Iraq or Afganistan were "fighting back" against.
Since when is Islam a race? Islam is a religion whose practitioners are called Muslims. Muslims can be of any race. Just like followers of Christianity are called Christians, and there are Christians of every skin color. So, cursing a religion does NOT make a person RACIST, nor does it qualify as HATE SPEECH.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.
The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
Why do you hate the "masses"?
Isn't slashdot contra-censorship ? Of any kind ? I mean how can you argue FOR the universal availability of stuff like mein kampf and the quran, and be against this sort of thing ?
...
Lots of books that slashdot "fights" for are a lot more controversial, and less childish, than this
Jewish law doesn't marginalize women. It holds women up as the spiritual core of the people, and elevates their primary responsibilities in the home to a level of holiness. While from a Western job-oriented mindset, people may see it as marginalized, the three core activities of an observant Jewish home, Shabbat, Kashrut, and Family Purity are commandments that fall primarily on the women. The woman takes priority over her husband regarding Shabbat candles, is primarily responsible for maintaining a Kosher home, and maintaining Family Purity. The "male" responsibilities are to provide income for his family, engage in Torah learning and teach Torah to his children, and participate in public prayer. Those "male" responsibilities are just as important (and seen my non-Jews and non-practicing Jews), but less holy and critical to the family.
Most of the anti-female views in Judeo-Christian beliefs aren't supported by the Bible, they are Roman/Greek customs and things that the early Church picked up when it merged with the Roman Empire. Did the Romans hate women? Well, considering that Roman/Greek societies placed the highest form of love as the love between a man and a young boy...
It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. This got into the Christian Bible by way of bizarre interpretation. It also slipped into Judaism a bit during the Talmudic era, when Judea was an occupied Roman Province.
If you look at the Biblical basis for marriage, it does nothing to prohibit sexual desires on either party. The only thing that is does is require that if a man lie with a woman, he make her his wife. This means that a man can only lie with as many women as he can support, so it somewhat limits male sexual expression. And pre-birth control combined with the timing effects of Family Purity laws, sex had a decent likelihood of resulting in child bearing. So forcing a man to support the woman he lies with can hardly be seen as sexist in an objective sense.
Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. We redefined the concept of gender relations in the last 100 years, and then call the old way sexist. However, if you look at the Biblical laws as applied to twelve wandering tribes in Egypt going through Arabia and into Canaan, they are extremely progressive. If you look at the restrictions added during the Talmudic era, they are extremely progressive. And if you compare their adaptation by the Church to Roman society, a society that used to encourage the men to ignore their women except to produce heirs, encouraged them to have mistresses to produce more off-spring which they could CHOOSE to legitimize or not (but the mistress got no support, while additional wives in Judaism (banned for over 1000 years now in Western Judaism) AND concubines each had levels of support, and the concubine could choose to end the relationship with no strings), the religious basis of gender relations was PRO-woman.
You can't look from a 21st century view of gender relations and look at Church law and call it backwards. Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer. The Church later dealt with gender relations in feudal Europe, where the nobles were marrying and producing legit heirs (with some on the side), and the peasants where gender relations were somewhere between permitted rape and modern dating, and brought marriage out of common law and into general practice.
Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Those that see female promiscuity (in an era of The Pill) as liberation for women may see the obsession
Man, I hate it when people use free speech to say something I disagree with!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.
Define "we" please? The major issue I have with speech restrictions is who decides what is acceptable speech. The group "we" doesn't exist other than as an imaginary peer group modeled after our own likes and dislikes.
That won't ever happen. You don't have the right to not be offended, only to not read what offends you. No restrictions needed - just look away! It is possible to live how you want without forcing others to conform to your values at the same time.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.