Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Uneven Enforcement of Hate Speech Rules Allows Vile Posts To Stay Up (propublica.org)
ProPublica has found inconsistent rulings on hate speech after analyzing more than 900 Facebook posts submitted to them as part of a crowd-sourced investigation into how the world's largest social network implements its hate-speech rules. "Based on this small fraction of Facebook posts, its content reviewers often make different calls on items with similar content, and don't always abide by the company's complex guidelines," reports ProPublica. "Even when they do follow the rules, racist or sexist language may survive scrutiny because it is not sufficiently derogatory or violent to meet Facebook's definition of hate speech." From the report: We asked Facebook to explain its decisions on a sample of 49 items, sent in by people who maintained that content reviewers had erred, mostly by leaving hate speech up, or in a few instances by deleting legitimate expression. In 22 cases, Facebook said its reviewers had made a mistake. In 19, it defended the rulings. In six cases, Facebook said the content did violate its rules but its reviewers had not actually judged it one way or the other because users had not flagged it correctly, or the author had deleted it. In the other two cases, it said it didn't have enough information to respond.
"We're sorry for the mistakes we have made -- they do not reflect the community we want to help build," Facebook Vice President Justin Osofsky said in a statement. "We must do better." He said Facebook will double the size of its safety and security team, which includes content reviewers and other employees, to 20,000 people in 2018, in an effort to enforce its rules better. He added that Facebook deletes about 66,000 posts reported as hate speech each week, but that not everything offensive qualifies as hate speech. "Our policies allow content that may be controversial and at times even distasteful, but it does not cross the line into hate speech," he said. "This may include criticism of public figures, religions, professions, and political ideologies."
"We're sorry for the mistakes we have made -- they do not reflect the community we want to help build," Facebook Vice President Justin Osofsky said in a statement. "We must do better." He said Facebook will double the size of its safety and security team, which includes content reviewers and other employees, to 20,000 people in 2018, in an effort to enforce its rules better. He added that Facebook deletes about 66,000 posts reported as hate speech each week, but that not everything offensive qualifies as hate speech. "Our policies allow content that may be controversial and at times even distasteful, but it does not cross the line into hate speech," he said. "This may include criticism of public figures, religions, professions, and political ideologies."
By my definition you are a nazi, so time to bludgeon you to death with a baby seal.
Are straight nazis okay in your book or just the "faggot" ones?
censor all the things
The US university system graduates so many SJW every year. They would enjoy the feeling of power to censor the internet for a social media company.
Just list all the terms, music, art, culture, music/movie reviews, cartoons, blasphemy to be de ranked, banned and removed.
SJW can also report users, accounts, art work, history to EU and US law enforcement too.
Just hire a lot more SJW and let them censor social media.
Social media's got what governments crave. They crave censorship. It's got social justice.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Anything else means that you're getting in the way of somebody's Freedom of Speech.
In fact, it might be nice to know that Fred Bloggs can't go three posts without using the N-word.
It will inform me when I'm making decisions about who to invite to a party, recommend for a job opening, etc.
I'm not saying that Facebook is making a good faith effort to solve the problem. I've never looked at it, so I have no idea. I'm saying that the problem as stated is a hard problem. It's easy to, say, ban certain particular words, but that doesn't accomplish very much.
I'm not sure that the problem as stated could be addressed by anything much short of a human equivalent AI, and even that would only allow some particular set of standards to be applied uniformly. It sure couldn't guarantee that the standards were fair.
As an example consider the text "You with a donkey's member!" This is apparently a violently abusive comment, but that depends on context that isn't present. I'm sure I could come up with a context where that would be encouragement. And every single word in that sentence is perfectly harmless. Or what about "Pepe the frog"? That was intended to be a humorous children's cartoon character....but it didn't stay that way, much to the annoyance of the creator.
That said, the evidence seems to support the assertion that Facebook encourages hateful posts, and is more reluctant to censor nazi-ish posts than those with an opposing message. Again, I have no direct evidence for this as I never visit that site, and am relying on material published by others.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Your definition of nazi is your own faggot ass. Admit it.
Arbitrary, subjective rules can never be enforced fairly. Create more objective criteria, or stop moderating altogether and let people do their own blocking like adults.
Facebook and trump are both going down in flames in 2018.
You heard it here first.
It means that they can filter whatever they want and blame it on the "automated" filter....
Publish the "49 items" so we may judge for ourselves what it is that you deem "hate speech." Otherwise fuck off.
There was nothing comparable to that -- no bureaucracy that needed to employ a small army to act as a thought police, enforcing vaguely-defined thoughtcrime. There were just a few, content-neutral rules one had to follow, to post on Usenet. You were free to write anything you wanted, no matter how vulgar or obscene. Complete and unrestricted freedom of speech. You could not be silenced. When some snowflake or a SJW got triggered, too bad, so sad. They could do nothing about it. In its heyday, I had a blast of a time trolling the snowflakes and giving them daily aneurisms. I miss those days.
Of course, Usenet's still around, if one knows where to find it. And, come to think of it, I think I will. The riff-raff, the millenial snowflakes can have Faceboot, Twatter, and the rest of that junk. They should stay off Usenet. They wouldn't be able to handle it.
Note to self: Don't become president.
At first pass, there seems to be an easy way to recognize if one's "Hateful Comment" is truly "offensive" and not a result of one's unconsciously political bias.
In a nutshell, if one doesn't find the comment hateful when used against their own sacred cows, then it isn't hateful.
To cite an example in the article which FACEBOOK deleted a post during a "candid discussion of gender issues"
"...Charro Sebring, which said, “Men really are trash.”
If the comment had been "Women really are trash" and the complainer found it acceptable within the bounds of the discussion, then it was NOT HATEFUL.
Realistically, we don't live in a utopia where every perceived transgression is instantly recognized and the transgressor objectively punished. I'd hate to have NOMADS running around saying "Sterilize Imperfection ... STERILIZE!!!"
You want to kill gay people?
One left-wing troll story after another. Are you retards trying to hit your quote before the year is up or are is the supervision on their Christmas vacation this week?
How scientific.
They are all dying.
I have been poking around into a few communities I used to visit or knew people in, and visiting a few communities I didn't visit back when they were fresh and new. Almost all of them have waning activity. The largest active IRC now seems to be freenode, and mostly in the developer channels, combined with #hardware. 2600's irc is dead. IRC2P on I2P has about 20-30 regulars, spread across the i2p developer channels, #salt, and the russian/chinese channels and is otherwise dead. MU* communities that used to have playerbases in the hundreds connected range are now down to 100 at their peak, other than 1-2 cybersex themed MU*s. The older or mismanaged ones having 3-5 players, usually not even staff connected to them anymore.
XMPP is similiar. Despite every major messaging app, except maybe Slack having been founded/based on XMPP, no end users know or care about that anymore, instead claiiming they are 'private' because some social media hype claimed it so.
Result of all this, the techies who were middle aged during the 80s-90s are all retiring out of online activity, except for a few die-hards. The younger crowd is migrating to social media or hype based faux privacy networks because that is what their friends are doing. The millenials and younger are using whatever service all their friends are lemmings-ing to, and those of us who are left are having a hard time finding which legacy services still have the participation to reward our time.
have been directed toward conservatives or others who don't mindlessly toe the party line. Strangely, those all seem to stay up. If you want to talk about uneven enforcement, how about starting there?
Mod parent up. Between funny or interesting. Kudos to slashdot for not censoring
Note to self...
Don't destroy ISIS
Don't give middle class workers a tax cut
Don't increase GDP over 3%, higher than Obama did any time over 8 years
Don't prosecute illegals that kill Americans
Don't protect VA whistle-blowers that are trying to help veterans
Don't bring back Americans jailed overseas, such as shoplifting basketball players
I don't think your advice is very good.
I had to look that up. Seems to exist, so don't hate me for it...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Repeat after me:
"Hate speech" does not exist.
It is a line of bullshit used by some people to attempt to justify silencing other people they don't agree with while also trying to cementing themselves in the "right side of history" camp. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment nor to the concept of freedom of speech in general. What constitutes "hate speech" depends on who defines it, so in a decade it could easily hang the people currently trying to hang others with it.
Note that threats are not "hate speech," they have their own category and if the threats are credible they are also illegal in practically every jurisdiction.
By taking down posts, in the absence of government law, and clear unambigous written government law, passed by politicians in a legislature, Facebook is denying my rights.
My rights have written laws. And there are lots of "free speech" precedents too.
Facebook is not empowered to enforce the law, without a trial, or a clear formal appeal process -- and inconsistently.
If I was a right wing agitator, I would use the word "biased" instead of "inconsistent"
Facebook will
1) Shutdown
2) Be sued into oblivion
3) Post everything. IF the governments want to censor, let the government be the repressive jackboot of the face forever free speech killers.
This is the end game. Bets?
It is not complicated. It is not different this time. There is no new ground here.
Or has the comment section here been more cesspool-y in the last few weeks?
This kind of thing is inevitable when you try to police free speech.
Don't like it? Tough.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
According to these idiots insults are hate speech:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
noun
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Websters seems to have it simplified down to a literal state which could be fine:
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Definition of Hate speech
: speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people
Wikipedia is all over the map but at least seems to only report on various countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These people are subjectively confused thinking "any form of expression regarded as offensive":
https://definitions.uslegal.co...
Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
These people get it:
https://www.urbandictionary.co...
Hate speech
A highfalutin' way of saying "I disagree with your meticulously-researched, irrefutable facts, so I am going to organize a social media campaign to demonize you and ruin your life. But don't forget to donate to my Patreon."
Sane, rational human being: "I sure do loves me some grapes!"
Filthy SJW bacterium: "OMFG GRAPE HAS 'RAPE' IN IT THAT'S HATE SPEECH! RAAAAAAAPE CULTUUUUUURE!"
Disparaging a social group is hate speech to these people:
https://www.thefreedictionary....
hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.
Twitter's fallacy here -- and the one which powerful forces are trying to foist upon other big names -- is that you can have a global communication platform with one set of rules. There is no one set of rules that refers to all speech. There is no way to measure "hate" fairly. Twitter has painted themselves into a corner: they will forever be too strict, or too lenient, often being loudly accused of both at the same time.
One of the problems with filters is something I see on other sites, especially on political issues. Things escalate. When a post is finally flagged, often it's in response to a post that's similar or worse. Sites have trolls using moderation to eliminate opinions they don't like. If you just mildly insult someone who holds an opinion you don't like, then if they respond in kind, report them.
Deep Learning should be used to identify those who make the most complaints, or have a disproportionate number of reported posts in response to their posts. That'll make a "troll score" and lower the reliability of those who generate hate speech, as well as those who post hate speech.
Facebook is the worst, as the top comments are ranked by responses, so the most outrageous comments are on top, as they get the most "your wrong" comments. If Facebook treated such comments as a "downvote" on the original comment, then it would better filter out the noise.
But since Facebook is 100% noise, how would anyone notice?
Learn to love Alaska
Don't create the best American economy in decades?
Facebook has become such a large portion of our communication, both between individuals and between organizations that they act almost as a governing body for communications of those types. How much bigger do they need be before they way they censor speech becomes more important that government censorship of speech?
After a certain point it almost becomes irrelevant whether we call ourself a "free speech" society if the private corporations that control our communications are allowed to decide what kind of speech will or will not be allowed.
This discussions in itself illustrates the problem. We have trusted them to know where to draw the line and there is no way for them to do that and have everyone agree that they've done it correctly. Should we allow them to censor something that most people consider to be hate speech? Is 51% enough agreement to have something censored? How about 75%? I guess I should be asking that to Facebook since they get to decide. What about as societal norms shift. Right now hate speech against women is "clearly" wrong, but hate speech against men is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. There might come a time when that particular brand of hate is no longer tolerated too, but whether that type of language will be allowed on Facebook will be up to them.
It seems like we are granting the few people who are in the positions to make those decisions too much power over our right to free speech. So we ask, "Why do they make the decisions that they do?" I think a better question would be, "Why do we let them make these decisions on our behalf?"
They should have kept their US branding globally.
Freedom of speech, freedom after speech sells around the world.
People who need to interact with their own governments can use boring national sites.
Keep social media fun, free and full of different news.
Thats what attracts people and profits. Users can all get 100% censorship in their own nations for every day.
US social media does not need to report users to they own nations police for enjoying US freedom of speech.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Let me explain. All nazis are worthless inbred retarded faggots with their heads up their asses intellectually and spiritually, developmentally. It has nothing to do with otherwise civic-minded gay folks, that's just terminology overlap. I hope that helps. Kill the nazis, happy new year!
> Obama did that
Actually, Putin did it by bombing the shit out of them and supporting the existing regime.
Say what you want about Slashdot, but at least they don't censor here.
Facebook is evil for censoring. So are all of the freedom-hating assholes who want them to.
Don't feed the trolls. There is a clear definition of Nazi, no need to argue about it. Anyone who doesn't understand it is being obtuse.
Actual Nazis are easy to identify by the swastikas and 1488 chants. No need to over-think it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Honestly why I still occasionally post topically instead of only shitposting here.
Mad props indeed. Yes, there's moderation, but I've yet to see indication of the wholesale silencing of "problematic" (re: people who disagree) posters here.
Community moderation is absolutely a form of censorship. There's hardly any need for actual banning or deletion when users can downvote wrongthinkers into complete invisibility until they get frustrated and leave on their own, leaving the remainder to become a stagnant cesspool of groupthink that progressively entrenches and radicalizes itself. Slashdot pioneered the idea, but perhaps is saved from the same fate as Reddit just because it's much smaller and filtering out posts by score here usually leaves you with barely anything to read at all.
Facebook and others prefer the algorithmic route of simply burying things they don't want around, which gives them more direct control over the acceptable range of opinions but lacks a way for users to easily and publicly express their hatred for other people's posts. Thus they need additional explicit censorship to appease the mob.
I once reported a posting of a preacher claiming that people hit by a hurricane deserved to die and the "lord" was punishing them for their sins for embracing the gay community. I thought that surely qualified as hate speech and should be removed. Facebook did not delete the post. Regardless of your beliefs, saying that someone deserves to die and they are rightfully being punished by a deity of some sort with death based on their acceptance of gay people is, in my opinion, the definition of hate speech. You can easily condemn someone's opinions or beliefs without calling for or sanctioning their death.
Because the left loves racism if it is against an approved group for the Two Minutes of Hate.
I'm old enough (i.e., not middle-aged yet) to remember when "hate speech" was on the anti-free-speech fringes. Then it started moving in on us. And the closer and closer it got, the greater and greater amount of largely anodyne words and thoughts became verboten. Now some claim that certain words or thoughts are equivalent to physical violence. It was better when people were just seen as obnoxious dicks, and not some form of Neo-Grammar(ish) Nazi guilty of breaking windows of the mind.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Well, better get ready to flag me for hate speech. The things I say may be true or maybe false, or here's a though: it just may be an opinion and go fuck yourself if you don't like it, but either way, all that matters in this Internet life is that there's enough interaction around my comment to keep the unemployed, liberal chant monkeys howling and the ads clicks flowing. Blame conservatives all you want, but they generally don't "do Internet" all that well, so who's fault is it really for over reacting to bullshit you have no business pretending to know anything about or think you can control with protesting, aka bumbling around, staring at my phone and taking snap chat stories to get laid by nose ring wearing bbw's you millennial bovine scattologist. All indication on the Internet pointed towards Hillary winning, but she didn't did she? If conservatives browsed the web like liberals do (stats say %40 of country listeners still have dialup), we would have seen it coming. It's not a trick; it's not a hack; you guys are outnumbered and votes are done on paper, but you wouldn't know if you spend all of your time on social networking sites and no intelligent U.S. male wants a female president when the feminazis and transtopo won't give it a rest. It took blacks 200 years; you guys/girls/shems can wait. You do know the bathroom thing was WOMEN having a problem with it right? Had nothing to do with men's opinions. We're too perverted and women just didn't want a "CD male" in their bathrooms because most women don't see the difference, unfortunately. Im sure most people around the world weren't even thinking that at all, they just needed another tiring "blame the white guy patriarchy for my low sense of self worth" excuse. I dare you all to find a grandmother and talk about feminism and see what she says. She'll tell you guys you are all full of shit and destroying the country when you've 100x more than they did.
When I was visiting a college town last year, their definition of Nazi and racist was anyone who was not a Democrat. It went from "punch a Nazi" to "shoot a Nazi" to "punch a racist", to "punch a Republican".
I have grown up in a flyover state. The amount of true Nazis is very small. In fact, in times past where they marched, and nobody gave a rat's ass basically killed their movement. Now with protests and people coming from other areas of the country just to spark riots, this extreme ideology just gets embraced by more, along the lines of the Streisand Effect.
Real Nazis know how to return violence. However, if they are ignored and silently given a "-1 Overrated" (to put it in Slashdot terms), they will lose membership and all but disappear. However, if people come fight them, it means they get a lot more recruits along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
"There is a clear definition of Nazi".
Yes there is. And anyone who distorts it is dishonest. Your explanation of a Nazi grossly simplifies what a Nazi was (and very rarely now "is").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Daesh? Obama, the Sauds, and Russia broke their back.
Tax cut? Nope. Two years from now, when the ballooning deficit causes rollbacks, it will be a net tax increase. Interesting that this is timed just after election year.
GDP over 3%. Obama inherited a shitshow, and made a top tier economy, with the US the top trading bloc in the world. Now, that crown belongs to China due to the TTIP abandonment, forcing Australia and the Pacific Rim to defer to China.
Prosecute illegals? Obama did a record job at deportations. In fact, there are more "illegals" bailing the US than coming in.
Protect VA whistle blowers? The VA got defunded.
Bring back Americans jailed overseas? Obama did this as well.
Now, lets discuss the real issues:
1: The North Korea issue has a high chance of making the entire Pacific Rim a war zone. This will hose us in many ways. The heated rhetoric is doing nobody any good.
2: The mixed signals from Tillerson versus Trump is similar to what sparked Iraq to seize Kuwait. The administration needs to send a cohesive message to the DPRK. If they want China to actually do something other than give lip service, they need to start hitting China where it hurts, with a tariff on the cheap shit China exports. Europe does this.
3: The fact that the US has sent a message that de-nuclearization means a country is now vulnerable to regime change, a la Libya.
4: The fact that the US has abandoned allies like NATO, forcing Europe to work on a world that the US isn't a partner.
5: The fact that overall, international tensions against virtually every country in the world are at a high point, even staunch allies like England and Canada.
6: There is a lot of unrest in the US. When you have people with zero hope, extreme groups pop up and thrive.
7: The tax bill is a bill of attainder. Every group Trump doesn't like has a tax hike applied, be it college students to people who live in a trailer and mortgage it.
8: There is a lack of interest in prosecuting insider trading and financial crimes. In fact even though it is commonplace for top brass in a company to short their stock before a bad announcement (firm got hacked, etc.), it isn't even looked at.
9: The fact that there is zero interest in bipartisan debate whatsoever. Trump wants his wall, and he will shut the government down until he gets it.
Now, here is the big question: What has Trump done to build up this country? So far, he has brought the shadow of nuclear war back onto this country.
One of the most curious things about censorship-, prohibition-, arbitrariness-, etc. prone attitudes is that they usually try to prove that they are objectively better. They don't seem to accept their real imposition-based authority (you can use Facebook only if you accept its rules or Facebook's rules have to agree with the corresponding legislation or Facebook should listen what many of its users say) and hypocritically claim their moral superiority.
DISCLAIMER: I am not defending any position here. In general, I prefer permissive and properly-understanding approaches which only rely on prohibitions when strictly required.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
And what are you, an illegal sand n1gger migrant who was bred by chimps in hindustan and adopted by n1gger slave trader, then let to pass border security with a counterfeit birth certificate?
Seriously, chimp, get back to your roots - go visit your relatives in a zoo.
oop's. Storyteller alert.
WaPo = Blacklisted Fake News (ref: wikileaks blacklist)
your rant is a nullified fiction
ref: http://www.hangthebankers.com/...
At least here you can read at -1 if you really want to see what's been downmodded.
It is very, very inconvenient and frustrating when one cannot arbitrarily assign people dehumanizing labels!
This, at least among other things.
What about pedophiles?
No, actual Nazis were members of Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, which went defunct in 1945. There are a few still around, mostly in their 80's+. The current crop of "alt-right"ers that are doing the 1488 chants are a pale imitation, a mimicry. They are considered "neo-Nazis".
Killing Nazi's use to be the law for a reason.
Right-leaning, pro-Israel Shurat HaDin fights a multi-year campaign against Facebook on OP's exact grounds and no one bats an eye.
Left-leaning pro-publica leads with Facebook permitting anti-Muslim hatespeech and everyone goes batshit.
Truth (Capital "T" Truth) and groupthink don't mix. Humans WILL lie to themselves about anything and everything. And we get very upset when reality refuses to follow our whims. And why, oh why, are you socializing with people you don't like on a platform that doesn't like you?
You can't just go around talking poetically. You just can't talk like that. It shows that you have a constant melodrama going on in your schizophrenic head and that your psychotic self-righteousness always paints you the hero against evil, evil being anything you don't like for a split second or longer for any reason.
Our society is completely and totally doomed. We need to start preparing for the collapse. Leftist-trained subhumans are being used by the plutocracy to destroy everything to make way for an automated economy. We need revolution in 30 years or everything we know and love is going to die forever.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Facebook is evil for censoring. So are all of the freedom-hating assholes who want them to.
Facebook is operating a private platform funded by private money. Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. They can censor whatever the want, just as you can censor whatever you want in your house. If you don't like what your friends say in your house, you can ask them to leave. If Facebook doesn't like what you say on their platform, they can remove it and ask you to leave. Simple.
Which does not mean that I agree with them. But they are not doing anything wrong, legally or morally.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I agree with you, all those tech giants just censor center and right never left side ideas. The funny os that (the left side) says they want free speech, but they are in reallity not ready for it, because their ideas most of the time sucks, so no leverage.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate what is moral for other people. By my measure, morally they are being evil.
in times past where they marched, and nobody gave a rat's ass
This is EXACTLY how dissenters should be handled. You don't counter march, you don't assault them, you simply ignore them and their cause will never gain traction.
And if it does gain traction, then it's because the masses agree and you might then put together your own march. It's all a matter of freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. People need to respect that.
you don't get to dictate what is moral for other people. By my measure, morally they are being evil.
You are right, your moral compass may be different than mine. I stand corrected.
And while FB as a company might be evil, legally they still do have the right to delete whatever they want.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Exactly. A Nazi is somebody the hard left crazies disagree with. And FB's enforcement isn't uneven: if it's conservative, explicitly pro-Trump or anti-Hillary it's hate speech, even if it's merely a recitation of facts without opinion.
Like buzz feeds article on '37 things white people need to do to not ruin 2018'. Racism at its finest.
Why are they trying to censor Facebook?
Facebook is a PG-13 version of 4chan.
Let Facebook be Facebook. People will get tired of it and the fad can finally die, as it should have years ago.
Legally I have the right to curse at and threaten people, but that doesn't mean I will.
I'm not concerned with legalities. The law is too often used as a refuge for the unscrupulous.
...Setting the standards for double-standards!
The law is too often used as a refuge for the unscrupulous.
Yes, you are totally right there. But this does not apply in the case of Facebook.
If you don't want Facebook to delete your content, don't use Facebook. If you feel that Facebook is an evil corporation, don't use Facebook. Don't visit website that use Facebook's services. Or block all of Facebook in your favorite adblocker. It's literally that simple.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Oh? You mean like BLM shouting "Hands up, don't shoot" is racism?
Heard that one before Reichsmarshall
Yeah, but how many red-pills can be bothered?
I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate what is moral for other people. By my measure, morally they are being evil.
Actually, yes you do.
It's called "Law"
Yes,like nazi thugs pretending that threatening and intimidation,fighting words and incitement to riot are free speech
Hint: They are not.
Actually, they are. You really ought to know about the subject matter before you open your uneducated mouth.