Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Takes Down Fake Account Network Used To Spread Hate In UK (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook has removed a network of more than 100 accounts and pages for "coordinated inauthentic behavior" on its social networks -- the first time it has done so for UK-based operations seeking to influence British citizens. The operation was spread over Facebook and Instagram and used a network of fake accounts to pose as both far-right activists and their opponents. It ran pages and groups whose names frequently changed in order to drum up more followers and operated fake accounts to engage in hate speech and spread divisive comments on both sides of UK political debate, Facebook says.

The pages, with names like "Anti Far Right Extremists", "Atheists Research Centre", and "Politicalized", attracted about 175,000 followers on Facebook, and a further 4,500 on Instagram, according to the company's head of cybersecurity policy, Nathaniel Gleicher. The pages shared content from mainstream news sources, such as the BBC and the New York Times, but also shared original content, even including administrators actively engaging in debate with users. "We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people," Gleicher said. "We're taking down these pages and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted. In each of these cases, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action.

198 comments

  1. Facebook uses one weird trick to solve hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    For $50 a month, you can also have this trick

  2. So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to know, rabbi Suckerberg.

    1. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may also be those pure-hearted Orthodoxians at work, preparing UK for righteous invasion.

    2. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Do you know more than the article or do you go by name? Li'l hint: The "German Democratic Republic" was ... well, at least part of Germany. The rest was bunk.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Iraqi WMDs weren't W, M, D or even Iraqi, but nobody complained about that. So it was worse than the GDR.

    4. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, the GDR at least really existed, so...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Why should I believe the same propaganda machine that lied about Iraq to tell the truth today? What has changed that made it trustworthy?

    6. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... the people who lived in the GDR? I kinda doubt they're all paid shills for the western governments...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by gotan · · Score: 1, Informative

      The problem is, that the label "hate speech" may be (and in many cases is) also misleading.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    8. Re:So, atheism is now "hate speech"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can believe I boned your mom last night, and it was terrible, I want my money back

  3. Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people"

    Facebook prefers to keep that power to themselves.

      "We're taking down these pages and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted."

    90% of the article is focused on the message of 'spreading hate', even though Facebook apparently doesn't care about the content they posted. This still doesn't explain the countless other political voices that DO get blocked and censored despite not breaking any technical rules.

    PS: Yes, Liberals. We all know already that Facebook is a private company that has the legal right to do what they want. Of course that right only applies to companies that Liberals like, and not cake designers. It's funny how you can make any NPC Socialist suddenly LOVE their giant trillion dollar corrupt corporations, just so long as they're censoring people Liberals don't like.

    1. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article actually says that the fake accounts were promoting both pro-hate and anti-hate views, so I'm not sure where the diatribe against liberals comes from.

      But yeah, the right wing does seem to host a small but unfortunately disproportionately disruptive toxic element at the moment, which most organizations want nothing to do with. Oh and being conservative (or liberal) is not a protected class, while most people outside of a small band of religious nuts would agree that sexual orientation is not a reasonable reason to discriminate, especially given the historical discrimination against gays and lesbians.

      Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.

    2. Re: Key wording by astrofurter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Actually in California, where Faceboot is headquartered, people with political opinions _are_ a protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against a person for employment or use of public facilities, on the basis of their political views

    3. Re:Key wording by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about fake accounts. It''s about accounts of certain political persuasion. There are plenty pro-violence antifa accounts that nobody touches, from organizations like BLM.

      Look at the video of MAGA children from province visiting Washington. In the beginning you see the black activists openly declaring their racist views for years in the vicinity of the white house.

      Nothing happens to the account of these.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:Key wording by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Troll

      You are not talking about liberals, you are talking about leftists. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Leftists, on the other hand, will happily censor and we see this every day on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.

      Quick question, how many offices, government and corporate, are held by these toxic rightists? How many people do they censor every day? Now compare this to the toxic left, which has real power. One need only look at the Covington kids to see how things turn out. The leftist view was "our reaction was factually wrong but morally right."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is sexual preference grounds for discrimination working with the sexually preferred gender? Especially in schools and health care? Those professions have many cases of sexual predators, unreported and unprosecuted for years. What about discrimination for adoption, where the presence of a married male and female parent is one of the strongest indicators for a successful life for a child?

      I'm not saying that people should be banned based on sexual preference. I'm merely pointing out that some bias and caution, at least, is common place and not without some roots.

    6. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      while most people outside of a small band of religious nuts would agree that sexual orientation is not a reasonable reason to discriminate

      Can Muslims be categorised as a "small band"?

    7. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Globalist Trotsky-sluts need to be disrupted. Fuck the gaffot shills. Pestilent prog.bitches their simpering stench proves intolerable. Bust their faces smash their neez make them bleed each time they pea. Burmashave.

    8. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quick question, how many offices, government and corporate, are held by these toxic rightists?

      POTUS, at least 1 SCOTUS seat, several Congressional seats, numerous positions in the White House Executive staff, several Secretary positions, multiple state Governors, too many state Reps/Senators to count, etc.

    9. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLM aren't touched for the same reason the NSPCC is not touched, either: BLM promote the safety of black people and the NSPCC promote the safety of children.
      Now,tell me, what does a group chanting "Jews will not replace us!" promote the safety of...?

    10. Re:Key wording by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.

      Its worse than that. The banned accounts weren't simply spewing hate, after all being a hateful little twat is FREEZE PEACH.

      Their big problem is that they created tamer pages to begin with then when they'd reached enough users they changed the name and ramped up the hateful content. Ultimately that was the reason they were banned.

      I.E. If you created a page called "British Military Humour" (despite never having even been within 5 miles of a British military installation, making you what we call a "Walt") and started off with a few risky but relatively harmless memes... When you've got enough followers you change it to "British people for the death of all Arabs and Jews" and started flooding it with InfoWars-esque conspiracy theories, then you cross the line and get your account deleted. That is pretty much what happened here.

      I do not mean to imply, good sir, that you are a bigot or a Walt. It's just an example.

      Hate groups in the UK use this kind of bait and switch because we're generally not bigots. So hate groups find it hard to recruit and need to try to lure people in by pretending they aren't hate groups, then closing the trap when it's too late.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:Key wording by gotan · · Score: 2

      So they classify/rate political views/standpoints on a "pro-hate" "anti-hate" scale?

      And who decides how to define "hate", and decides what falls into which category?

      "Hate speech" is just a label, depending on who uses it it means different things and is applied with different intentions. There are laws defining what speech should be restricted, and often it's a difficult task for legal experts to determine how they apply to a specific case. Also this legislation was crafted very carefully to restrict free speech as little as possible. Instead Facebook applies some woolly "hate-spech" category based on statistics, intransparent algorithms and decisions of underpaid workers that probably have to decide several instances a minute, and how they are trained and what qualifies them only facebook knows.

      Combine that with the knowledge that facebook is "located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place." to put it in Zuckerbergs own words, and that "hate-speech" is often used to ostracize specific political views (e.g. on immigration), and it should be obvious, that this hate-speech categorization can be abused for political censorship and suspicions of this being the case are not unfounded.

      Even if it isn't abused for political censorship now it opens the door wide to do so, and invites future abuse.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    12. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you are just proving YOU are the one we all need to worry about.

    13. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan you're exposed as trash

    14. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtue signal received, we're reading you loud and clear.
      Now why don't you scurry off to bed before a bobby comes by to wonder if you've paid all your licensing fees and checks to see if you have any contraband like butter knives in your possession?
      I don't know why anyone gives a crap what brits have to say these days-- you're such wimpy losers you're more pathetic than the memes about France's habit of surrendering.

    15. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should update your NPC programming.

    16. Re: Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groups they partner with, such as the ADL, decide that.

  4. Hey Facebook, Censor This !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    https://steemit.com/@tommyrobinson
    http://www.freedomfortommy.com/
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAI%253D&search_query=tommy+robinson

    Fuck censorship !

    YOUR voice will get silenced someday unless you
    support all Freedom of Speech TODAY !!!

    1. Re:Hey Facebook, Censor This !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a KKK member in the 50s, only today the underdog is fighting against paedophile rings.

      You really support human trafficking of children? And forced prostitution and rape of children?

    2. Re:Hey Facebook, Censor This !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so hard on yourself. I expect you could contribute if you tried.

    3. Re:Hey Facebook, Censor This !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just watched a few more of his own interviews and other peoples footage of him I'd not yet seen. I still see no evidence he has physically attacked anyone, nor that he's prevented anyone from being equally free to say do and live as they want (follows the principle of no one forcing another) and quite frankly his speech is an articulate if narrow critique of issues that sorely need critiqued. He sees what unchecked and unreformed Islam and the State can will and are doing over time and few have that sense of observation, let alone action.

      Tommy is a good man and is fighting for what he believes.

      Anyone who has a problem with freedom of speech on that seriously needs to have their head examined.

      I am a UK Muslim, I support Tommy Robinson.

    4. Re:Hey Facebook, Censor This !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the steemit link.

  5. How Many More to Go by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Facebook deletes 100 accounts, only 999,999,900 to go or thereabouts. I'll bet there is an internal rating system for this, approved fake accounts and unapproved fake accounts, you pay, you can have all the fake accounts you want, you don't pay and they might eventually kick you off.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway? At least in the EU, Facebook has got no formal right to ask you, citizen, for your papers when you create an account, which makes pretty much all their accounts from EU "fake".

      There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.

      There were people I know who valued the service and (the sorry fucks) built a life or a business around it have been fucked beyond measure by hateful and false reporting, which lead to disabled and closed accounts.

      Playing the facebook game is like playing with that nuclear war computer - there is no way to win.

      The only way to win is to shun the Zucker.

      And I am uncomfortable to say it out loud, but hosts file works well enough for that, no even need for apks to edit it.

      Use it :)

    2. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway?

      Any of the zillions sock puppet accounts owned by creimer all over the Internet.

    3. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook deletes 100 accounts, only 999,999,900 to go or thereabouts. I'll bet there is an internal rating system for this, approved fake accounts and unapproved fake accounts, you pay, you can have all the fake accounts you want, you don't pay and they might eventually kick you off.

      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." An eponymous law, probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.

      Then again, the ultimate question is not good or evil, it is which choice makes Facebook more money, so your explanation probably fits better. It's not malice. That is a different form of evil. No, this is pure capitalism unfettered by any chains of morality. In essence it is the dream child prayed for by the religious right. Sure they have so called moral goals. They just don't particularly care how they get there, which puts a lie to their underlying claim of being extra moral.

      This is the world of today. It has perhaps a majority of people that believe in winning, and don't count the costs, unless it is the other side losing. In that case they increase their own score and smile.

      The people ultimately paying for the fake accounts are probably much like that. As long as it works, its fine. Trump himself has flat out admitted he is like this. Think of his words about that judge, or more recently about his wanting the democrats to run on what he says he believes is a horrible plan, just because he could beat them. A patriot, who really thought the other sides plan was bad would try to convince them they were wrong, just in case they won. A Trump is not a patriot.

    4. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The only way to win is to shun the Zucker." Why does Facebook get blamed for how people use or misuse the social platform he created? Facebook is being blamed because they are not doing a perfect job censoring the content posted by others. Facebook is basically being told they need to protect the stupid and gullible? People who are to stupid to recognize that finding truthful information on the Internet is almost impossible unless you are willing to track down multiple sources. Even the major media outlets tailor their content to manipulate certain groups and use the most dangerous tools in mass media today. "lies of omission" and "anonymous" sources. The first protects them from being called out right liars and keeps the number of defamation court cases to a minimum. The second means they can make shit up that cannot be verified without naming the source.

      Maybe Facebook should go ask the Chinese how they are capable of censoring and tracking every aspect of their 1.3 billion citizens lives?

    5. Re:How Many More to Go by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Troll

      It is almost like they could use their criterion for "fake account" to their own advantage.

    6. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway? At least in the EU, Facebook has got no formal right to ask you, citizen, for your papers when you create an account, which makes pretty much all their accounts from EU "fake".

      Sure. All EU accounts are "fake"...right up to the point where that "fake" account owner submits a GDPR request.

      Ironically, the very privacy EU citizens demanded will also be the very tool used to specifically identify them.

    7. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Or to cover their asses, whatever works in a given situation.

    8. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does Facebook get blamed

      Dunno, really. Could it be because they are a bunch of sleazy fucktards, who collect information that the Stazi would not without telling the users what exactly they have on them? Or because they hire experts to help them play the human psychology so that using FB becomes addictive? Or because they habitually lie about what they do with the collected information? Could it be because they keep shadow profiles for people who are not interested in their services? Perhaps because they pay the likes of Samsung to get their spyware preinstalled on phones in unremovable ways?

      Who knows... It is hard to imagine why people don't like them.

    9. Re:How Many More to Go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway?

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.

      Indeed, and Facebook makes very minimal effort to even follow up reports from third parties.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      Ironically, the very privacy EU citizens demanded will also be the very tool used to specifically identify them.

      Not at all. When I submit a GDPR request to the authorities for violations of my privacy by a website that the website has refused to rectify, I may have to identify myself to the authorities to show that I am a side in that particular case. But I need to file a GDPR request like this only if that particular website is not in compliance, and it isn't the company that will receive my personal information.

    11. Re:How Many More to Go by The1stImmortal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway?

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      Or a PR/marketing firm in New York or London or LA. Hell, most web marketing firms do this. Not to mention personal PR, business marketing agencies, ad companies propping up their own stats for clients, and of course political marketing people. It's basically par for the course. Common practice. I'd not be surprised if there were more such accounts than real humans on FB. Twitter certainly seems that way.

    12. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      Ah, we're back at the "Russian trolls" excuse. I recall a few months ago Twitter banned a bunch of Bulgarian accounts for the sole reason that they wrote in Cyrillic alphabet, were from the capital city of Bulgaria and were active roughly during the daytime over there, thereby fulfilling all your criteria.

      The irony was most of those blocked were the exact opposite of a troll farm - they were genuine accounts and of people who were mostly pro-western and quite liberal at that.

      It is impossible to ascertain any of the things you propose with any certainty just by the online activity of an account, especially in the absence of clear policies.

    13. Re:How Many More to Go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why would they bother? It's their platform, they can ban anyone they like for any or no reason. Generic "TOS violation" has been a thing forever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:How Many More to Go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hay, I never said they were competent.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:How Many More to Go by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      it isn't the company that will receive my personal information.

      But don't the authorities then have to give that information to the website owners?

      "Remove this person from your website."
      "What person?"
      "We can't tell you. That's private."

    16. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't the authorities then have to give that information to the website owners?

      Yes, but the dialog will be a bit different.

      "Remove the account of a person who complained about your non-compliance from your website"
      "Which person?"
      "The one associated with this handle, which is all you need to know"

    17. Re:How Many More to Go by edis · · Score: 1

      You don't pay Facebook for having an account - so, that much for it.

      Sure, they have had very articulated filtering of at least top 100, if not all-mutually-related-100, that there is.

      Most interesting in this story to me is WHO IS WELL FUNDING EFFORT OF KEEPING WESTERN SOCIETIES DISINTEGRATED?
      Not that it was well or even vaguely answered.

      --
      Servant of karma
    18. Re:How Many More to Go by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      That was actually far more logical and articulate than usual for you; are you sure you're not 99 different shills running your account from the same room? ;)

    19. Re:How Many More to Go by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Petersburg, not Petersberg.
      Both burg and berg are germanic words, they might even sound alike when spoken with an English pronounciation, yet they mean two completely different things.

      A burg is a castle, a berg is a mountain.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    20. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political credit. They had been under pressure to join the effort to purge "fake news" or "Russian intervention" or whatever US congress has decided is wrong on the Internet right now. Since they can't really do that (either since it doesn't exist or it's the corporate media and the US government who are the worst offenders) - they round up some token undesirable accounts/posts and declare victory.

    21. Re: How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Blunt Truth

    22. Re:How Many More to Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're Russian and promote far-right ideals you're a phony and don't deserve a platform. Quite simple actually.

    23. Re:How Many More to Go by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > Why does Facebook get blamed for how people use or misuse the social platform he created?

      Because Facebook is a publisher, not a platform, and should be treated as such.

      If Facebook were a platform, they would have no business censoring content that disagrees with.

      If Facebook is a publisher (which they clearly are) then Face is responsible for anything and everything that is posted.

    24. Re:How Many More to Go by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > It's their platform, they can ban anyone they like for any or no reason

      No. If Facebook can ban anyone they like for any or no reason, then Facebook is a publisher, not a platform.

  6. Spread peanut butter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spread hate eh ... hate that chunky peanut butter ... spread it ... hate those nibbers .... hate those gaffots ... hate those ... Trotsky-slut bitches ... my gawd what fools you are. Producing one bronze bolt would be of more human value than all the emotocentric anti-hate-spreaders in the universe.

  7. Wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    they will bother with the far left Fake Account networks? Naaaaa.

    1. Re: Wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you see "fake account", and assume it must be right wing?

      That's not what TFS or TFA say. Yet you immediately jumped to that conclusion.

    2. Re: Wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's the acceptable mainstream narrative.

      'Right wing trolls ruin...' insert problem

      Video games
      Movies
      Politics
      Society

      The odd part is that it's almost always projection, which is why he said 'left wing'' replacement propaganda

    3. Re: Wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I saw "FaceBook deletes accounts..." and assumed the deleted accounts must be right wing.

  8. Re:WARNING ON PARENT POST. DO NOT CLICK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, yeah Chris! We know you always revert back to posting nazi/apk stuff when you're out of meds and/or frustrated. This must be the consequence of only one of the multiple syndrome you suffer from: "Tourette Syndrome".

  9. Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    with the Atheists? It's bizarre, because you'd think the last folks who would be buddy buddy with the right are the Atheists, what with the right usually getting in bed with Evangelicals. Not that there aren't plenty of left wing Atheists (Aronra comes to mind. And Genetic Skeptic) but still.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists believe Christianity was a Jewish trick to destroy the Roman empire. More likely Paul just hoped that Christians would sent payments back to Israel as people often did with mystery religions at the time. Still, it did benefit Jews more than Europeans. Did all of the crusades to "liberate the holy land" really have any value to Europeans? No, but that land is significant to Jews. So, people who aren't interested in Europeans dying to fight in the middle east tend to be opposed to Christianity. Meanwhile, evangelicals are the biggest supporters of Israel.

    2. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by bestweasel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is bizarre because atheism is mainstream and popular in the UK and evangelicals and religion in general have little influence. If this is Putin's mob trying to stir up enmity again, then they might have been wasting their time.

    3. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atheists got red pilled. Back at university the atheist club was all friendly with the Feminazis and GayBLT power activists. Then for some reason - probably because their leaders are bored, spiteful rich spoiled brats - the Feminazis turned against the atheists.

      Remember all the vitriolic anti-fedora, anti-neckbeard hate the Feminazi propaganda apparatus was pumping out for a couple years? That was a concerted, well financed, very personal/dirty attack on the atheist community. It focused on supposed personal and group characteristics, not on the ideology per se.

      Probably the "left" hates atheists because they are skeptics. Who were ...wait for it... skeptical of some of the crazier leftist shibboleths. Feminazis just HATE it when they are ranting on and on about "the patriarchy", and someone calls out their "facts" as totally ahistorical bullshit.

    4. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by meglon · · Score: 2

      The operation was spread over Facebook and Instagram and used a network of fake accounts to pose as both far-right activists and their opponents

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Atheists acknowledge the reality that there is not, and never has been, any evidence for any "god/goddess/gods" throughout the entire history of humanity, and refuse to live in a delusion/fantasy where a "god/goddess/gods" is considered "real" despite that complete lack of evidence.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism has little to do with political orientation except perhaps when it comes to opposing policies that are based on religious reasoning (alone).

      The political conservative's tendency to over-embracing religious values in the US is mainly thanks to the system that divides the entire political spectrum into basically two parties.
      Outside of the US, in system where more political parties exist you will find atheist across the spectrum. They may be die hard capitalists, libertarians, anarchists, socialists, communists, green, or whatever.
      Always keep in mind that the only thing that unites atheists is that they are not religious. If this is too abstract try thinking about animals and how you can put them into groups. There you have groups like dogs, which come and different variations already, and then you have non-dogs. Do non-dogs get along well, just because not being dogs unites them?

    7. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the moral minority of the right lost most of their social power, the left decided they didn't need to put up with the nerdiness of the Atheists any more. Atheism+ was an attempt to co-opt the atheists as foot soldiers in a new cultural war, which backfired fairly hard, leaving a large number of disaffected atheists with no political home. The far right are realising that as the left spins itself into a purity spiral they can pick up significant numbers of people who've been rejected from what they thought was their political home. Considering the vitreol with which the left can reject people, it's not surprising that the rejected feel like they've been targetted by a gang, and the sensible option is to join an opposing gang for self-protection.

      Left: Oh noes! Angry and disaffected young white men are joining the right! *insults and harasses all the young white men within reach, makes white male an insult, rejects them from 'safe spaces'*
      Young white men: You backstabbing bastards! *joins alt-right*
      Left: *surprised picachu face*

    8. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Nice anti-semitism, you alt-right wacko.

    9. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It is bizarre because atheism is mainstream and popular in the UK

      It is: it's the normal sort of atheism where people simply don't believe in god and get on with their lives. Not the internet atheism which seems to revolve around being as loud and obnoxious as possible about it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Atheism is not a political position but one of sanity. So, by definition, not a political position...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really? Thanks for defining what I believe. I honestly didn't know I do believe that.

      Atheism means exactly one thing, and one thing only: Not believing in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, that means that you are not required to "believe" in the Big Bang Theory to be an atheist (or watch the show for that matter). And it doesn't keep you from thinking the universe was created by aliens from planet Zrbit outside our universe.

      In other words, just because you're atheist doesn't mean you're rational. You just have a chance to be rational.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same question to you: Do you know more than the article says? All the article says is that an organization with "atheist" in the name got banned. That doesn't make it an atheist organization. Organizations can pick their own name, even if their believes, plans and actions have nothing to do with their name.

      For reference, see NSDAP.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'ressaying Jews masterminded the Crusades, then the joke's on them, because the Arab rulers of Jerusalem treated Jews much, much better than the Christians did.

    14. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists believe Christianity was a Jewish trick to destroy the Roman empire. More likely Paul just hoped that Christians would sent payments back to Israel as people often did with mystery religions at the time. Still, it did benefit Jews more than Europeans. Did all of the crusades to "liberate the holy land" really have any value to Europeans? No, but that land is significant to Jews. So, people who aren't interested in Europeans dying to fight in the middle east tend to be opposed to Christianity. Meanwhile, evangelicals are the biggest supporters of Israel.

      Noooo, no benefit to Europe at all. Other than finally uniting Europe in the face of Arab jihad that conquered 2/3 of the (then) known world and putting a stop to it. Were it not for the crusades, the muslims would have done as they did previously - methodically chip away, one country after another, each of those countries stood alone against the might of the entire muslim world united under a common banner of jihad against unbelievers, until all of Europe was muslim. Or did you think that they "obtained" the land they got through peaceful means?

    15. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you telling us the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not really Korean?

    16. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. And given that the "European Research Group" is staunchly anti-European, it is probably just as likely that the "Atheists Research Centre" is an organisation for religious nutjobs.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ever since #elevatorgate atheists were cast out of the SJW left. Remember that? A dork made an artless pass at a woman in an elevator and she claimed victim status. Instead of falling in line, the atheist community mocked her for being a fragile snowflake. Bad move, after elevatorgate they were finished as a movement.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's the part that is actually true.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m sorry to say this to you, but I strongly suspect youâ(TM)re from the far far left / crazy SJW crowd (yes, dismiss my post for using the pejorative SJW, sorry but itâ(TM)s the simplest description)

      The extreme left, appear to take issue with *anyone* who isnâ(TM)t also, extreme left.

      What this has caused, is that previously, quite normal lefties, have become either unchanged but now defined as âfar right!â(TM) Because they dare disagree with the extreme left, or theyâ(TM)ve genuinely been pushed to the centre, baffled now at where they stand, because extreme left loony types have labelled them all kinds of nasty things and threatened to dox them and fire them for not agreeing with some bafflingly extreme stance, you know something simple like âoeALL MEN ARE SCUMâ or something as benign as that,....

      I may be calling this incorrectly but this is a wild guess! Iâ(TM)ve never seen anyone make the observation you just made, but I certainly suspect a lot of the previously left / rational left (ie: atheists) are probably the people you THINK are âfar rightâ(TM)

      No, Iâ(TM)m not far right, but Iâ(TM)m sure Iâ(TM)ll be accused of it.

    20. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Another day, another âoeRussian Boogeyman!!!â Post.
      At this point, itâ(TM)s more scary that people actually believe thereâ(TM)s *that many* Russian bots infiltrating us here, than the actual thought of the Russians doing it.

      For a start if we need to worry about a country, it ainâ(TM)t Russia. Itâ(TM)s big and itâ(TM)s red and we buy EVERYTHING from them.

    21. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It's bizarre, because you'd think the last folks who would be buddy buddy with the right are the Atheists, what with the right usually getting in bed with Evangelicals.

      The far right is purely opportunistic/utilitarian, they'll (pretend to) be anything that they think will further their goal. In this particular example they are even on both sides of the argument (right vs left).

    22. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the far right be religious?

      Assuming you're talking about the far right in terms of fascism, what does that have to do with religion?

    23. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti Semites are on the left too, don't you see it everywhere these days?

      The radical left/ feminists are also anti Semites.

    24. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      In other words, just because you're atheist doesn't mean you're rational.

      In a nutshell, denying the existence of God is no more rational than insisting on it.

    25. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

    26. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by hey! · · Score: 1

      Hitler, as is commonly known, was a vegetarian. What is somewhat less known is that despite that he regularly ate meat. While he was big on rules, he wasn't big on following them himself. Note he was also the head of a "socialist" party that privatized state industries and courted the support of powerful capitalists at the expense of small businesses.

      Don't try to make sense of what these people *say*, because it makes no sense. What they *do*, however, is worth paying attention to. A tiny fringe group needs allies. I don't doubt Christian (-ist) white supremacist will make alliances with neo-pagans, but they won't be the type of neopagans that pay much attention to the qualifying clause in the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm no one..."). Likewise if Christian political fanatics could well make common cause with atheists, but those atheists won't be Richard Dawkins.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Making up a story about god(s) it not rational. It is fabricated.

      And it is rational to believe there is no god.

    28. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not believing something is basically the default position for any rational being. When you're trying to find out what is and what is not, there are essentially two points where you can start. Either by requiring positive proof, i.e. assuming nothing is until its existence is proven, or by requiring negative proof, i.e. assuming everything is until clearly shown to be not. Now, the latter is not only fairly impossible to do, it's also pretty inconvenient. Especially for those who want to believe. Because if we assume everything is until falsified, we'll have to assume that all gods exist, and it's on you now to show that yours is the only "true" one.

      Religions are usually defined as mutually exclusive, i.e. you believe in one you cannot believe in another, or at the very least, that the god(s) of one religion get really angry if you believe in other god(s). Which in turn also make it the most sensible position to not believe in any until shown which one is the correct one because it's the least effort position, since worshiping all of them is not only impossible due to time constraints, some creeds have quite conflicting tenets, for example it's really hard to align the ideals of Sikhism with the demands that Xipe Totec puts on his followers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I only read the summary and the group names looked like Atheists, people against far right extremists and some neutral people, so fuck knows where the person to whom you replied got the impression atheists and people on the far right are somehow aligned.

      So I guess the answer to their stupid question is simple: No, I haven't noticed.

    30. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a mostly wasteful exercise except for training for future interventions. Vladimir Putin is a demon with no soul who hates humanity and sows destruction whenever possible.

    31. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans massacred all Muslims for centuries, which is why the Caliph finally ordered intervention. If Europeans did not attack, there would have been no need for any war.

    32. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're only worried about China because your penis is so tiny. Me, I don't have this irrational worry.

    33. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong - Athiesm is ANTI-theism. It is the belief that there are NOT deities, spirits, etc. It is an unproovable faith no different than that of any other religion.

      Simply not believing in something is just not believing in it. There are only two logical positions on religion:
      Agnosticism - "I don't know", and
      Apathy - "I don't care".

      Any other position is pure faith, a matter of unsubstantiated and unprovable beliefs.

    34. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Technically, everyone is an atheist -- as there are two definitions for atheism: a person who does not believe in the existence of

      1. a god, or
      2. any gods.

      Bold emphasis added.

      By the first definition a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Zeus is an atheist. :-)

      Atheism has nothing to do with Rationalism. A lack of belief, and therefore a lack of knowledge, doesn't imply, or diminish, rationality.

    35. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      it is probably just as likely that the "Atheists Research Centre" is an organisation for religious nutjobs.

      My first interaction with something resembling the Internet was through Compuserve's forums a 1200bps modem and a £0.05/min phone line. Which was clunky enough. I go nosing around - "Is there anything interesting here?"

      It mush have been shortly after some USian massacre by a gun-nut - which could be any random week - because I saw a forum called "Gun Control" and thought "That may be interesting." P>It wasn't. They were absolute nutters. Quite educational, but not in the way they intended.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    36. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Haha too true

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    37. Re: Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go tell to democrat congresscritters Cortez and Tlaib and Omar that they are anti semites.

    38. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe there is no god?
      I think it is the same when someone believes there is one or many gods.

      You both are believers. How can you really "prove" that there is or is not a "god" ?

    39. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that is really not true.
      Europeans acted against muslims becouse muslims attacked European kingdoms.
      The muslim slave trade of white people was common and widespread. Millions of europeans were traded as slaves in muslim slave markets.

  10. Unfair Competition by GrBear · · Score: 1

    We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people

    Of course they don't want that.. it would hurt their ludicrous business model of manipulating people.. and people might be manipulated from dumping Facebook.

  11. Oh dear by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    Is it those pesky Russians at the Internet Research Agency again? I bet it is. If only our bare-chested comrade would do something to improve his own people's lot instead of stealing from them, cutting their pensions and trying to bring other countries down to his crooked level.

  12. Apple Music only listing female artists today? wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently today is international women's day, so instead of showing the usual new releases on thursday night/friday morning, they are only listing old pop albums from last year by women instead of new music from this week. What the fuck is this bullshit. Law off the SJW pipe, sheesh. No one asked for this.

  13. We all know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations and governments are silencing political dissent by calling it hate speech.

    1. Re: We all know by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Shut up you NAZI!!!!!!

  14. Re:Athiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Atheism is anti-muslim. In an Islamic state such as the UK, that is not allowed.

  15. Scary business! by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0, Troll

    Scary business!

    No such network exists it was individual people expressing their opinions. Facebook is deleting accounts because of legal action being taken against them in the U.S. by Tommy Robinson.
    Because the government wanted to delete his webpage and because of the sting on the BBC they had to quickly silence everybody.

    If you upload a picture of Tommy or his video they immediately delete your account. Facebook denies its previous statement it alleged that Tommy Robson, was telling people to cut off Muslims heads obviously that never happened that would be incitement to murder a criminal offence in the U.K..

    These are very dangerous times in the U.K. I have never seen this before and I have lived in a few countries. This is dangerous.

    The BBC are trying to hide this story which was published in the Guardian who tried to frighten Tommy Robson's children with a crackhead and filmed it live.

    He has a court case against the police for harassment coming up soon. They are working out legal proceedings against Facebook in the U.S., they have served legal papers against the Guardian and the Socialist workers party. They have also serve legal papers against the Crown Prosecution Service. https://youtu.be/TdWahm2z_R0

    He says the government not the Crown Prosecution Service are now charging him https://youtu.be/-RYmnsDeYTg

    Tucker Carlson who works for Fox which is owned by Robert Murdoch who owns sky News enemy of Tommy Robertson slipped in an acknowledgement https://youtu.be/P6E1PFt8-a4

    1. Re:Scary business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robinson is a good man.
      Muslims will be beaten out of Europe, but may-be not from British Caliphate ...

  16. Information theory says: Only duckspeak allowed. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ... we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people ...

    The information-theoretical definition of "reception of information" is that the receiver's behavior changes as a result.

    So if their services "don't manipulate people", they're not sending any information that the people actually receive.

    This corresponds to "duckspeak" - both Big Brother's and Donald Duck's, in two different but related ways:

      * Like 1984's it consists only of the inner party's approved messages (which the listeners already know and don't change their behavior as a result of hearing the latest artistic rendering of a standard rant).

      * Like Donald Duck's tantrums, It is all incoherent sound and fury, which the character at whom it's directed ignores (if he can even mange to parse it.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  17. "coordinated inauthentic behavior" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that just means "without prior busine$$ partnership agreement"

  18. Re:Athiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Atheism is NOT anti-muslim, it is about self position, and has NO rules whatsoever about others... it, like Agnosticism, Libertarian/Voluntary/Anarchism, is compatible with everything else... because they DO NOT try or impose anything on others.

    ISLAM is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with everything else.
    Your options as a NON-Muslim in a muslim majority land are as follows...
    1) Convert and shut the fuck up, or die.
    2) Shut the fuck up and pay the jizya tax, or die.
    3) Die.

    Any reading of the Quran will tell you that with crystal clarity.
    It's completely riddled with not giving a single non-self-serving shit about non-muslims.
    And that's bollocks mate.

    Do your own research!
    Don't let these taqiyya speaking fake pacifists fool you.

  19. Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Prompted by unnamed aggrieved parties with an agenda.

    Oh well at least this time it seems to be a mostly left leaning bunch of groups. Normal people would reflect that maybe censorship is a bad thing for everyone, I expect the people behind this will just try harder to make certain they're the ones that get to censor.

    1. Re:Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by meglon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The groups were designed to look like sides.... both right and left.... being at odds with each other. The people behind the groups... which is what is important... were neither, they were simply trying to sow discord by controlling groups purporting to be from both sides.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by PPH · · Score: 2

      they were simply trying to sow discord by controlling groups purporting to be from both sides.

      No, they were not.

      Yes, they were.

      No, they were not.

      Yes, they were.

      No, they were not.

      Yes, they were.

      .
      .
      .

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually this is done to frame a false dichotomy = make the argument about the wrong thing....Control the agenda by stealth. If you can get them fighting about the wrong stuff (preferably something with no reasonable solution so it becomes endless), then you've won.

  20. Re:Apple Music only listing female artists today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh man it's the end of the world - the feminists and SJWs have dealt a mortal blow to American manliness with this despicable act. I hope you're OK a/c and not too distraught but I do expect a lot of neckbeard suicides today.

  21. Re:Apple Music only listing female artists today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey man, I pay for Apple Music to have access to the music I want, not have it filtered through some pop editor's SJW hobbyhorse of the moment. At least if they had selected good music it might have been interesting, but the list is a bunch of old pop bullshit. Just give me the new releases for today thanks.

  22. Re:Athiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hateful part is how much moderators hate transposition errors in titles.

  23. Too late the hero by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 1

    Had Facebook worked on this shit a lot earlier, the current global political trend of far-right populism would probably have been prevented. Now, you have people like Duterte, Trump, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Modi, et al, running a significant portion of the world.

    1. Re:Too late the hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking from a South African angle, the same type of discord sowing is happening here. Only difference is that race is the handiest handle, but one that lends itself to hook politics en socioeconomics on to.

      It was even exposed how the British PR firm Bell Pottinger was paid to play their part in it (google it).

      Bell Pottinger has in the mean time ceased (obviously its people are still somewhere), but the campaign continues unabated.

      People who are seem to be a bit closer to the main figures come up with names of the Soroses (George and Alexander). (Well, they are quite open about using their funds to transform societies...) Lord Robin Renwick is also mentioned. And of course photos of these people with the main figures also circulate.

      So us common folk can just guess and speculate. Although it seems that it is much easier to gain financially from contracts and rights in a failed state if one already has a cosy financial relationship with the de facto dictators.

      The SAS has as their motto "Who dares, wins". And these money people seem to have the motto "Who cares who wins".

  24. Re:Athiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Athiest=The most athe

  25. "fake account network" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I literally have a spare account for both Twitter and Facebook.

    I would call neither a fake account nor a hate account, I do post my actual opinion on several topics which the regressive, hypocritical far left would gladly dox me for though and fire me.

    I try my best to not be hateful, I do end up speaking with some nasty people, sure. But in our current world, if you say "I think our immigration rate is too high and unsustainable, leading to wage stagnation and difficulty finding work" to the wrong people, it could result in job termination against a determined enough person.

    I also feel that blindly open immigration from /some regions/ is out stupidity. We in Australia here have imported people from several bad locations and they are now videos representing a MASSIVE disproportionate balance of car jacking, home invasion, mugging. Stats are factual and recorded, but frequently suppressed in the paper and taboo to discuss.

      That particular one goes down very poor with them, so sadly yes anonymous

    P.s before you "put me in a box"

    Agnostic
    Extremely pro choice (!)
    Anti circumcision
    Very Pro gay marriage
    Zero issue with trans people.
    No issues with women's rights IF everything is equal. (Very sick of "not enough women in cushy technology Jobs" but ZERO comments regarding garbage collector, oil rig worker, etc) equally is equality. Can't have one thing and not the other. Fair is genuinely fair)

    Ling story short, some of us want to speak our minds with anonymity, without retribution.

    Posting anon for obvious reasons.

    1. Re:"fake account network" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think our immigration rate is too high and unsustainable, leading to wage stagnation and difficulty finding work"

      People are arguing with you because your "facts" are wrong.

    2. Re:"fake account network" by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, however benign your motivations, that's still in direct violation of Facebook's TOS which actually requires your personal information to be complete and accurate.

      They could kick all of your accounts off their platform at any time for this, but they probably won't. The accounts in question that they did kick off were kicked off because excessive spam-botting (automated software controlling literally thousands of "puppet" accounts) was being abusively and obviously used to manipulate public discourse in an inorganic way. Your one anonymous sock-puppet is unlikely to be a relevant comparison unless you've fundamentally misrepresented yourself here.

    3. Re:"fake account network" by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      (Oh yea, and the detectable botting really shoots holes in the advertising revenue stream, so I'm sure that is a big motivation for Facebook too.)

    4. Re:"fake account network" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I can see the guy here who canâ(TM)t do simple mathematics, supply and demand and economics.

    5. Re:"fake account network" by edis · · Score: 1

      Thing is, it was used to manipulate public discourse in very organic way of polarization, albeit, using intensifying manipulation.

      This is hybrid war, set by one eternal KGB officer, to my guess.

      --
      Servant of karma
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. I notice something else though by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Skeptics are now more often cast as "far right".
    Call out Christian BS 15 years ago? Cool dude.
    Call out Muslim BS now? FAR RIGHT RACIST BIGOT.
    Don't believe three-letter government agencies 15 years ago? Smart independent thinking dude.
    Don't believe three-letter government agencies now? FAR RIGHT RUSSIAN BOT.
    Resisting the constant shifting of definitions 15 years ago? Haha George Carlin is pretty badass.
    Resisting the constant shifting of definitions now? YOU ARE BAD AND AN ASS AND FAR RIGHT.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:I notice something else though by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Only if that scepticism is not consistent.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:I notice something else though by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Thank you and EXACTLY what I was attempting to say.

      This this and this. The left has changed, a lot. Extremist group now.

    3. Re:I notice something else though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call out Muslim BS now? FAR RIGHT RACIST BIGOT.

      I think it's funny when people call someone says something against Islam a racist because by definition it is a religion not a race so exactly how is that racist?

    4. Re:I notice something else though by malkavian · · Score: 1

      I'm a skeptic, and pretty consistent. I've spent years combing through the published papers, and working out which ones are based on evidence, and which are based on pseudoscience and opinion.
      While not a guarantee I'm right in things, it sets the bar pretty high in most of the things I'd debate on (always open to being swayed by good evidence, but it rarely appears).
      Stating what the evidence shows often gets me the label of 'far right' or so on, despite being fairly oriented with the moderate left (US political surveys always peg me as a Democrat).
      Quite simply, people use these 'tags' so that they can first set you up as "the enemy", and once that's done, dehumanise you, or pathologise you (those two are endemic on the left), and once they've done that, they have you framed such that anything you say isn't worth listening to because you're "other".
      It's one of those mental "short cuts" that stop people having to think critically, or undergo the discomfort of having to work through cognitive dissonance, and perhaps change their stances. Because, you know, every opinion is equal, and evidence is irrelevant, because opinion and rights!
      Both political wings are guilty of this kind of behaviour, but I find the left leaning to be far more threatening in their responses and readiness to pathologise.

    5. Re:I notice something else though by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      gets me the label of 'far right' or so on, despite being fairly oriented with the moderate left (US political surveys always peg me as a Democrat).

      That would be about right. By the standards of the Rest of The World, the 95% that isn't American, then a fairly left wing person (by American standards) would be counted as a ravening right winger. But for some peculiar reason, Americans don't see themselves for the small and peculiar minority that they are.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:I notice something else though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you RockDocktor are a raving communist?

      And i'm not from USA, if you want to know.

  28. Oh no - not "hate"... what will we do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how the MEDIA has redefined the word "hate" to mean "anything that the Jews (who run the entire media) don't want you to hear"...
    Laughable.

    Oohhh... those evil "far-right" white people.
    How dare they think they can keep their own countries! Don't they know that it's just not fair that white countries are nicer places to live in - nothing to do with white people of course, it's the MAGICAL LAND MASS that we happen to have been born on, that magically makes it a better place to live.
    And the poor non-whites just happened to born on the wrong LAND MASS which isn't 'magical' and that's why their countries are shitholes that they don't want to live in.

    Oh, but wait a minute - soon there won't be enough white people to go around! We all know that non-whites can only 'get a better life' by living around white people, and the more white people the better. But soon white people will be a minority in our own countries, and then the poor non-whites won't be able to 'get a better life' any more, because there will be too few white people... But I thought it was the 'magical land mass' that made white countries better, not white people's DNA?

    "we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people" - just hilarious. That's all the JEW ever does - use his media to manipulate his 'cattle'.

    I refuse to participate in the genocide of my own people.

    I want the white race to continue existing.

    How 'evil' of me.

  29. Re: Apple Music only listing female artists today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you automatically assume this person is a man?
    Just because they hate sjw propaganda?
    Because they hate the feminazi cult pushing hate at every turn?

    Very telling. This is exactly why the propaganda needs to stop and should be hated.

    "Oh you don't sjws giving women everything in unequal measure? What are you? A MAN?"

    Some women have brains too, don't give them all such little credit that you don't think they could actually desire equal treatment. Rude.

  30. Re: Apple Music only listing female artists today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, such rabid hate kid.

    Man beards are adolescent, so not men, and no one should be applauding anyone committing suicide.

    Dafuq is wrong with you?

  31. Yawn by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    attracted about 175,000 followers on Facebook, and a further 4,500 on Instagram

    In other words, an open communication 'marketplace' was working as expected and almost no one was paying attention to their crap factory. Those numbers are pathetically low, and still provide no data at all on whether any of this vanishingly small percentage of accounts even paid attention to any of the crap.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  32. I think that's because their YouTube channels by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    pivoted to a lot far right, mostly anti-SJW stuff. Part of that is that the anti-SJW stuff gets clicks. Also there's a lot of right wing think tanks and they've been helping signal boost the right wing skeptic pundits and provided them with valuable consulting advice on how to grow communities.

    That said none of that would matter if there wasn't a community receptive of their message. The SJW stuff is super popular, as is the gamer gate and anti-feminism stuff. But it's weird and a little disheartening that any concerns they had regarding evangelicals seemed to have vanished. It's not even like the Bernie Bros and the Corporate Dems, where one is trying to change the other. The skeptic community's just dropped most of the skepticism. Heck, a bunch are down playing the Atheism.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think that's because their YouTube channels by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Anti-SJW and anti-feminist are not "far right". They are center-moderate and liberal positions. Only the left and the far left think that SJW and feminist ideas are good ones. LGBT Magazine Says It's 'Racist' For Trump To Demand Iran Stop Killing Gay People

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:I think that's because their YouTube channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god damn you are a fucking retard

  33. Racist JEWS speak for themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H

  34. No, much simpler than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook only got hated when the RWNJs no longer found themselves able to use it for their insanity and FB banned them. That is why you are all over facebook: they're not for your nutjobbery so they MUST be evil liberals...

    1. Re:No, much simpler than that. by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I've never had any warm feelings for FB or its owners.

    2. Re:No, much simpler than that. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > Facebook only got hated when the RWNJs no longer found themselves able to use it for their insanity and FB banned them.

      Who determines what is "insanity?" You? Me? Facebook?

      Whatever happened to freedom of speech? What is wrong with countering bad ideas with good ideas? If something is "insanity" than expose it as such with evidence and logic.

      If Facebook is to determine what is acceptable, and what is a thought crime, then Facebook is a publisher, and should be treated as such.

  35. Or is it not just the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that most fake accounts and troll bots are running for the rightwingers, and that is so well known that, like "reality has a liberal bias", fake accounts have a conservatard one as every fule know.

  36. Not unless you're a nutcase irrational theist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nope, not believing in a god is as rational as not believing in Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Teapot Orbiting between Jupiter and Mars.

    If you believe in a god and claim it is "rational" because "well we don't know it ISN'T real!", then you have to really believe in all the other gods too, and the FSM, monsters under the bed, etc.

    Note that if you claim that god is real, then you are lying, since Shiva is god, according to the believers of Shiva. If you don't accept that Shiva is real, then you should not believe YOUR god is real either. Both have 100% identically valid "evidences", so if you believe in one god, you HAVE to believe in them all.

    Or accept YOUR belief in YOUR god is irrational.

    Why is it so hard for you theist idiots to accept your belief is irrational? We can't refute your belief, but we CAN refute your logic for your believe BECAUSE you claim your belief is rational. Stop claiming it is rational and suddenly we don't have a leg to stand on to change your belief.

    Of course you have no basis to convert anyone, so you can't bother others over your belief, but which is more important to you: your god or annoying the shit out of other people?

  37. Except that "far left" IS popular. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medicare for all is 80% popular. Increased taxes on the higher earners is 70% popular. Both "far left" positions, both massively popular.

    Now tell me how they are malignant?

    Or was your claim merely so that you can ignore the need to disassociate from the rabble of shitheaded morons you cheer on by fake even handedness?

    A nettle sting and a bullet to the gut are both painfull. But that doesn't mean you'ld take a bullet in the gut as happily as you would a nettle sting.

    It's only now that the RWNJs like yourself aren't getting the bully pulpit to themselves and the left and center are both deciding that if YOU aren't going to play as a human in public on the internet, why the fuck should we, and now instead of dealing it out you're now also having to receive it (and boy were you lot a bunch of snowflakes all along...), so you're wanting the left to stop, ignoring the right like always and resorting to yellow journalism to pretend that YOU don't have to change, everyone else does.

    1. Re:Except that "far left" IS popular. by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Both of those (taxes and healthcare as infrastructure) are moderate left. There's a lot of capitalist sense to having free healthcare (as in, you have a ready pool of _healthy_ workers to pull from at any point, increasing flexibility).
      Increased bands of tax for the very rich is moderate in that it doesn't prevent anyone from becoming super rich, and doesn't in any way stigmatise that. It merely states that above a certain threshold, you can afford to pay more from your income to support the infrastructure that lets people efficiently go about their business, and maintains infrastructure that you would use in your business dealings to make more money.

    2. Re:Except that "far left" IS popular. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free stuff or things others pay for is always popular, duh. And always proposed to people who are innumerate, so it isn't so obvious that any increased value delivered had to come from somewhere...
      I'm constantly amazed that people never figure out that taxing that other guy always turns into - that's you, you're that other guy.
      Let's all vote ourselves well off, and by magic, we'll all be rich! Profit!

  38. Can't be, demonetized channels don't get paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And pivoting just invites demonetization sooner.

    Instead of selling out to pivot, many are turning to alternative revenue streams (e.g patreon, merch store)

    The rest of your post is a bunch of assertions without evidence... which, I'm sure many skeptics would tell you, can be dismissed without evidence.

  39. Same as conservative christians, then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have the same choices there, it's just that in the most visible places for the western world, the western world and the places with lots of cash or resources to exploit, SECULAR, "ATHEIST" government has laws against that. The conservative christians would 100% enact the same policies if they got into power in the USA. They HAVE done in Africa, where the media hardly appear because there's no cash to exploit there.

  40. None of us "militant atheists" would be here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it weren't for the millions of loudmothed idiotic morons (much like your good self) who insist on prattling about their religion to others, being as loud and obnoxious as possible about it, and teaching children about their fantasy mythology as if it were real instead of make-believe. Stop being a theist in public and you will see atheists disappear from public view too.

    You were here bleating on loudly and obnoxiously first, though, by several centuries, so you go first.

  41. When do they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take down the orders of magnitude more spreading open borders socialism rhetorhic?

  42. The word "satire" is used here in Brazil... by fbobraga · · Score: 2

    ... to "justify" the creation of media social profiles that spread misinformation: for the mainteiners, it's only "a joke" (tell that to my grandma [and several other people], that believes it...)

  43. Learn your history, kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nazi party did not socialise industry, they paid off corporate owners and only mandated they work "for the good of the german people". Why else do you think IBM invested so heavily in 1930's Germany? It wasn't to support socialism....

    The PR also required that leaders of industry, while wearing their top hats, ate the same food at the same table as the german people's (white aryan christian ones, of course), just like the party leaders did. For the cameras.

    Shit you're normally rational, but somehow you fucked THIS one up a treat.

    Is it the propaganda of the USA that got to you all unknowing,or is it that you prefer the idea that Hitler was a socailist for political reasons?

    Note also that trump campaigned on leftist socialist ideas (sic it to the banks, heathcare for all, jobs for all, tax evasion eviscerated, etc). Was the republican party therefore socialist???

    1. Re:Learn your history, kid. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Learn to read, sonny.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Learn your history, kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Hitler come to power. He established special courts and special judges all over Germany so the workers could sue their factory owners if they did not implemend the new government regulations about mandatory 2 week paid vacations, mandatory fitness courses for workers and so on.

  44. It isn't, it's a strawman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RWNJs CLAIM that this is said so that they can attack "the left" as if they MADE the claim attributed. This has not happened.

    Muslims have claimed it is racist. Muslim apologists have claimed it is racist. Then again, white christians have claimed it is racist to undo repression of minorities because it doesn't address white christian problems.

    That the christian would be right wing in the USA almost 70% of the time would not make "You hate christianity? YOU RACIST!!!" a rightwing nutjob claim, but a SECTION of the RWNJ, and it isn't the RW but the NJ part that is relevant. The REAL decider is it is from the religious that is not being pandered to making the complaint.

    Just like if you DO see someone who ISN'T a white christian RWNJ making the claim "You're against Islam, YOU RACIST!!" though the minority of people you see (unless the majority of the names are controlled by one bot factory, see subject of the article), are not doing it for being "leftist" but for being MUSLIM.

  45. Or is it simply political opposition censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this real news or simply a case of Facebook censoring opposition sources whose facts are unjustly labeled as hate???

    Hmmmm?????

  46. Re:Apple Music only listing female artists today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cardi-B is literally a fucking stripper. What a great icon to promote on "women's day".

  47. Re: Heil Hitlary as Mandated by Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh look the tiny dick incel virgin brigade is here with their Nazi propaganda, sad ass little weenies.

  48. Projecting like a WW2 Spot Lamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IN THAT POST: The "enlightened" malkavian doesn't even realize he just did what he accused the left of doing.

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion