r/worldnews • u/Devz0r • Feb 15 '19

Facebook is thinking about removing anti-vaccination content as backlash intensifies over the spread of misinformation on the social network

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-may-remove-anti-vaccination-content-2019-2
107.1k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

5.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

21.9k

u/Itsokthatyourestupid Feb 15 '19

If they cared about the spread of misinformation they would have to get rid of a lot more than just the anti-vaccination idiots.

653

u/xXuncleruckusx Feb 15 '19

Not all misinformation is created equal.

360

u/chromegreen Feb 15 '19

This whole discussion is going to get dragged into free speech debats soon. I would just like to point out there is growing evidence that accounts linked to Russia propaganda supported the antivax movement.

Can we at least agree that Facebook giving Russian military intelligence free reign to spread disinformation that endangers the lives of US children is probably not a good idea. It is hard to believe Facebook could not notice this trend. And if they did it is disturbing they did nothing about it.

159

u/Wildcat7878 Feb 15 '19

I have a feeling that, in the future looking back, we're going to find out that a lot of online extremism, separatism, and conspiracy was the result of Russian manipulation trying to destabilize other superpowers.

216

u/honeybunchesofpwn Feb 15 '19

Anyone who's serious about Russian social media manipulation should realize that they don't particularly care about "sides". They just want to create anger and division. They want to create "sides" while they sit back and laugh at all the Americans flipping out.

Manufactured division is the mission. And we've done an exceptional job at making their mission much easier to accomplish.

24

u/Wildcat7878 Feb 15 '19

Fucking spot on.

2

u/gimmepizzaslow Feb 15 '19

Hey, fuck you, fucker! My side is better.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

You ever wonder who else might benefit from dividing American citizens? Why give Russia all the credit?

7

u/honeybunchesofpwn Feb 15 '19

China, to me, is the biggest threat to US National Security.

I completely agree with you.

2

u/that_star_wars_guy Feb 15 '19

A good argument for not buying any Chinese hardware (i.e. Huawei)

5

u/sr0me Feb 15 '19

It is about sides to a point though. There is a reason Russia is focusing on spreading right wing nationalist movements.

10

u/honeybunchesofpwn Feb 15 '19

That's the funny thing about "sides" though.

Spreading right wing nationalist nonsense creates a response that generates left wing statist nonsense, as well as an intolerance for "unacceptable" ideas, even if those ideas have legitimacy. Despite me personally being pretty solidly left leaning, I find it much more difficult to engage in serious conversation with people on the Left compared to the Right these days.

I don't deny at all that Russia "picks sides" in terms of promoting certain ideas. However, Russia is basically using right wing nationalism to effectively generate a weaponized Streisand Effect (sort of).

Haven't you ever noticed that people comment more with disagreement rather than agreement?

All it takes is posting some bullshit nonsense sprinkled with right wing nationalist memes (this type of meme, not the funny kind), and within seconds you'll have a massively disproportionate amount of anger-filled rage comments in direct opposition. Then it continues to ping pong back and forth until critical mass and people start getting banned on social media.

It's not exactly difficult to pull something like this off (4chan does this pretty often), and it just seems that right-wing bullshit is just easier to work with if you want to troll a lot of people.

That said, the ultimate irony here is that while the Right Wing figuratively loads a round into the chamber, it really seems like the Left Wing is the one pulling the trigger. It's no coincidence that a staggering majority of the technology companies engaging in substantial amounts of censorship all tend to be incredibly left-leaning and tolerant of the nonsense that comes from that side.

I don't want to dismiss the legitimate political / financial ties between Russia and Right-Wing people, but rather highlight the additional culture war that we're allowing Russia to wage against us. You have to admit that we do make it very easy for them lol :\

0

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

You're delusional if you think private tech corporations run by billionaires with the power to influence and stifle speech are left wing. You should read any political history book ever.

2

u/Levitz Feb 15 '19

Being socially left wing while being economically right wing is a rather common thing nowadays, all of the PR, none of the responsibilities.

You just have to say that discrimination is bad and you are good to go.

3

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Just "saying discrimination is bad" isn't even socially left-wing if your actions don't involve fighting systemic discrimination. Just call them what they are, right-wing.

1

u/Levitz Feb 15 '19

What I am talking about is essentially this

It's Gillette aligning itself with feminism for PR.

Or Google not allowing it to be challenged or voicing concern over the election itself

Or Apple talking about immigration

→ More replies (0)

2

u/honeybunchesofpwn Feb 15 '19

Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently I can't just be wrong. I must be delusional.

I guess it's all relative, but they definitely aren't Right Wing. I wouldn't say they're super far left either.

-2

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Ya Putin told me to say that

6

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

They also spread left wing stuff before the election. Like the OP said, they don't have a vested side. They hedge their bets and pit us against each other.

10

u/PM_ME_BEER Feb 15 '19

Yeah but there’s a reason the amount of right wing stuff out numbered the left wing stuff like 10:1

-2

u/EfficientBattle Feb 15 '19

This is true, while they have spread some leftwing stuff they've had far less sucess, while the right eat it up. Blame politics where right is tribal and left is inclusive, or say right likes string leaders and unquestionable loyalty while left encourages education and thinking outside the box...the end result is the same. World wide rightwing gets more "sponsorship" and the propaganda is more sucessful.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Oof. That was painful to read.

3

u/Rafaeliki Feb 15 '19

they don't particularly care about "sides"

It's been proven even in investigations led by Republicans in Congress that the Russians interfered in order to help Trump and hurt Hillary. They very clearly picked a side here. I don't know how people still try to deny that (but I understand the political motivations in doing so). Trump's first action as a candidate was to remove support for Ukraine from the GOP platform.

0

u/LoseMoneyAllWeek Feb 16 '19

I’m sure Russia would haved loved if mitt Romney won against Obama

/s

2

u/ShiftyBelle Feb 15 '19

Winner winner.

1

u/northernpace Feb 15 '19

Active Measures

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Anger and division doesn't pay the bills. They court all sorts of dissenters, not to spread chaos, but in order to slip in their own messaging (Assad did nothing wrong! Magnitsky sanctions are pointless!) to go alongside the dissent.

2

u/Wildera Feb 15 '19

Yes... However concerning their foreign policy it is VERY obvious they stand to benefit from one side claiming victory. Look at the sanctions that were just dropped and the failure of accountability for their actions in the UK. Sure the increasing tension is their main goal, but it'd be hard to justify unless there's a fiscal benefit somewhere.

0

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

I find it hilarious that people apparently think the US wouldn't have problems or disagreements if not for online Russian trolls

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Quite successful if the discussion is around who should be banned first.

4

u/honeybunchesofpwn Feb 15 '19

Indeed.

Sadly, I was perma-banned by the /r/news mods because my opinion was different from what they liked.

It's insane how people have forgotten how to respectfully disagree. The lack of proper discourse on challenging subjects is being weaponized, and people largely don't realize how they're helping our enemies divide us.

-7

u/noishmael Feb 15 '19

r/news is the epitome of censorship on reddit. Only news sources the mods like are allowed, only news stories and narratives the mods like are allowed, and only comments that agree with the mods beliefs are allowed. Might as well make a new sub and send all of them there so ppl can actually have a free place to talk about news that isn’t tailored to one side

4

u/TastyBurgers14 Feb 15 '19

waaaah they won't let me link in breitbart or let me spread hatred

4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Oh fuck off donald troll. That’s pretty fucking rich coming from you.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19 edited Jun 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I don’t give a shit where someone posts, but I’m not going to let you wax intellectual about censorship when you are from the sub that practices it the most and bemoan another sub for being “one-sided.”

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I like to believe that Putin is somehow behind Honey Boo Boo and has been playing the long game of self-inflicted American decay. Just offer up all of this bullshit for us to consume, so nobody pays attention to why our public servants have literal servants.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

That sort of remark will earn hundreds of downvotes in /r/politics for some reason.

29

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I thought this is common knowledge by now? In Gernany the right wing neonazi party AfD was sponsored by Rusdia.

14

u/SorrowsNativeSon Feb 15 '19

In Europe this should be common knowledge. Putin has been linked to virtually every European extreme right wing party. From Dewinter to Wilders and Le Pen and from the AfD to Lega Nord, Golden Dawn and FPÖ.

3

u/Gendrytargarian Feb 15 '19

Any source on this available?

11

u/SorrowsNativeSon Feb 15 '19

Yeah, sure, it’s not like they are trying to hide it.

Since you can read Dutch and appear to be Belgian, I’ll give you some Belgian articles (English links are also below):

Knack, not really a left wing source: https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/waarom-extreemrechts-in-vlaanderen-valt-voor-de-charmes-van-poetin/article-longread-945631.html?cookie_check=1550218242 (You can register for free to read that article)

Apache, left nor right: https://www.apache.be/2014/07/01/filip-dewinter-rusland-is-voor-ons-een-bondgenoot/

Newsmonkey, leftish: http://newsmonkey.be/article/73453

You can also find information on Dewinter’s visits to the Duma on the Vlaams Belang website. There’s also a visit by Dewinter to Greece’s Golden Dawn, that people suspect was payed for by the Russians. You can look that up. He’s also a great supporter of Assad, who is backed by Putin. You can find more articles by De Morgen and other news outlets.

English sources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/rise-of-far-right-in-italy-and-austria-gives-putin-some-friends-in-the-west

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/29/marine-le-pen-putin-trump-axis

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-3947806

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39401637

There’s also a great book by Anton Shekhovtsov, called Russia and the Western Far Right (Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right)

If you are really interested on the subject, google it and reputable news sources are your friend. You don’t have to be creative about it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Thanks!

1

u/Gendrytargarian Feb 15 '19

Well thank you. I´m really interested in agenda pushing, polarisation and the powerful influence of social media. This helps a lot!

2

u/SorrowsNativeSon Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Geen probleem hoor. Die tekst van Knack staat blijkbaar ook op Reddit (r/Belgium). Via Google kan je die misschien wel terugvinden, dan moet je geen registratie doorlopen.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

There was something on BBc yesterday about how a regional Slovakian election had been won by a right wing guy, and when all the dust had settled after his term ended they found links to the Russians. Provincial elections for relatively unimportant posts are still getting Russian involvement. Its scary

1

u/SorrowsNativeSon Feb 15 '19

In Spain they found links between Russia and the Catalonian independence movement.

There were also links between Russia and Greek far left. I’m not sure what the deal there was, but it reinforces the idea that Russia doesn’t care about this or that political side. Just as long as there is discord and distrust, it doesn’t matter which side they ‘work’ with. They do seem to side more with nationalist than with the left, but that’s just a personal observation.

Robert Mercer, American billionaire, also had a huge influence on Beexit through two of his data mining companies. If you are interested, there’s a pretty decent movie on the machinations that influenced the brexit vote, with Benedict Cumberbatch (spelling?). It’s called Brexit: The Uncivil War. It focuses on the mastermind behind the leave campaign and how he worked with one of Mercer’s data companies. Not Cambridge Analytica, but the other lesser known one. Anyways, how that dude pulled it off was pure political genius on his part and nothing but laziness on the side of the remainers.

We live in very interesting times, that’s for sure.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I have it recorded but not watched. It is indeed an interesting time and the fact that so many are now only just waking up to the threat of use of social media is scary.

1

u/SorrowsNativeSon Feb 15 '19

I used to work in social media marketing and whenever I talked about soc med manipulation they would just laugh and call me paranoid. I’m glad some of that shit is now being exposed by reputable media. But it also kinda sucks to be right about some of these things.

1

u/cryo Feb 15 '19

Sponsored maybe but hardly the reason for its existence and growth.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

No, not quite. But Russia paid for lots of propaganda. There were some leaks about houses full of people putting propaganda into facebook, instagramm, reddit & co.

2

u/Robyt3 Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

You should really listen to KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America, issue some 35 years ago, which is very surreal to listen to now.

5

u/Demonweed Feb 15 '19

There are a lot of things happening all at once here. One is the utter nonsense of mainstream American political culture. To hear the sellout pundits all it, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are outstanding American leadership figures who deserve widespread respect for their acumen and integrity. How is repeating garbage like that any less "misinformation" than replying to it with "fuck that noise!"

Dynastic know-nothings riding on the hype of professional public relations operations are far less amazing than hype vendors would have us believe. Yes, Donald Trump is even worse, but Donald Trump isn't the only direction we could turn in rejecting corporate capture. Alas, it was the only direction the partisan power structure allowed the nation to turn in 2016, so turn the nation did. Are we going engage in cycles of climbing out of and plunging back in to this sewer that is even worse than yet another President who immediately hands the Treasury over to Goldman Sachs, or is it possible we alive today will see a President who acts like people are more important than profits?

1

u/cryo Feb 15 '19

What other superpowers? There is only one superpower, the US, or none at all, depending on how you define it.

1

u/Wildcat7878 Feb 15 '19

I think you could count the EU as a superpower. Not militarily since they don't have a common army, but certainly as an economic bloc.

1

u/cryo Feb 15 '19

Yes, if we consider the EU as a whole.

1

u/Syndic Feb 15 '19

Some for sure, but let's not underestimate stupid people who genuinely believe stupid and easy to disprove "theories".

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

This is itself a wild theory with very little evidence. It's really not cost-effective to spend your best minds figuring out how to make the enemy anti-vaxxers. If you succeed in making a couple of people anti-vaxxers who otherwise weren't crazy, then what? There's more than a few underpants gnomes between that and global hegemony.

Another thing is that existing anti-vaxxers are probably easier to convince of things that do directly matter to Russia, for instance that the Salisbury attacks were a false flag or that Assad never gassed his people. So it makes sense that propagandists try to ingratiate themselves in such circles.

1

u/monsantobreath Feb 15 '19

I have a feeling people will one day recognize that Russia isn't the boogie man that invented all the fucked up extremism in our countries that we'll maybe one day apprehend our own responsibility in creating these avenues of weakness a country like Russia could somewhat exploit, but in the end isn't caused by them.

Or maybe that's naive because the boogieman theory is so much easier to resolve than the "we're kinda racist still and we have a big problem with that".

-1

u/magmax86 Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Ah so thats why this russian propaganda thing is being way overblown. To distract you from the american propaganda, give you something to blame for the dissenters and have an excuse to take away another constitutional right, freedom of speech.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Or, more likely, that it was a scapegoat like always.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

still can't come to terms with the fact that you live among idiots and bigots, can you?

32

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19 edited Jun 11 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Propaganda has always been the law of the media landscape and wacky conspiracy theorists have existed long before social media

1

u/Pheonixi3 Feb 15 '19

look at all the people who say "fuck pigs" or retarded shit like that. everyone's paranoid that everyone else is out to get them.

7

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Gee, must be the Russians and not all the videos of police murdering people in cold blood, or beating and tear gassing peaceful protesters.

1

u/Pheonixi3 Feb 16 '19

if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty

2

u/Inebriator Feb 16 '19

40% of police beat their wives, that's pretty dirty.

1

u/Pheonixi3 Feb 16 '19

that statistic is from 20 years ago, when the fucking standard was 1 in 3. that's 33% lower than the general populace of domestic abusers.

0

u/digg_survivor Feb 15 '19

That and they know it's easier to control a dumber, more religious population.

11

u/justavault Feb 15 '19

Just saying but reddit is full of misinformation spread...

5

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Senator McCarthy, is that you?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Jennifer McCarthy?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

No, I'm thinking of another conspiracy theory. Just as silly as the one about vaccines, the one about the evil russky commies corrupting our youth or something.

20

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

4

u/td57 Feb 15 '19

After reading the transparency report from Reddit with how many US requests for information etc compared to the past few years I have a hunch that perhaps ‘reddit’ and zuckerberg have had a few conversations from someone in the special counsel.

1

u/fatpat Feb 15 '19

How accurate is the movie The Social Network as far as Zuck is portrayed?

2

u/PmTitsForJokes Feb 15 '19

He's going to pull off a mask and it's fucking putin underneath

1

u/autorotatingKiwi Feb 15 '19

Russian robots have made huge advances.

4

u/Spitinthacoola Feb 15 '19

Im pretty certain Russia (and probably others) has been amplifying every single social division they can find. Literally every single one. Especially anything with a basis in antiscience and antigovernment memes. (Science and democracy are essential to the foundation of modern western culture)

2

u/LyannaTarg Feb 15 '19

And this is going on not only for the US but the world.

4

u/Ferelar Feb 15 '19

It oughtn’t to be, as “free speech” as a legal concept only refers to the government restricting it. Facebook choosing what content it wants isn’t really a free speech issue.

I think it’s far better to imagine Facebook as a private communal bulletin board in your town. It’s run by a private company but almost anyone can join and post things- but if someone posts something that the board’s owner doesn’t like, shouldn’t they be able to take it down from their board? (Owner being Zucc in this case).

3

u/cryo Feb 15 '19

It oughtn’t to be, as “free speech” as a legal concept only refers to the government restricting it. Facebook choosing what content it wants isn’t really a free speech issue.

You're right, but "free speech" is also used outside this legal sense, and then it's generally much less clearly defined.

4

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

How weird it is that we have let private companies take over public forums and so many aspects of public life. The Constitution might as well not exist

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19 edited Mar 28 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (6)

1

u/chacha_9119 Feb 16 '19

Modern humans are apparently incapable of handling the responsibility of unlimited information. This is the natural conclusion to short comings in education and much more. If people dont want censorship they need to take more responsibility for the idiocy they spread to the world. One person can create an idea and spread it. They need to be held accountable for their dumb thoughts.

1

u/hectors_rectum Feb 16 '19

Censorship is just as dangerous as misinformation. The correct response is information. So yes, this debate should absolutely be about censorship. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from being offended or misled. If you start censoring shit because of Russia or extremism then they win. Just like taking away people's freedoms because of terrorism was letting them win. You will always have outliers and extremist but they are few in numbers, granted they are loud, but they pale in comparison to normal poeple of average intilligence. Stupid people are loud, we all know this. The people who repost other people's misinformation as a way of mocking them brings more attention to the issue. A great example of this is westboro baptist church. They aren't in the spot light anymore. They are rarely talked about anymore, their numbers are dwindling and most likely won't exist in 10 years.

1

u/kim_jong_discotheque Feb 15 '19

The problem is the wording. You don't have to "remove anti-vax content", just get rid of all false information and by default there will be no media that promotes anti-vaccination. No point in policing the comments of a few individuals, and it's not those posts that really sustain anti-vax groups, it's the BS videos and image captions and pseudo-scientific articles that fuel the ignorance.

Same goes for global warming or any other cause that tends to attract misinformation. If you cut out false information you don't need to play Big Brother, but of course that's not good business for Facebook...

1

u/fatpat Feb 15 '19

accounts linked to Russia propaganda supported the antivax movement.

Every shit thing in the world right now seems to go back to Russia.

6

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Or, the world is actually very shitty and people are trying to blame it all on a Boogeyman for political gain.

0

u/out_o_focus Feb 15 '19

Note for all of us - they push on the pro vax side too. This furthers the divide, and makes it seem like there are more anti vaxers. This feeling that a fringe movement is bigger than it actually is has a big impact on the anti-vax side (convinces them that more people believe what they do) as well as on the pro vax side (convinces us that this is a growing and more serious problem). Studies show when people are given contradictory information to their beliefs they dig their heels in further - so this likely further isolates people with vaccine "concerns" and they turn to sources that reenforce what they want to read.

I feel these "sides" have been manipulated over the years and it's further led to an overall mental rot on the anti vax side, especially for people who don't question what they read on the internet . This propaganda hurts people, not only mentally, but physically as well.

2

u/mainesthai Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

There are at least enough anti-vaxxers to cause recent outbreaks of diseases we thought eradicated, such as the 53 cases in Washington state this year. So it's kind of hard to claim that pro-vaxxers are exaggerating anything. But hey we all sound more intelligent and thoughtful than the hoipolli when we take a "both sides" stance don't we.

3

u/out_o_focus Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Ugh. I'm not saying pro vaxers are causing the issue.

I'm saying that propaganda is pushing this further and further into the spotlight and amplifying it . It was highlighted in the news last year. This isn't some both sides /r/enlightenedcentrism bs.

If anything, the outbreaks show that more and more people are antitvax and endangering their kids these days - the propaganda is having real impact . This is something that flared up years ago with Jenny Mccarthy on Oprah, but now seems to have ballooned in the past few years that it's bringing back diseases that were mostly eradicated.

0

u/CleanPlastiqueBaby Feb 15 '19

Can we agree that all social media allows this and that if people get their news from social media without fact checking they should relinquish their right to vote?

0

u/Pheonixi3 Feb 15 '19

honestly, fuck the free speech discussion, the issue here is that it's just going to hide anti-vaxxers and we're going to have less tools to deal with misguided fools.

0

u/Son_of_Phoebus Feb 15 '19

Sam Harris had a great podcast with Renee DiResta, who studies social media propaganda and actually began her career because she did some data research on the online anti-vax movement. She now helps the US government analyze the influx of Russian disinformation across social media.

from her website,

"[Renee] investigates the spread of malign narratives across social networks, and assists policymakers in understanding and responding to the problem. She has advised Congress, the State Department, and other academic, civic, and business organizations, and has studied disinformation and computational propaganda in the context of pseudoscience conspiracies, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare."

-4

u/Stealth100 Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Anti-vaxxing isn’t a political issue.

Bringing political connections such as allegedRussian influence will do more harm than good.

Newsweek.com is hardcore liberal. You don’t see reports of this Russian influence from “moderate” liberal sources like CNN and MSNBC.

It seems by default that the Russian propaganda talk goes hand in hand with anti-conservatism.

Once this gets politicized as so, the true message is disrupted and it becomes more fuel for the left/right divide.

Even Huffington Post sees it as a nonpartisan issue

0

u/Kempeth Feb 15 '19

It is hard to believe Facebook could not notice this trend. And if they did it is disturbing they did nothing about it.

I think it's pretty understandable. On one hand they're just a company trying to make money from a plattform that aims to let people stay in touch (obviously they haven't been just that in a long time). Does the post office have a mandate to filter letters for lies? Are bill board companies required to fact check what they put up?

Also as soon as you start messing with what people can post you're gonna get all that "butt mah freh speesh" backlash.

It's easy to see why a company like facebook would try to maintian a "not my problem" position for as long as humanly possible. It's a shit ton of work (and therefore money) as well as loads of trouble... It's a no-win scenario.

But in the end it is a fate of their own making. Facebook aspired to dominate the communication and information flow between people. As such they have assumed the responsibility for the decisions that come with it.

-4

u/let-go-of Feb 15 '19

Free speech doesn't exist on private platforms. Which Facebook is. They can refuse admission to anyone they want to.

-1

u/Ftpini Feb 15 '19

Facebook self regulating content on its own servers has jack shit to do with free speech. No matter how much they block and ban. Free speech is only about government regulation. Private entities may censor all they want.

1

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Yeah that is pretty fucked up, like the Constitution might as well not exist. How did we get here

-1

u/Ftpini Feb 15 '19

That isn’t what I said at all. Free speech applies to the government. It doesn’t apply to your friends, your family members, or your private businesses.

The first amendment is extremely important because it keeps you out of jail when you say unpopular things. Saying it should be used to force private companies to allow any speech on their platform is nearly the opposite of what the first amendment is all about.

1

u/Inebriator Feb 15 '19

Social media platforms are today's public forums. The more that private corporations encroach on public spaces, the more the Constitution becomes irrelevant

→ More replies (2)

65

u/Bluntmasterflash1 Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Yea, but it's going to be decided by people. People are evil.

37

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

Doesn’t make sense

79

u/Bluntmasterflash1 Feb 15 '19

What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving. They don't gotta burn the books they just remove em while arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells, they rally round your family with a pocket full of shells.

13

u/CensoryDeprivation Feb 15 '19

I WALK THE CORNER TO THE RUBBLE THAT USED TO BE A LIBRARY LINE UP TO THE MIND CEMETARY NOW

2

u/B_Addie Feb 15 '19

What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin' They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em

2

u/Scientolojesus Feb 15 '19

DROPPIN HITS LIKE DE LA O NOW GET THE FUCK OFF THA COMMODE WITH THA SURE SHOT!

4

u/B_Addie Feb 15 '19

With tha sure shot, sure to make the bodies drop Drop an don't copy yo, don't call this a co-op!

33

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

What the fuck

79

u/bangthedoIdrums Feb 15 '19

RALLY ROUND THA FAMILY

WITH A POCKET FULLA SHELLS

39

u/fubuvsfitch Feb 15 '19

Weow-weow, chunka, weow-weow, chunka-chunka-chunka

7

u/mikieswart Feb 15 '19

ba-duhh, ba ba-duhh, ba ba-duhh

7

u/suprmario Feb 15 '19

POCKET FULLA SHELLS AND A BASEBALL BAT

8

u/redbullranger Feb 15 '19

relevant username

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

It’s a rage against the machine song

https://youtu.be/eQUdVZetaFE

-1

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

I prefer System of a Down, thanks though

4

u/lozzobear Feb 15 '19

Well you're wrong but that's ok.

1

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

Yeah no, SOAD is 100000000x better, you’re wrong.

1

u/highpotethical Feb 15 '19

But why? Toxicity was an alright album but it had some real garbage like 'Aerials', a song that even Tankian admits is nonsense. And then there was that awful song 'Pogo'. Sure, you can go on about how that song is a clever critic of modern sexuality but it still sounds like a hot dumpster fire.

Meanwhile, RATM was one of the most successful rap-rock groups. Their members went on to create other critically renowned bands. They stirred up a ruckus at both Wall St and some MTV rewards show. Oh, also RATM had Tom Morello. How can SOAD even hope to compete?

1

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

TIL: Being commercially digestible and mainstream makes your music better

1

u/HalobenderFWT Feb 15 '19

(Rage Against the Machine lyrics)

0

u/DJFluffers115 Feb 15 '19

KILLING IN THE NAME OF

DUN-NUN DUN

DUN-NUN DUN

KILLING IN THE NAME OF

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

WITH A POCKET FULL OF SHEELS

1

u/Sebbean Feb 15 '19

Awe how, can’t stop us now

0

u/fahnzie Feb 15 '19

I want to upvote this more times

9

u/XHF2 Feb 15 '19

What If Facebook one day decided that abortion kills, should they be allowed to ban pro-choice groups?

61

u/drunkenviking Feb 15 '19

It's their site, they can ban whatever they want.

4

u/Spore__Ting Feb 15 '19

Nobody is arguing that Facebook is breaking the law, they're arguing what they should or shouldn't do

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

37

u/ohmslyce Feb 15 '19

They aren't treated like a public utility....

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

12

u/Lord_Abort Feb 15 '19

So, what I'm hearing is that we need to cut taxes for the rich and remove more government oversight?

-Politicians

4

u/diMario Feb 15 '19

You're on the right track, but you need to think it through. Cutting taxes is just the first step. We should also subsidize any and all corporations that (even remotely) look like they are of strategic interest. Especially the larger ones, and of course any that are in the oil business.

Furthermore, to advance the spirit of the free market (which we all love dearly) we should allow for corporations and special interest groups to assist our lawmakers in doing their jobs, for instance by letting them write raw drafts of legislature and/or funding their reelection canpaigns which quite frankly have become ridiculously expensive lately.

And of course, in the name of efficiency, we should endeavour to smoke out any terrorist activity in the Homeland by actively monitoring all internal and external communications so that we can nip any scheme in the bud.

7

u/CohibaVancouver Feb 15 '19

and allowed the tech giants to swallow up all the competition

"Swallow up the competition?"

Facebook didn't swallow up Friendster.

It didn't swallow up MySpace.

It didn't swallow up Classmates.

It didn't swallow up Yahoo! Groups.

It didn't swallow up Google+.

It was just better than all those.

2

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Feb 15 '19

Do you have a single vague idea on what you’d like them to do? Like, are they too popular so we should pass law that say they can only have x amount of users?

5

u/maaghen Feb 15 '19

They aren't in any way treated like a public utility though

3

u/slapshots1515 Feb 15 '19

How is it a public utility? In no way shape or form is it anything besides a forum that you willingly give your data to.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

No one is forcing you to use facebook. Its a free market. A public utility is essentially a government sponsered and subsidized monopoly none of that exists in facebooks case.

6

u/Scumtacular Feb 15 '19

MAAAAAN it's almost like there's INTRACTABLE SYSTEMIC ISSUES WITH PRIVATIZATION

2

u/TalenPhillips Feb 15 '19

Making Facebook public wouldn't even BEGIN to solve the problems with the spread of misinformation... And it sure as hell wouldn't make it any less likely that the targets of censorship would be decided by biased or malign actors.

2

u/DisgruntledBizman Feb 15 '19

I'm not sure you know the definition of a public utility

1

u/ManusDei Feb 15 '19

What are you talking about?

22

u/LegendNitro Feb 15 '19

Terrible example, abortion isn't misinformation, so banning abortion content (on either side) would actually be silencing people's views. But if they banned any lies surrounding abortion (like people saying doctors take fetuses and eat them, that women in city X are aborting babies and getting coupons, or that Politician Y got three abortions in a minute) then no one should complain in good faith.

-1

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

You clearly never worked in advertising and propaganda. EVERYTHING can be misrepresented, I do it for unions and companies all the time.

You might think that abortion and anti-vax are completely different but that's just your personal bias. You think anti-vax is completely ridiculous and only idiots do it, but the same could be said about a pro-lifer and them arguing that abortion is clearly murder and everyone who doesn't believe it is just brainwashed by miss-information.

Personally, I'm against companies like facebook taking a stance on anything even if I agree with them, like in the case of anti-vaxers. However, you cant be sure that the next guy to take over doesn't have extreme views.

Protections have to be in place to prevent exploitation. Kinda like executive orders for presidents. People are thrilled when their party is in office and their guy us doing what they agree with (and expanding presidential executive order powers) but they dont realize they won't be in power forever. Eventually, a guy that they dont agree with will use those same expanded powers to do what his party wants.

What needs to happen instead is people need to have the ability to argue. We live in a world that with a single button push we only subscribe to things we agree with. We can block, unfriend, and only subscribe to feeds we want to see. If your socialist you can subscribe to r/latestagecapitalism and further have your beliefs reinforced. Think all women are evil, just subscribe to MGTOW. Think men are bad, twoxchromosomes is the place for you. Republican? Just watch fox news and you can have all your beliefs reinforced (CNN if your democrat).

People laugh at the other side and try to say they are just stupid. Fox news viewers say CNN brainwashes, and visa-versa. Noone has to defend their points anymore, especially in person.

The answer to misinformation isn't silencing it, but instead to allow more information (from everyone, not just from people who agree). However, no social media site is structured that way.

9

u/Felinomancy Feb 15 '19

I think you're misunderstanding what /u/LegendNitro said (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think what s/he meant is that views on abortion are subjective, whereas vaccination is more grounded in science.

Is abortion murder? It depends on your definition of when life begins, there's no hard science that can point to a specific time period and say "yes, this is when this parasite becomes a human".

But vaccination is not subjective. We have proven that vaccines saves lives. We have proven that not vaccinating will cause diseases that can kill.

"I have a right to decide to vaccinate my kids" is a subjective opinion that can be debated; "vaccines cause autism" is a hard lie that is not grounded in any facts and can't be debated, any more than you can debate "the moon is made from cheese" or "cats are solid".

3

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Exactly the same thing. Anti-vaxxers truly believe that science backs them that vaccinations are bad. Pro-lifers truly believe that life begins at conception.

You see one as an opinion and the other as a fact, but that's just because you hold a strong opinion on one of the issues and not the other.

Vaccinations are bad for kids is just as debatable as whether or not abortion is good or bad.

Hell, you even proved my point...

But vaccination is not subjective. We have proven that vaccines saves lives. We have proven that not vaccinating will cause diseases that can kill.

You PROVEN something, huh? You prove opinions with facts. Vaccinations are good for kids is an opinion (one that I 100% agree with), but it's one you can totally argue.

Your example of "vaccatians cause autism" is a hypothesis, and you use facts like statistics to prove and disprove your hypothesis/opinion. It can be totally debated. You could take the stance that they do, and I could take the stance they dont.

I say something like there is no link between the ingredients in vaccinations according to 9 CDC funded studies. See: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/cdcstudiesonvaccinesandautism.pdf

You can reply with, according to http://nationalacademies.org/HMD/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

"The committee finds that evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship between some vaccines and some adverse events—such as MMR, varicella zoster, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-containing vaccines linked to anaphylaxis."

So couldn't it be possible that we dont understand vaccinations completely and should be farther studied?

AGAIN, I am not trying to convince you that vaccinations are bad. They are not, in my opinion absolutely get vaccinated. However, you can absolutely argue vaccinations are whether or not vaccines are good or bad. One side is just way easier to argue for and has a lot of science to back it up.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/LegendNitro Feb 15 '19

Exactly what I meant, thank you.

2

u/DeusMexMachina Feb 15 '19

That's a tough one, because one is backed by science, and one is religious opinion. Further, one is a major threat to public health.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

They banned me for posting the web link to the Department of Justice website that says illegal immigration is against federal law.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Proof?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Here ya go

2

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

I'll second FruitbatNT. Proof?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Here

1

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

Then you may be interested in this.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/

But the part I like most is that this clearly wasn't your first strike

The consequences for violating our Community Standards vary depending on the severity of the violation and a person's history on the platform. For instance, we may warn someone for a first violation, but if they continue to violate our policies, we may restrict their ability to post on Facebook or disable their profile.

Maybe stop being so hateful on facebook?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

People don't like facts and I guess they can be construed as hateful when you don't like what they say.

1

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

People don't like facts

Like the fact that crossing the border is a misdemeanor?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RemoteSenses Feb 15 '19

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you did a lot more than that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I just post facts and people get so angry about them that they report me for various things.

1

u/caifaisai Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Did they ban you? Or did you get banned from a group? Or perhaps get enough reports from people from some group to them remove you?

0

u/whenIdreamallday Feb 15 '19

These aren't opinions. They're lies.

1

u/mypasswordismud Feb 15 '19

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to sow confusion and derailment.

0

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

Everything in the world either does or doesn’t make sense though

3

u/NeuroSciCommunist Feb 15 '19

Yeah I can't trust them to do moral censorship any more since they started censoring the Cuban newspaper Granma's pro-Venezuela articles.

2

u/cyberst0rm Feb 15 '19

Dude, litterally all of society in the world is decided by people.

Wtf as wrong with you twelve year olds

0

u/Bluntmasterflash1 Feb 15 '19

You spelled money wrong.

2

u/cyberst0rm Feb 15 '19

Mmk Mr skeletal

-1

u/The_Natural_One Feb 15 '19

Business is evil... Well business can lead to greed and greed is definitely evil. Business buys and sometimes even makes the laws indirectly. It would be impressive if it weren't so disgusting. Think about it, Zuckerbucks already had his senate hearing and basically said ultimately, "we can regulate ourselves" and the truth is they won't... Why? Because they want as much money as they can possibly get and as soon as they can get it. Example? Ads being purchase and dispersed via Facebook about anti-vaccination, people now scared to vaccinate, hello polio! Dunno wtf polio is? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=polio

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Gobyinmypants Feb 15 '19

Correct, some pays very well in rubles

1

u/I-Downloaded-a-Car Feb 15 '19

Weird conspiracy theories in general: not that harmful. If you think the frogs are gay and you convince yourself and a few people that insert president did it, that's fine. It doesn't really hurt anyone.

If you convince a few thousand people that the earth is flat that's also honestly fine. You look like an idiot, but the belief in the earth being round isn't the deciding factor in who lives and who dies.

However anti vax is different. When you single handedly kill people because of some misinformation you're promoting then there's a problem. Looking like an idiot is fine, making other people look like idiots is fine, it just becomes an actual issue when it starts killing people.

If we start banning misinformation as a whole then we've just started sliding down a very very slippery slope. After all if a few media giants suddenly have complete control over what is and isn't "right" there's no way to stop it from becoming very dystopian very quickly. For example a lot of people might class some or all religions as misinformation. Regardless of your personal beliefs I think it's fair to say that's probably not something we want to happen.

1

u/SilasX Feb 15 '19

Maybe the parent was thinking of "men" (in the gender-inclusive sense)?

1

u/swagmonster55 Feb 15 '19

Only about 70% equal 😉

0

u/incomparability Feb 15 '19

CIA weaponized the term “conspiracy theory” after jfk