Facebook Bans InfoWars, but Keeps Antifa, Louis Farrakhan

[Ubiquitous]

Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
with far worse content still remain.

Facebook’s explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
posts material which “glorifies violence,” and also uses
“dehumanizing language.”

InfoWars Facebook pages taken down for using “dehumanizing
language” and “glorifying violence” not “false news”
https://t.co/pG0N1HeYmV pic.twitter.com/8hbnoZrD4z

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) August 6, 2018

But the social media Masters of the Universe have made no attempt to
explain why InfoWars should be banned while leftist pages with a far
more explicit glorification of violence, not to mention using
“dehumanizing” language towards Jews, Christians, and Americans in
general, should remain and even prosper on the platform.

Among them, a page called “Kill Trump,” and dozens of global pages
for the registered domestic terrorist group Antifa, which have made
unchallenged posts supporting violence.

“It’s Going Down” is one such prominent Antifa page. Beyond
featuring violent imagery of President Donald Trump being attacked,
it includes training and information on attacking critical
infrastructure targets. “It’s Going Down” seems to be lower on
Facebook’s list of “glorying violence” than InfoWars.

Infowars was banned from Facebook but this Antifa
organizing site that offers recruiting materials
that depict Trump supporters being bayoneted, and
provided instructions on how to sabotage critical
transportation and communication infrastructure,
is still active. Weird, right?
pic.twitter.com/mlCziz9ypX

— Far Left Watch (@FarLeftWatch) August 6, 2018

Infamous anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also
remains on the platform, with nearly one million likes, while The
Young Turks, a progressive news outlet, remains despite its founder
Cenk Uygur’s denial of the Armenian Holocaust.

The New Black Panther Party, a black supremacist organization, which
according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has “encouraged
violence against whites, Jews, and law enforcement officers,” also
has several pages on the social network.

Other pages allowed on the platform include: “Fuck White America,”
“Fuck the south,” and “Islam Will Rule the World.”

It does not even require fresh transparency of Facebook’s murky
rules around “hate speech,” “glorifying violence,” and “dehumanizing
language,” to recognize that if InfoWars does not belong on
Facebook, neither do these pages. By Facebook’s own treatment of
InfoWars, one could make a reasonable argument that New York Times
anti-white bigot Sarah Jeong, who refers to white people as
“goblins,” is a perfect example of leftists using “dehumanizing
language.”


--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[TruthBarker]

On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
> with far worse content still remain.
>
> Facebook’s explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
> posts material which “glorifies violence,” and also uses
> “dehumanizing language.”
>

Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?

A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!

A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.

[Rich A]

Ubiquitous wrote

> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
> with far worse content still remain.

I applauded when Trump banned niggers from the White House on recommendations
from then Breitbart head honcho Steve Bannon. They say the only way they
can get in is after hours and through the servants entrance but they can only
talk to white people using 2 way camera monitors. That's how Breitbart's
done it since day one. Their "no Niggers" policy is a first amendment right
given to us by the Framers who of many owned niggers as slaves.

[Kotak]

TruthBarker wrote

> On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>> with far worse content still remain.
>>

>> Facebook Ts explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>> posts material which oglorifies violence, and also uses
>> odehumanizing language.

>>
>
> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>
> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>
> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.
>

Alex Jones admitted to being in on 9/11 and was headed for trial and prison
just as Trump got elected and buried it. It came to a surprise to many
because Alex Jones is a well known homosexual Jew who was on Putin's payroll
dating back to 1997.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NAZI/FASCIST RUN FACEBOOK is burning the PAGES of their BOOK that they
don't agree with....


It looks like what happened in Germany and it's happening in the halls
and pages of FACEBOOK!

--
That's Karma

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 08/08/2018 07:30 AM, TruthBarker wrote:

NAZI/FASCIST RUN FACEBOOK is burning the PAGES of their BOOK that they
don't agree with....


It looks like what happened in Germany and it's happening in the halls
and pages of FACEBOOK!

BOOK BURNING is a NATURAL extension of the Liberal LEFT. 21st century
BOOK BURNING looks a lot like it did in NAZI GERMANY.

Change the words in Tom Sawyer and tear out and bleachbit the pages of
FACEBOOK. It's all the same. It's against the 1st amendment as are all
Liberals in the end.
--
That's Karma

[Snit]

And if a baker can decide to not bake a cake for gays, why can't a
company decide to not serve someone for breaking terms of service?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 08/08/2018 12:00 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/8/18 8:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 07:30 AM, TruthBarker wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>>>> with far worse content still remain.
>>>>
>>>> Facebook’s explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>>>> posts material which “glorifies violence,” and also uses
>>>> “dehumanizing language.”
>>>>
>>>
>>> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>>>
>>> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>>>
>>> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.
>>>
>>>
>> NAZI/FASCIST RUN FACEBOOK is burning the PAGES of their BOOK that they
>> don't agree with....
>>
>>
>> It looks like what happened in Germany and it's happening in the halls
>> and pages of FACEBOOK!
>>
>>
>> BOOK BURNING is a NATURAL extension of the Liberal LEFT. 21st century
>> BOOK BURNING looks a lot like it did in NAZI GERMANY.
>>
>> Change the words in Tom Sawyer and tear out and bleachbit the pages of
>> FACEBOOK. It's all the same. It's against the 1st amendment as are all
>> Liberals in the end.
>>
>
>
> And if a baker can decide to not bake a cake for gays, why can't a
> company decide to not serve someone for breaking terms of service?

But the Baker was sued and fined and the laws are there....

And then again the FACEBOOK is counting on other people for content....
are you suggesting that they can change their terms of use and NOT be
sued for deleting stuff that was already published by them?

Can a Bakery that allows you to bake your own cake refuse you service
because you wish to make your cake for your gay wedding? That's what
FACEBOOK is doing.

I'm all for Companies doing what they want, but you can't pick and
choose, if a Bakery has to allow people with all different religious
views in then why wouldn't FACEBOOK? A veiled threat of a terms of
service that will delete them for "hate speech" is unconstitutional
because only the courts can dictate what "hate speech" is. We know this
because it isn't defined in the law, it's up to the justice system to
determine if something is hate speech and a corporation can't do that on
it's own.

--
That's Karma

[Snit]

Actually some of the bakers WON. To be fair, as wrong as the bakers
were, those in places where homosexuality is not a protected class had a
case.

And made a good case as to why sexuality SHOULD be a protected class.

> And then again the FACEBOOK is counting on other people for content....
> are you suggesting that they can change their terms of use and NOT be
> sued for deleting stuff that was already published by them?

Do not follow you there. I am saying they have a right to boot people
for not following terms of service.

> Can a Bakery that allows you to bake your own cake refuse you service
> because you wish to make your cake for your gay wedding? That's what
> FACEBOOK is doing.

How so?

> I'm all for Companies doing what they want, but you can't pick and
> choose, if a Bakery has to allow people with all different religious
> views in then why wouldn't FACEBOOK? A veiled threat of a terms of
> service that will delete them for "hate speech" is unconstitutional
> because only the courts can dictate what "hate speech" is. We know this
> because it isn't defined in the law, it's up to the justice system to
> determine if something is hate speech and a corporation can't do that on
> it's own.
>

You do not have a right to put up a "Whites Only" sign or the like. And
others are not required to back bigotry and hatred. Nor even deep
misinformation and ignorance.

[MarcusAurelius]

The MSM, including Facebook, is predominantly Zionist (Jewish), subversive, and destructive.

[Scout]

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:ft0ick...@mid.individual.net...

> On 8/8/18 8:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 07:30 AM, TruthBarker wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>>>> with far worse content still remain.
>>>>
>>>> Facebook’s explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>>>> posts material which “glorifies violence,” and also uses
>>>> “dehumanizing language.”
>>>>
>>>
>>> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>>>
>>> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>>>
>>> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.
>>>
>>>
>> NAZI/FASCIST RUN FACEBOOK is burning the PAGES of their BOOK that they
>> don't agree with....
>>
>>
>> It looks like what happened in Germany and it's happening in the halls
>> and pages of FACEBOOK!
>>
>>
>> BOOK BURNING is a NATURAL extension of the Liberal LEFT. 21st century
>> BOOK BURNING looks a lot like it did in NAZI GERMANY.
>>
>> Change the words in Tom Sawyer and tear out and bleachbit the pages of
>> FACEBOOK. It's all the same. It's against the 1st amendment as are all
>> Liberals in the end.
>>
>
>
> And if a baker can decide to not bake a cake for gays, why can't a company
> decide to not serve someone for breaking terms of service?

Tell me, exactly what term of service does having an opposing political view
violate?

[Snit]

Can you explain how your question relates to my comment?

[Scout]

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

news:ft1mll...@mid.individual.net...

Well, in one case, it's trying to force a company to provide a custom
service they do not offer.

In the other, it's the standard use of a service as provided for everyone
else, except they decide that you're political views are "hate speech".
Perhaps because they hate seeing people express a political view other than
their own.

But that doesn't make that view hate speech.

So......were in the terms of service does it say that your comments have to
conform to the political views of Facebook?

[Jedi Master]

Solution: start a new facebook not run by political dictators.

[Snit]

Because a cake baker never bakes cakes?

> In the other, it's the standard use of a service as provided for
> everyone else, except they decide that you're political views are "hate
> speech". Perhaps because they hate seeing people express a political
> view other than their own.

Which views?

> But that doesn't make that view hate speech.
>
> So......were in the terms of service does it say that your comments have
> to conform to the political views of Facebook?

Where did Apple or anyone else say someone was banned for political views?

[Scout]

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

news:ft34t6...@mid.individual.net...

Nope, they bake the cakes they have in their catalog.

If it's not in their catalog then you can try to negotiate with them to bake
it, but they can refuse to accept any specific custom cake you might want
them to bake.

>
>> In the other, it's the standard use of a service as provided for everyone
>> else, except they decide that you're political views are "hate speech".
>> Perhaps because they hate seeing people express a political view other
>> than their own.
>
> Which views?

Any

>
>> But that doesn't make that view hate speech.
>>
>> So......were in the terms of service does it say that your comments have
>> to conform to the political views of Facebook?
>
> Where did Apple or anyone else say someone was banned for political views?

Say it, or did it?

Because what they say and what they do can be different things.

I suppose next you're going to tell us that unless a murder confesses to the
crime, then it didn't really occur.

[Snit]

On 8/9/18 3:05 PM, Scout wrote:
...

>>>>>> And if a baker can decide to not bake a cake for gays, why can't a
>>>>>> company decide to not serve someone for breaking terms of service?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me, exactly what term of service does having an opposing
>>>>> political view violate?
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain how your question relates to my comment?
>>>
>>> Well, in one case, it's trying to force a company to provide a custom
>>> service they do not offer.
>>
>> Because a cake baker never bakes cakes?
>
> Nope, they bake the cakes they have in their catalog.

And what was asked to be made instead? Also, given how there are
multiple bigoted baker cases, which one are you referring to?

> If it's not in their catalog then you can try to negotiate with them to
> bake it, but they can refuse to accept any specific custom cake you
> might want them to bake.

In at least one of the cases no design was even discussed... it was
merely because the couple were the same sex. Clear bigotry. If someone
wants a cake with, say, a swastika on it, or some other symbol tied to
harm and hatred, then of course it would be fine to not make that.

>>> In the other, it's the standard use of a service as provided for
>>> everyone else, except they decide that you're political views are
>>> "hate speech". Perhaps because they hate seeing people express a
>>> political view other than their own.
>>
>> Which views?
>
> Any

But none you can specifically name. OK.

>>> But that doesn't make that view hate speech.
>>>
>>> So......were in the terms of service does it say that your comments
>>> have to conform to the political views of Facebook?
>>
>> Where did Apple or anyone else say someone was banned for political
>> views?
>
> Say it, or did it?
>
> Because what they say and what they do can be different things.
>
> I suppose next you're going to tell us that unless a murder confesses to
> the crime, then it didn't really occur.

Sigh... you do like to play games. The question is if you have ANY
evidence that they banned, say, Alex Jones for views not tied to
violence or open bigotry?

[Avenging Angel]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
news:ft34t6...@mid.individual.net:

> Where did Apple or anyone else say someone was banned for political
> views?
>
>

It doesn't matter. We feel like tney did and we are outraged. We need to
co,,it violence against them. Antifa style.

[Kotak]

TruthBarker wrote

> On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>> with far worse content still remain.
>>

>> Facebook Ts explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>> posts material which oglorifies violence, and also uses

>> odehumanizing language.

>>
>
> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>
> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>
> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.
>

[Byker]

>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>> with far worse content still remain.
>>

>> Facebookƒ Ts explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>> posts material which ƒ oglorifies violence,ƒ and also uses
>> ƒ odehumanizing language.ƒ

>>
>
> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>
> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>
> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.

I hear that YouTube is dying. Far out:
https://www.wetheunicorns.com/features/youtube-is-dying/

[Rich A]

Ubiquitous wrote

> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
> with far worse content still remain.

[Rich A]

Ubiquitous wrote

> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
> with far worse content still remain.

[Kotak]

TruthBarker wrote

> On 08/07/2018 10:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
>> with far worse content still remain.
>>

>> Facebook Ts explanation for the InfoWars ban claims that the site
>> posts material which oglorifies violence, and also uses

>> odehumanizing language.

>>
>
> Q: What is worse than a angry black-man?
>
> A: A angry white-man, Alex Jones!
>
> A great job by Facebook. Trump is next.
>

[David Hartung]

On 8/7/2018 6:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Facebook banned InfoWars from its platform, yet many leftist pages
> with far worse content still remain.

Bullshit.