Facebook is engaged in an escalating campaign of internet censorship targeting the socialist left. Entire Facebook pages are being taken down, and individual accounts permanently disabled, without any explanation given or recourse allowed.
Agreed. This is what bothers me about the modern push for non-governmental censorship. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way and it's the very left who champion conservative deplatforming, who will end up feeling the sting on this one.
It's silly how so many people don't understand that if you create a framework for censorship of certain ideas, it will always eventually be used for censorship of other ideas outside of the intended target.
The same left that cheered the removal of calls for violence, including ones sporting the threadbare figleaf of being about nonexistent election fraud -- yes, that one.
To the degree that these sites are calling for violence, I'm all for it. If that merely means the use of the word "revolution" often associated with socialism, honestly, it's time to get a new buzzword. It has become pathetic, in a "South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year" fashion[1]. If they're serious about violent revolution, Facebook is well within their rights to remove it. If they're not, stop playing armchair revolutionary.
Facebook make it quite clear that shutting down right wing conspiracy theories was about the potential for violence. If that's the case for left-wing groups as well, they should say so, as a blanket statement if not on a case-by-case basis.
If they're doing it out of a sense of "balance", so that they can remove nonviolent groups of various sorts, that I oppose. Violence is a fairly bright-line concept and I've got no fear of it becoming a slippery slope. Conpsiracy theories tending to incite violence are less clear and more fraught, but January 6 demonstrated conclusively that it's a genuine and not merely theoretical issue.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 32.3 ms ] threadIt's silly how so many people don't understand that if you create a framework for censorship of certain ideas, it will always eventually be used for censorship of other ideas outside of the intended target.
To the degree that these sites are calling for violence, I'm all for it. If that merely means the use of the word "revolution" often associated with socialism, honestly, it's time to get a new buzzword. It has become pathetic, in a "South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year" fashion[1]. If they're serious about violent revolution, Facebook is well within their rights to remove it. If they're not, stop playing armchair revolutionary.
Facebook make it quite clear that shutting down right wing conspiracy theories was about the potential for violence. If that's the case for left-wing groups as well, they should say so, as a blanket statement if not on a case-by-case basis.
If they're doing it out of a sense of "balance", so that they can remove nonviolent groups of various sorts, that I oppose. Violence is a fairly bright-line concept and I've got no fear of it becoming a slippery slope. Conpsiracy theories tending to incite violence are less clear and more fraught, but January 6 demonstrated conclusively that it's a genuine and not merely theoretical issue.
[1] https://www.theonion.com/south-postpones-rising-again-for-ye...