Facebook endorses censorship.
Offline Apparently someone found this blog offensive and managed to get it blocked on Facebook. If you attempt to paste and share the url ( http://militant-atheism.atspace.com/) it pops up with this message "Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users."
That's bullshit. If anyone knows a good way to cause a ruckus and bring this to light some help would be appreciated. So far the only way to contact FB that I've found is all offline.
Facebook, Inc.
471 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1605 United States
Phone: 650-543-4800
Fax: 650-543-4801
If anyone is interested, it can be posted with this url: http://bit.ly/4uLcg3
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
- Login to post comments
Isn't this an automated process? Users report links as abusive, and when enough do, it becomes blocked. I'm not surprised, and I certainly wouldn't blame Facebook for it. If you kindly raise the issue to support, they may unblock it.
I hate the abuse of the word "censorship" in this context. You do understand the difference between government and private industry?
If you want to complain about the ban FINE! I am not saying don't. But there is no government mandate forcing them to allow anything they don't want to allow.
Let's flip this for a second. Lets say THIS RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD website decided, not that it would, but decided to only allow atheists to post here? Would you still feel the same?
It is only censorship when the government bans something. The private sector cannot be dictated to, only appealed to.
If you own a house, and you invite someone over as a guest, would you want them doing something IN YOUR HOUSE without your permission? I smoke. But if I go to a friends house who does not, should I be allowed to force them to allow me to smoke?
NOW, do not confuse me with agreeing with Facebook. I am simply pointing out the distinction between private sector and government law.
There are much more strict atheist websites on the web who do not tolerate "ad homins" or "bad language". Even some atheist sites I won't join because of their politically correct "lets all play nice and never say mean things" attitude.
This one happens to be one that is more "no holds barred", but balances it out with a "Kill em with kindness" section, for the less adventurous theists.
IF you want to appeal to Facebook, that would be a good avenue, but they have the right, just like Sapient does with this website, to conduct business the way they see fit.
YOUR RIGHTS, are not being violated. WHY? Because there ARE other websites and if you want to yourself, can start your own website and conduct it the way you want to.
SO ditch "censorship" and simply say, "These guys are being dicks".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't think I'm abusing the word at all. Unless this is the result of a glitch, the next likely explanation is some asshole read it (If you haven't read it, it's pretty innocuous.) and said "I'm offended" and reported it. FB either apparently has a low threshhold for what qualifies as offensive or did not investigate it. If you think the guy that flagged this link isn't of the same mindset as the people who file false DMCA's on Youtube and seek to put qualifiers regarding the veracity of evolution in science textbooks if they can't get it banned outright, then you're tripping. If this is an oversight, then it's not censorship. If someone actually approved the ban on this link then they are at least giving their implicit approval of these dishonest and reactionary attempts at censorship, also known as endorsing.
If you use FB and think it's bullshit that some ignorant fuck can interfere with the links you share with your friends despite their benign nature and know a better, more effective way to reach FB (I couldn't find a way to contact their administrators.) then knock yourself out. If you want to argue semantics find someone else.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I am not saying they aren't an asshole. I AM SAYING, when someone says something you disagree with you DON'T SILENCE THEM, you COMPETE. This asshole's intent was to silence you. What WE can do better is not to silence them, but to SHOW these assholes WHY they are being assholes.
AGAIN, if you own and run a church, would you be within your rights to deny a Muslim a pulpit? I think so, and it has nothing to do with labels. It has to do with ownership vs government and WHY government should be separate from that.
Do you want an atheist website to be forced by government to police posts and fine or arrest someone who posts "Jesus is fiction"?
I am not agreeing with this decision. I am saying that there is a difference between what government should protect, and what a private company has the right to do.
If you and I want the right to say, "Jesus is fiction" and we want privately owned websites that allow us to do such, we should not cut our noses off to spite our faces because some other website has different rules.
In the case of FACEBOOK, I think it has more to do with the politically correct left, which I hate, than it does against targeting atheist specifically. I think they are pulling a Rodney King, which has nice intent, but poor execution.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm not suggesting fighting censorship with censorship. I'm suggesting the godless community let FB know that at least 15% of their users (including the Christian woman who gave me the above contact information) don't approve of being told what is offensive and would like to see some neutrality and a more rigorous standard for banning "offensive" material.
I didn't say anything about the government. FB makes money through ad revenue. Those ads are directed at us, the users. FB has a right to censor information as they see fit. We have a right to remind them not to piss off 15% or more of their advertising audience. If their business model is to allow group a to determine what is offensive for group b they may find group b deciding to walk away or overload them with "offensive" material.
Think about the structure of FB. You see something you think is interesting and want to share it with you friends. My friends tend to find the things that any conservatives and theists find offensive. So what? I'm not sharing with them. I'm sharing with my friends who tend to agree with me. If there is a low standard for something being banned then it can impact peoples FB experience and drive them away when they realize that they can't talk to their friends as they see fit. That's capitalism in action. I'm simply putting it out there if anyone has some good ideas and wants to make some noise.
Could be. I don't care for that either.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
Just my 2 cents but I think that as a large social networking site I think that they have an ethical obligation remain neutral.
Word. It's sort of like the whole Tim Tebow Superbowl ad. When you have a political statement reaching such a large relatively captive audience it's irresponsible to allow one group to speak unchallenged.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
The only ethical obligation for Facebook is to stay away from issues like this, because the alternative is much worse. I don't want them stepping in and deciding what to and not to censor. The way it works now is as close to a democracy as it can get. I'll say it again. Facebook didn't actively ban the link. Links are blocked when a sufficient number of people report it. That is how it should be. This situation is an unfortunate consequence.
No they don't. They have a money motive . If they don't see themselves being hurt by atheist complaints, they wont do anything about it. If WE complain enough, they will respond.
Their obligation is first and foremost to make money. Ethics is not something that business does naturally, it is something that the public has to appeal to them for. Just like religion, if business is left to it's own devices, it can and will step on people.
Atheists are a big enough block if enough people complain, FACEBOOK will pay attention. But until their bottom line is affected, they wont do anything.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The site works. Maybe they heard your angished cry from the wilderness.
Not from FB it doesn't. The work around doesn't even work now. They've locked it out like it was child porn.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I agree that it probably wasn't actively banned, but allowing one group to decide for another group what's offensive without a substantive reason is a bad precedent to set.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I doesn't matter what their motive is, they can still choose to act morally or immorally. No one's stopping them.
Whenever I find myself in these conversations about what should or could be vs. what is, the "What is" crowd always seems to argue that the way it is somehow negates the argument for how things could or should be done. I fully agree that FB is doing what comes naturally to us all, i.e. looking out for number one, but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't hold ourselves and each other to a higher standard. Especially when Mark Zuckerberg, FB's founder and CEO says on his page that his interests are connecting with each other, freedom, sharing ideas, and revolution. This present situation clearly flies in the face of those values.
If we as the minority are to live comfortably and freely on any level we have to stand up for the principles that allow for that freedom when they're being infringed upon on every level. FB has a right to block whatever they want and we have a right to express our displeasure when they allow a group of thin-skinned zealots to silence another group. If we don't make it a point to remind people that they have a responsibility to respect the rights of others (regardless of what the cynics say) then atheists, homosexuals, men, women, scientists, artists, the working class, and all manner of outgroup can expect nothing more than the status quo and have no right to complain.
Facebook has as much a right to block content as you and I have to tell them that to censor the exchange of ideas is unacceptable behavior in a free society and it won't be tolerated.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
i dont know anything about that but i do know some supposedly rational atheists get all bitchy when you oppose their political views on facebook
Care to give an example or were you just dropping by with tidings of smarm from the Libertarian School of Anything Goes?
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
no i dont care to give an example, lets see if someone bites who may know what im talking about, im itching for a good debate
"Libertarian School of Anything Goes"
thanks for a perfect example of intellectual self-ownage, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about but thanks for playing
as an aside i cant help but find this sort of argument analogous to how theists debate evolution, they want to try and make claims and debunk this or that yet they obviously dont have the first clue as to what evolution is or how it works, so congrats on being in the same camp of those sort of people, your witty remark is the equivolent of the croco-duck argument
Right. Libertarians believe in limits with no way of enforcing them. I've read the party platform. They state it pretty explicitly. They are apparently naive enough to believe that people will regulate their behavior accordingly even if they know that there is no way to verify that they're not screwing people over. We see it all happen all the time and yet you guys still argue that the problem is too many rules. It's asinine.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
im assuming your talking mostly about economics
well there are such things as contracts and laws against fraud, hell the SEC had no idea what bernie madoff was doing yet all it took was for a single dude to look at the math to know it was impossible and the geniuses over at the govt had no clue
you claim im naive yet your the guy who probably thinks that any and all regulation is good, without taking a moment to take into account unintended consequences, hell big corporations lobby for regulations all the time, and why not, big corporations can bear the costs while the smaller guys cant, what an easy way to stamp out real competition, have the govt do all the work for you
but we can argue back and forth all day, with me making a point and you saying you dont believe it, but there is an indisputable fact, and that is that the only folks who saw this crisis coming (and predicted it in detail btw) are the guys who had a real understanding of how the market works, the guys who really know and really believe in free market capitalism, guys like ron paul (who talked about a housing crisis way back in 2003) and peter schiff (who talked about the same sorts of things dating back just as far)
its analogous in a way to quantum mechanics, we may not understand all the assumptions being made (or even believe them) but the predictions made by it cannot be ignored and show us that in some way quantum mechanics must be right, same goes for the austrian school of economics, you may not understand or believe what it says, but its predictions have been spot on time and again
and since atheists usually like to harp on about evidence and such, youd think that fact might weigh heavily
I'm talking about the entire platform.
In regards to contracts and laws you would need some sort of organization to enforce them. A government if you will. Unfortunately all the free market capitalists have been pushing to strip the SEC of oversight power for years. They were and have been grossly outgunned by major corporations and banks and this and the housing bubble are the end result.
Of course not.
As for business using their money to influence legislation in their favor, I think that's wrong too. It's just as bad as not enough regulation. That's a failing of our present politcal structure, not an argument for throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah, only the libertarian economists got it. Nevermind that talk of the housing bubble had been in the news for years prior to the meltdown. We can see exactly where things went wrong and it has a lot to do with major corporations and their conservative toadies pushing for deregulation of the banking industry and limited oversight and then those glorious captains of industry sold bad loans to unqualified people and bet on them failing. This could have been avoided with more robust laws and oversight.
I don't believe because it's asinine.
That's all i have to say about that.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
talk of the meltdown was in the news for years?
jeez, then why is it when someone like schiff mentioned it he was literally laughed at on every single show he went on, on every single network, why is it when someone like dr. paul mentioned it in committee after committee meeting that not a single other member of govt listened to what he had to say
people thought housing was going to continue to go up and up without end, especially back in 2003-2004 when these guys began warning of the impending issues
and no amount of regulation can save a system thats based on counterfeiting money and artifical interest rates, if the market had set the rates (based on savings), and the govt hadnt guarenteed the loans (as well as passed regulations forcing banks to loan to people that were a credit risk) we never would have had the problem to begin with
your problem is you think we've been running some sort of free market system all along, which is the conventional wisdom in most of washington, you think it was all about greed, but why wasnt anything restraining that greed? in a free market you do have greed, people wanting to make as much money as possible, but you also have fear, fear of taking too many risks, fear of losing all of your money and going bankrupt, but the govt took away that fear, by guarenteeing everything, it intervened in the market and created the moral hazard, then instead of letting the market work, and try to purge the imbalances, to liquidate the debt, to restructure labor and capital the govt again intervened and forced profittable companies to subsidize unprofittable companies, by propping up institutions that should have failed, and gave us a situation in which we have privitization of profits and nationalization of losses, that isnt capitalism, its corporatism at its worse
the govt doesnt want to get the economy back on solid footing, it doesnt want americans to save their money, which is where capital comes from, they want us to go deeper into debt, housing credits, cash for clunkers, you name it, the govt has done everything in its power to perpetuate the problem, which was over consumption, over borrowing, and burying ourselves in debt