Last remaining Far-Right groups banned from Social Media.

its been publicly demanded for the last 3 years in the UK but finally, Facebook bends to public outcry and bans the last remaining UK Far- Right gangs from their Social Media Platforms. Maybe other popular websites can take a lead from Facebook and start banning the Far- Right Extremists from their sites too

Years after the company first dismissed fears it was empowering extremists, Facebook has permanently banned a number of far-right organisations and individuals including the British National party (BNP), the English Defence League (EDL) and Britain First .

The ban, which came into effect at midday on Thursday, extends beyond the groups and individuals specifically cited as hate organisations: posts and other content that “expresses praise or support” for them will also be banned, as will users who coordinate support for the groups.

read the rest here: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ht-groups-including-bnp-edl-and-britain-first

 

And yet those who advocate for the murder of Donald Trump, or islamic extremism, is allowed to remain on the same platforms.

 

Britain, with the USA not far behind, is down the crapper.

 

Violent extremists posing as actual people just can't catch a break these days.

 

More corporate censorship. 8chan and TOR just got a lot of users, that's great, just push people further to the fringes.

When you ostractize people they embolden.

Don't forget this is mandated by law in the UK now, or will be shortly at least.

I'd rather live in an active warzone than the UK at this point.

 

Does Facebook allow 8 chan? It was presented last night by the bbc as being the choice of facebook. I don't have a particular problem with this as these people seem to be acting similarly to how Choudley worked. That is though not doing it themselves encouraging hate crime and terrorism.

I found this interesting

particularly due to the reality this man is being funded by prominent ME people in the US and was recently invited to speak to the Republicans in Congress.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47974579

So truthfully I don't have a problem with these people being banned. I have a far bigger problem with something else which is going on which is the banning of non violent left wing investigative journalists. Up until now I think they have got themselves reasserted but there appears to be a very definite intention with these banning of people who support violence and terrorism to also stop opposing political thinking.

So I don't have a problem with sites which are encouraging terrorism being shut down but I do have a problem with genuine dangerous sites being used as an excuse to ban opposing political thought which has nothing to do with encouraging violence and terrorism. For instance my internet provider would not let me on Max Blumenthal's site claiming it was a site which sold arms and encouraged some form of violence. They cleared it for me to go once I rang them up but clearly the hate site excuse is being used to stop people gaining contact to completely legit sites such as his.

 

They are symptoms of the same problem, and unless left and right join in unyielding support of free speech and free association, they will win.

 

The difference is that one is political and the other encouraging hate. Sorry but that is the case. We know that the man who did a terrorist attack on a mosque in the UK and the Australian who did same in New Zealand had been in contact with these sites or similar. In addition we know that extremist nationalists are talking and encouraging that kind of extremism on the web. You are not comparing like with like.

 

Well this news will certainly upset fascists. They might even be pushed further to the fringes.

Hang on, there aren't any fringes beyond being a fascist.

 

I support the prohibition of speech which advocates or threatens imminent lawless action. This does not include hatespeak.

If you read the NZ shooter's manifesto you'd know he is an accelerationist whose plan revolves around getting run of the mill conservatives and critics of political correctness run off mainsteam social media so they turn to 8chan and Gab and become radicalised.

I am not afraid of humiliating fascists in public discourse, as my ideas are so thoroughly superior to theirs. Indeed, I insist on having this opportunity.

Lastly, fascists are still humans, and as humans they have certain inalienable rights among these being the freedoms of speech and association. I will fight to the death for their rights in this regard, as I would for communists or anyone else.

 

The social media ought to ban far-Left groups as well; they're just as dangerous as the extreme Right, as Pinochet found out in Chile.

 

His manifesto was to get the response he wanted which I think you present. You are naive if you believe you have the ability to humiliate fascists. Basically what you are supporting is equivalent to Anjem Choudary - that is people who encourage others to do their dirty deeds. It goes a lot further than these sites. Probably a bit like banning ISIS sites. Now you can argue that you want to beat them intellectually. That would have done nothing to stop those who were vulnerable to their message being caught in their web. We are talking about hate sites which encourage violence. That you would fight to the death for their right to do this is interesting.

 

And the hallmark of fascism is to disallow free speech.

 

and of course the paradox of tolerance is that if the tolerant tolerate the intolerant it leads to the destruction of tolerance. This was particularly seen by the way liberal Germans tolerated Nazis thinking that eventually they would be able to get them to see the light. Tolerance has its limits as Popper recognised.

https://blootstellen.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/quoting-karl-poppers-the-paradox-of-tolerance/

 

I prefer to humiliate them in front of an audience than prohibit their speech and give them the allure that forbidden knowledge provides.

I have no problem with arresting those who advocate or threaten imminent lawless action.

It's anyone else whose rights I want to protect, no matter if I disagree with them or otherwise.

That you don't find human rights worth fighting for is interesting.

 

Sure there are, its called communism when the government goes from allowing a select few friends of their from owning businesses to making those people part of the government holding the business. Only those too ignorant to understand the difference between communism and fascism would think fascism is "right wing" and not just "right of communism", but its still left wing in the grand scheme of political leanings.

 

If you believe you can do this then you are not talking about the kind of sites which are being banned. Have you ever watched a Jew trying to explain their position at Stormfront. That would be you and you would be the one humiliated.

Here again you are showing a naivety. As I said I would compare those site to Anjem Choudray. You would not find him obviously promoting terrorism in any way which the law could catch but time after time there was his face beside those who did those attacks. You should also be aware that Generation Identity is holding Camps in Europe - I think Hungary is a favourite destination. These people begin somewhere, generally they are quite lonely people so they get a sense of belonging and that was what was discovered concerning Hungary's far right neo nazis. They often did not have the hatred when they joined but took on the ideas of their new friends who offered them comradeship. This is a very cultist activity. So back to generation Identity and their camps and other similar ones created by neo nazis. They are training people who could be the front line soldiers in attacks on Western Societies. I do not understand anyone supporting this unless it goes along with what they themselves want.

Seriously. I was having a conversation with someone the other day who believed in the right to commit humanitarian crimes. That you to? You are demanding the right of people who have already been seen to be complicit in the taking of the lives of others including a British Member of Parliament. For some reason you are choosing to turn a blind eye to this. Like I said I do not have a problem with hate sites and people encouraging terrorism being banned. I have already pointed out that tolerance of intolerance which is what we are talking about, destroys tolerance. I could think you are trying to trick me into destroying tolerance. I also made clear that where you get to banning anyone you need to take care that this is not abused and for instance people are not banned because they have a different political view.

 

If you think Stormers are capable of humiliating Jews then maybe we should place you on some sort of watch list.

If you advocate imminent lawless action you should be arrested. If you do not you should be left alone, even if you are on 4chan or Gab or a part of Generation Identity or indeed if you're a left wing identitiarian.

And I am willing to fight to the death to ensure this.

You seem the sort who believes in all these fake rights and dislikes the actual rights. To each their own, I above all support the right of all to have a homeland of their own.

We can coexist, but not in the same nation, it seems.

 

I was talking about Stormfront. I have seen this happening. You are sounding like you are threatening me.

Tough luck. You want to support people who supported the killing of a British MP and a terror attack on a British Mosque and you seem to believe Stormfront are not harsh enough on Jews. You have made your position clear. You are being disingenuous and clearly believe in supporting the extreme right

I am quite sure from this post that you would support killing me and my family to support terrorism and the killing of British MP's and of course Muslims..

 

Banning speech is fascist. When corporate oligarchs are given the power over our fundamental rights to speech, we know that we are no longer living in a society that values human rights.

FDR:

You want unaccountable billionaires to determine what ordinary people can say. What are the chances that those billionaires will ban speech that they believe will impact their profits negatively? It strikes me as ironic that FDR would have labelled your worldview as fascist.

 

I categorically oppose the initiation of force. If I would die to protect the human rights of fascists what makes you think I wouldn't do the same for you? I despise fascism. I do not despise your views to a similar level.

Moreover, the right to life is a very fundamental right, taking someone's life is worse than taking away their human right to free speech.

I do not support the far right in any way except in support for their having the same inalienable human rights as anyone else, as they are members of the human species and are not subhuman.

I am sorry that you have misinterpreted my post. That was not my intent.

 

Far left groups tend to encourage chaining themselves to fences as had just happened in London. They are more likely to fall asleep than cause violence

 

Which Facebook site in the UK has a group that advocates the murder of Donald Trump or Islaimc extremism? Have you reported them yet?

 

Resorting to censorship is simply an admission that one can't refute the ideas being presented.

 

Your approval of censorship of those who don't believe as you do is despicable. What are you afraid of?