Social Fakebook sanctions violent threats against "dangerous individuals"?

[WhiteMousse]

Your av is so perfect with your posts. A powerless man who thinks he's a superhero sitting alone and drinking his bitterness away.

"Who the fuck does zuckercom think he is?" Lol. He's the owner of Facebook and one of the richest men in the world and he isn't even 40 yet. I imagine that's who he thinks he is.

Anyway, I think it's a reasonable policy for the reasons @Trotsky stated, though given how left-leaning fb is, I imagine this will result in a lot of sanctioned abuse of conservatives.

Which I think I'm okay with at this current political moment. During Obama, liberals were outta control and I was generally okay with them being persecuted for their overreach. Under Donald, many conservatives are acting similarly foolishly. Getting chased off of free, optional social platforms is a pretty fair consequence for being an asshole.

What the hell man, is this really necessary?

 

[Leagon]

What the hell man, is this really necessary?

Not really, no.

 

[nostradumbass]

You said "Who the fuck does he think he is?" like some poorly written cop from an 80s action movie. Not only is it a corny thing to say, but you're saying it about one of the most famous, powerful, and wealthy men in the world on an issue pertaining to his own creation. It's not like Mark Zuckerberg invaded Somalia. Or started a clothing line for pregnant women. He's making policy for his own website. It's literally his job, lol.

How is this hard to understand? Nobody is going to care that their facebook account is still in good standing if they've been turned in for making credible threats to harm people, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise to even add this vague caveat.

 

[nostradumbass]

What the hell man, is this really necessary?

It's another angry guy on the karate forum who jump to ad homs on strangers . There are a handful of them. You can even tell from a few posts later how he read my first post mocking the silliness of Zuckenberg thinking people care about a trap door to save their facebook account after they've broken the law. I posted it waiting to check out at whole foods, and he hears "poorly written cop in an 80s action movie", whatever that means.

 

[SleepyBoy]

This is a really strange move when i think about it.
What was their official policy before this update?
Why put this in writing when you can just defacto enforce?
The potential for abuse and maleficence is huge!!

 

[tonni]

I'm guessing they mean persons like Osama Bin Laden and groups like ISIS.

I mean....can we guess who would be the first people to cry and make a Sherdog thread if someone got banned for saying "die, ISIS!!!" The whining about liberal corporations being cucked by Islamic extremists would be heard for miles.

Am I the only one who read the community standards linked above? It says this:

Do not post:
Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:

• 
  Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
  Calls for high-severity violence including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament to represent violence; or
  Statements advocating for high-severity violence; or
  Aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence

 

[Rational Poster]

Imagine caring about Facebook's moderation.

 

[Starman]

Not that this couldn't happen because facebook moderation is outsourced shit... but this looks super fake. A screenshot alone should not mean shit considering how much of this crap that gets circled in right wing community is trolling or just outright fake agitprop. This is also at least 2 years old.

The screenshot is from Facebook, and the link to their page where you can find it is in the original post. Tell me again how it looks "super fake", nimrod.

And no, this isn't two years old. It's one day old.

That said, I reckon the blowback hasn't been good, and/or one of Suckerberg's lawyers educated the idiots at Fakebook, because they've updated the Community Standards again since my initial post, and...

Am I the only one who read the community standards linked above? It says this:

Do not post:
Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:

• 
  Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
  Calls for high-severity violence including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament to represent violence; or
  Statements advocating for high-severity violence; or
  Aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence

I'm guessing someone from Suckerberg's legal department got in touch with the idiots at Fakebook responsible for this, because the community standards guidelines have been updated again since my initial post, where they have wisely removed the phrase "Do not post: Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)."

Thankfully there were enough honest journalists left in the word who actually covered this and recorded it for posterity:

Facebook Sanctions Violent Threats Against ‘Dangerous Individuals’
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...iolent-threats-against-dangerous-individuals/

Judge, jury & executioner: Facebook policy permits death threats against ‘dangerous individuals’
https://www.rt.com/news/463796-facebook-allows-death-threats-watson/

New Facebook Policy Normalizes, Approves Death Threats Against Banned “Dangerous” Conservatives
https://lauraloomer.us/2019/07/09/n...-banned-dangerous-conservatives/#.XSYjSuhKhPY

Facebook Prohibits Death Threats For Everyone Except ‘Individuals’ Media Deems Dangerous
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/10/facebook-death-threats-policy/

Facebook Issues New Policy Saying It’s Acceptable to Post Death Threats Against Me
https://summit.news/2019/07/09/face...acceptable-to-issue-death-threats-against-me/

 

[TUFNewb]

The screenshot is from Facebook, and the link to their page where you can find it is in the original post. Tell me again how it looks "super fake", nimrod.

I'm not saying that crazy idiots don't threaten PJW, but those particular ones where it goes from semi incoherent violent mess to the exact same quran quote seem fishy to me.

It takes a skeptical mind to catch these things, unfortunately you guys are gullible and so very simple (fortunate for the trolls and grifters tho).

The threats are from 2017 btw.
Screenshots can be faked btw.

 

[K-Bag]

Your av is so perfect with your posts. A powerless man who thinks he's a superhero sitting alone and drinking his bitterness away.

"Who the fuck does zuckercom think he is?" Lol. He's the owner of Facebook and one of the richest men in the world and he isn't even 40 yet. I imagine that's who he thinks he is.

Anyway, I think it's a reasonable policy for the reasons @Trotsky stated, though given how left-leaning fb is, I imagine this will result in a lot of sanctioned abuse of conservatives.

Which I think I'm okay with at this current political moment. During Obama, liberals were outta control and I was generally okay with them being persecuted for their overreach. Under Donald, many conservatives are acting similarly foolishly. Getting chased off of free, optional social platforms is a pretty fair consequence for being an asshole.

You sound triggered.

 

[Starman]

I'm not saying that crazy idiots don't threaten PJW, but those particular ones where it goes from semi incoherent violent mess to the exact same quran quote seem fishy to me.

It takes a skeptical mind to catch these things, unfortunately you guys are gullible and so very simple (fortunate for the trolls and grifters tho).

The threats are from 2017 btw.
Screenshots can be faked btw.

The threats to Paul Joseph Watson weren't the point of the post, nimrod. The point of the post was Fakebook's policy, as of 7/9/2019, of allowing users to threaten violence against people it considered "dangerous."

The example of Paul Joseph Watson was just that -- an example.

 

[TUFNewb]

The threats to Paul Joseph Watson weren't the point of the post, nimrod. The point of the post was Fakebook's policy, as of 7/9/2019, of allowing users to threaten violence against people it considered "dangerous."

The example of Paul Joseph Watson was just that -- an example.

It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the policy existed because they found it unreasonable and unrealistic to remove every threat against a high profile offender. Go look under the comments of any article relating to a child sex crime or terror attack and count the "threats".

What a stretch to link that policy to the lack of quality of moderation shown by those "screenshots". Facebook moderation is notoriously bad because they outsource it to India to people who have poor english reading skills. They constantly miss obvious policy offenses, while acting on totally harmless stuff.

You are a clueless idiot if you think that the people actually looking at those reports give a fuck who Paul Joseph Watson is. You morons actually think liberal facebook executives are looking over and directing the moderators to look the other way from abuse reports in order to fuck with your conservative grifter heros eh? Lmao.

 

[Starman]

It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the policy existed because they found it unreasonable and unrealistic to remove every threat against a high profile offender. Go look under the comments of any article relating to a child sex crime or terror attack and count the "threats".

You are suggesting that the policy was put in place because they thought they couldn't police violent threats, and yet they still have a policy in place to police violent threats.

Think real hard about that, dipshit.

What a stretch to link that policy to the lack of quality of moderation shown by those "screenshots". Facebook moderation is notoriously bad because they outsource it to India to people who have poor english reading skills. They constantly miss obvious policy offenses, while acting on totally harmless stuff.

Why are they policing threats of violence at all, nimrod? Your former claims are contradicted by your latter claims. Pick a side and stick to it.

You are a clueless idiot if you think that the people actually looking at those reports give a fuck who Paul Joseph Watson is. You morons actually think liberal facebook executives are looking over and directing the moderators to look the other way from abuse reports in order to fuck with your conservative grifter heros eh? Lmao.

I didn't say anything about liberals or conservatives, dipshit. I simply pointed out that violence against certain people was expressly condoned by their policies.

Your only argument was, derp, who cares about Paul Joseph Watson, dude! Derp derp.

Your fixation on a throwaway example instead of the crux of the problem speaks volumes about your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension, not to mention your "derp, you know people can fake screenshots, dude" claim. Unless you think someone hacked facebook just to update their user policy, and/or multiple independent news sources suddenly came together and conspired to make multiple fake screenshots of said update, then your claim will stay in the trash where it (and you) belong.

 

[badascan]

threats are for the weak... being "allowed" to threaten some arbitrarily defined group but not others is potentially dangerous. It's just another way for facebook to try to shape the narrative...

 

[Bald1]

"Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy).""

Dangerous precedent. Especially as I think Communists, those advocating for a nanny state or public enforced censorship are more dangerous than overt assholes such as racists or Antifa. No bueno.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I imagine this will result in a lot of sanctioned abuse of conservatives.

Which I think I'm okay with at this current political moment.

Everyone imagines this same result. A little less than half of the political spectrum shares your tolerance of that result.

 

[panamaican]

Completely fake. I just went to the website directly and it doesn't say that at all.

 

[panamaican]

The screenshot is from Facebook, and the link to their page where you can find it is in the original post. Tell me again how it looks "super fake", nimrod.

And no, this isn't two years old. It's one day old.

That said, I reckon the blowback hasn't been good, and/or one of Suckerberg's lawyers educated the idiots at Fakebook, because they've updated the Community Standards again since my initial post, and...



I'm guessing someone from Suckerberg's legal department got in touch with the idiots at Fakebook responsible for this, because the community standards guidelines have been updated again since my initial post, where they have wisely removed the phrase "Do not post: Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy)."

Thankfully there were enough honest journalists left in the word who actually covered this and recorded it for posterity:

Facebook Sanctions Violent Threats Against ‘Dangerous Individuals’
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...iolent-threats-against-dangerous-individuals/

Judge, jury & executioner: Facebook policy permits death threats against ‘dangerous individuals’
https://www.rt.com/news/463796-facebook-allows-death-threats-watson/

New Facebook Policy Normalizes, Approves Death Threats Against Banned “Dangerous” Conservatives
https://lauraloomer.us/2019/07/09/n...-banned-dangerous-conservatives/#.XSYjSuhKhPY

Facebook Prohibits Death Threats For Everyone Except ‘Individuals’ Media Deems Dangerous
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/10/facebook-death-threats-policy/

Facebook Issues New Policy Saying It’s Acceptable to Post Death Threats Against Me
https://summit.news/2019/07/09/face...acceptable-to-issue-death-threats-against-me/

All of those links are from the types of sites that wouldn't check the screen shot before they wrote a story about.

More specifically, the originator of the story and the image appears to be someone who Facebook previously banned from using the site.

 

[Starman]

All of those links are from the types of sites that wouldn't check the screen shot before they wrote a story about.

More specifically, the originator of the story and the image appears to be someone who Facebook previously banned from using the site.

That is an opinion not based in fact. Furthermore, it was not the same screenshot. Each screenshot was captured independently.

If you had clicked on the link to Facebook’s official community standards page, you would have been able to verify for yourself that the story being reported by multiple outlets was true.

Let me guess, this is just a vast rightwing conspiracy to besmirch the outstanding reputation of Mark Suckerberg and the other apolitical, down the middle staff at the always politically neutral Facebook. Correct?

 

[Starman]

Completely fake. I just went to the website directly and it doesn't say that at all.

Because they’ve updated it again and removed/reworded the entries in question. I already commented on this. If you had gone there earlier you would have seen the unaltered guidelines.

Let me guess, I am part of this vast, right wing conspiracy as well, right?