Social Fakebook sanctions violent threats against "dangerous individuals"?

[Starman]

For anyone doubting this story, you can still see the unaltered policy using the Wayback Machine’s earliest archive for today using the link I provided in the OP.

Here is the link for the intellectually dishonest leftists polluting this forum:

https://web.archive.org/web/2019071...ook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence/

Click on it soon, the archived screenshots are being removed already.

 

[PHATV]

Then it would be unlike the WR, where you can catch dubs by calling for mobs of masked antifa terrorists attacking innocents and destroying property to be shot. Assuming antifa makes their list, I guess. Wait, they're not on the list? Oh...

 

[PHATV]

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

This. I cannot like, but do.

 

[Leagon]

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.

Look at your av. Say "who the fuck does he think he is?" in yoyr head as superman pours the drink. You can't tell me it doesn't fit.

I don't disagree with you about Zuck, I was just making fun of your post and av. Your handle is "nostradumbass" and you have that av and say things like "who the fuck does he think he is?" about famous billionaires. It's all v

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

True, but both sides are kinda hypocrites on this.

In schools around the country, children get cyberbullied all the time and it is the Left that has been pushing for legislation to criminalize everything from social media harassment to revenge porn. But they're fine with conservatives getting flamed.

One the other hand, conservatives have shown little sympathy for children traumatized by cyberbullying, calling them snowflakes, telling them to simply log off social media if they don't want to be bullied. But then they cry and bitch and moan when Mark Zuckerberg doesn't defend their honor.

I'm at least consistent. It's not Mark Zuckerberg's job to protect anyone's emotions. If the internet is too harsh for anyone, especially adults, they're free to not use it.

 

[sangreporsangre]

I guarantee you that this will be used to justify unhinged trans activists threatening rape and violence to "TERFs", aka women who believe in biological reality and who want sex-based boundaries.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

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

Do you honestly think this won't grow from 'extremist groups' to entire political parties?

 

[ElKarlo]

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.

And yet here we are not talking about that. We're talking about what this actually means and if it just means people "who deserve it". Your whataboutism syndrome has hit retarded levels. Get with it and stop botching about things that aren't actually happening. And even if they did, there's a difference between wishing death on terrorist leaders and Alex Jones. Even someone as obnoxious and deep into denial alcan admit that

 

[Richie Madano]

Why would anyone but middle aged moms have that shit to begin with?
Fucking facebook...

If you are on someone’s contact list who has a Facebook profile and accessed it with a smartphone Facebook app, then you may also have FB profile you are unaware of.

Not sure if that rumor is true but I heard they make dummy accounts for people without profiles.

 

[tonni]

Here is the link for the intellectually dishonest leftists polluting this forum:

What's with the attitude? We checked for ourselves, it doesn't say that in the community guidelines. Those are facts, anyone can check it.

It does look like it was there at one point, but it's changed so I don't see the big deal.

 

[Starman]

Do you honestly think this won't grow from 'extremist groups' to entire political parties?

It already has. As I mentioned earlier, Fakebook’s dangerous individuals list already includes people like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Tommy Robinson, Mike Cernovich, and other anti-leftist members of non-establishment media.

The idea that all this was somehow done just so that Fakebook users could say something bad about terrorists is just leftists running interference as usual.

The social media giants and most of Silicon Valley have taken a very hard left turn since Trump won. They are on record saying 2016 must never happen again. They have said they will do everything in their power to stop it. And that’s exactly what they are doing.

Every leftist on this site has reacted to this as predictably as we could all expect. Derp! Fake Newz, bruh. LOLZ. (Proven wrong). Derp! Big deal, bruh. Yer so triggered, snowflake. LULZ.

 

[Starman]

Honest journalists (almost an oxymoron at this point) starting to report Fakebook’s stealth editing yesterday:

https://lauraloomer.us/2019/07/10/b...s-against-dangerous-individuals/#.XScPp8opChA

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...lls-to-violence-against-dangerous-individuals

The Google search results on this topic are complete shit, and the mainstream media is of course predictably silent. Who would think that, in this day and age, a social media platform could declare open season on certain individuals, openly endorsing calls of violence, and no one would bat an eye.

 

[ocfightfan]

In the end Facebook wants to make billions of dollars off our data and give their preferred political and social actors a free hand for putting their boot on our faces while keeping our hands tied behind our back. They are not in the fairness business.

 

[BearGrounds]

Dangerous individuals -------------> Dissenters.

 

[panamaican]

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?

Actually, it's a fact. It's stated as such in your own links. The origin of the story and the screen shot came from some guy who was banned from Facebook and is formerly an employee of Alex Jones. That's where I learned it. All of your other links link back to the same original story, not to Facebook itself.

And I did check Facebook's official standards page. It's not true.

But I didn't go through your link. I went directly to Facebook's webpage to get there.

 

[Starman]

Actually, it's a fact. It's stated as such in your own links. The origin of the story and the screen shot came from some guy who was banned from Facebook and is formerly an employee of Alex Jones. That's where I learned it. All of your other links link back to the same original story, not to Facebook itself.

And I did check Facebook's official standards page. It's not true.

But I didn't go through your link. I went directly to Facebook's webpage to get there.

What is a fact is that they published the guidelines exactly as it was reported by multiple independent news sources. If you weren't a partisan leftist just seeking to push a narrative, you'd click on the archived links to the facebook policy before they altered it yesterday.

I gave you the link. You can verify it for yourself if you think my screenshot is fake.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Then it would be unlike the WR, where you can catch dubs by calling for mobs of masked antifa terrorists attacking innocents and destroying property to be shot. Assuming antifa makes their list, I guess. Wait, they're not on the list? Oh...

It's official, Sherdog has a higher level of responsibility and accountability then facebook.

Let that sink, facebook is lower than the OT or the dump.

 

[panamaican]

What is a fact is that they published the guidelines exactly as it was reported by multiple independent news sources. If you weren't a partisan leftist just seeking to push a narrative, you'd click on the archived links to the facebook policy before they altered it yesterday.

I gave you the link. You can verify it for yourself if you think my screenshot is fake.

It was reported by a bunch of sites that don't appear to have done their own look into it. If you google the story, the closest you find to a decent site is rt, breitbart and dailycaller. And the only source provided is as I stated.

i'll pull my own link to the archived facebook site. I haven't looked at that.

 

[Starman]

It was reported by a bunch of sites that don't appear to have done their own look into it. If you google the story, the closest you find to a decent site is rt, breitbart and dailycaller. And the only source provided is as I stated.

i'll pull my own link to the archived facebook site. I haven't looked at that.

The only one who hasn't "looked into it" is you. The websites got the information right. Their screenshots are real. I went to Facebook and verified it myself. I posted the results. And when they changed it, I posted the archived link where you could find their policy before they edited it.

You keep talking how no one "appears to have done their own look into it", and yet you admit you haven't looked into it yourself. How dare you accuse others of having not researched it? They have, they're right. You haven't, and you're wrong.

Do your own research before you make another post about this topic. Your refusal to do so makes you look intellectually dishonest.

 

[panamaican]

The only one who hasn't "looked into it" is you. The websites got the information right. Their screenshots are real. I went to Facebook and verified it myself. I posted the results. And when they changed it, I posted the archived link where you could find their policy before they edited it.

You keep talking how no one "appears to have done their own look into it", and yet you admit you haven't looked into it yourself. How dare you accuse others of having not researched it? They have, they're right. You haven't, and you're wrong.

Do your own research before you make another post about this topic. Your refusal to do so makes you look intellectually dishonest.

You mean, no legitimate website, including Fox News, is supporting this story but random sites which are consistently poor sources are. I doubt you went to facebook and verified anything.

I followed your link. It's not to the US version of the site, it's written in Portuguese. I'm waiting for the U.S. version to load.

If it was as you claim - why is your wayback link not to the U.S. language site? Why isn't anyone except fringe sites reporting this story?

 

[Starman]

You mean, no legitimate website, including Fox News, is supporting this story but random sites which are consistently poor sources are. I doubt you went to facebook and verified anything.

I followed your link. It's not to the US version of the site, it's written in Portuguese. I'm waiting for the U.S. version to load.

If it was as you claim - why is your wayback link not to the U.S. language site? Why isn't anyone except fringe sites reporting this story?

It is in English. What are you on about? I posted the link, and a screen shot of the page after clicking on the link. Did you not see my screen shot, or do you think that is fake too?

EDIT: As of right now, the link I provided still takes you to Facebook's page, and it is in English.

https://web.archive.org/web/2019071...ook.com/communitystandards/credible_violence/

Can we get someone else in here to click on the link and verify it for us? Our senior moderator is having some technical difficulties at the moment, apparently.