Facebook: Criticism of Jews is Banned, Paedophiles are Allowed
Social media giant Facebook – which was almost exclusively founded by jews as I have previously documented – (1) has long been under a lot of pressure from left wing and/or jewish organisations to crack down and remove so-called ‘hate speech’ from their social network. (2)
The problem with this - as many others have noted - (3) is that so-called ‘hate speech’ cannot be objectively defined and is utterly subjective. Hence the (suicidal) desire of Facebook employees to remove former US President Donald Trump’s comments as ‘hate speech’ – which fortunately for his company Zuckerberg promptly reigned in – even though Trump’s commentary was pretty mild compared to much other conversation that takes place on the platform. (4)
To agree to remove so-called ‘hate speech’ inevitably means that interested parties are going to keep pressuring Facebook to remove content that they don’t wish people to see and consume.
Foremost among these interested parties have been governments, (5) left wing organisations (6) and jewish organisations. (7)
This has led to the Lilliputian situation where patriots and nationalists cannot post even mild content on Facebook without getting it removed as ‘hate speech’ and the associated accounts banned. (8)
Meanwhile pornographic pictures of children and paedophile rings that are reported to Facebook’s moderation team tend not to subject to anything like the same censure with only one in five images being taken down and the associated accounts banned. (9)
This has naturally led to people accusing Facebook of supporting paedophilia. (10)
This position is a bit extreme however much I would like for it to be true.
A good example of the problem is that content openly advocating that black men hunt down and kill White women has similarly been deemed not to be breach of rules against ‘hate speech’. (11)
The problem - as I have already mentioned - is that there is no objective way of defining or testing whether something is ‘hate speech’. The concept is vague and subjective at best as such then as the say goes: one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Since there is no way to make such a moderation system objective then it means that it comes down to the individual moderator to decide what is and what is not ‘hate speech’, which causes a vast disparity in decision-making because of personal biases and belief systems that inevitably affect the decision-making process. (12)
Thus any attempt to clamp down on ‘hate speech’ on Facebook is ultimately doomed to fail, because it fails to address the root cause of the problem. (13)
This problem is a lack of intellectual credibility compared to the material facts of existence as experienced by the vast majority of the population and thus the peddlers of schemes to ‘clamp down’ on ‘hate speech’ merely prove that their arguments cannot stand up to critical investigation without negative sanctions being threatened against potential heretics.
The populace at large tend to take note of such a situation.
References
(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-jewish-origins-of-facebook
(2) http://gizmodo.com/eu-to-facebook-and-twitter-crack-down-on-hate-speech-1789668384; http://www.theycant.com/single-post/2016/12/19/Germany-threatens-to-fine-Facebook-over-hate-speech; http://www.theycant.com/single-post/2016/08/28/%E2%80%9CKill-All-Jews-Now%E2%80%9D-is-an-Acceptable-Message-Facebook-Says; http://www.newantisemitism.com/antisemitism/no-hate-speech-on-facebook-unless-its-against-the-jews-of-course; https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-trump-hate-speech-censorship
(3) http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/17/banning-broadly-defined-hate-speech/id=70009/; http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/17/495827410/from-hate-speech-to-fake-news-the-content-crisis-facing-mark-zuckerberg; http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-muslim-hate-speech-facebook-a6774676.html
(4) https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-remove-trump-posts-as-hate-speech-1477075392; https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-trump-hate-speech-censorship; http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/21/13361908/facebook-employees-trump-ban-hate-speech; https://www.fastcompany.com/3054592/donald-trump-can-post-hate-speech-to-facebook-but-you-cant
(5) For example: http://www.theycant.com/single-post/2016/12/19/Germany-threatens-to-fine-Facebook-over-hate-speech
(6) For example: http://gizmodo.com/eu-to-facebook-and-twitter-crack-down-on-hate-speech-1789668384
(7) For example: https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/01/08/facebook-finally-caves-on-anti-israel-hate-pages/; https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/cst-challenges-web-giant-to-remove-hate-1.435435
(8) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-facebook-idUSKBN13228Y; http://inside-poland.com/t/polands-nationalist-nasties-prepare-to-battle-facebook-claiming-censorship-as-hate-pages-disappear/
(9) http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39187929; http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/09/15/08/facebook-reports-journalists-trying-to-expose-pedophile-ring; http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/07/facebook-reports-bbc-journalists-police-report-send-pedophile-posts/; https://www.socpedia.com/facebooks-content-moderation-system-criticized-pedophilic-image-sharing
(10) https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/25573-is-facebook-permitting-pedophilia-and-child-porn-on-its-platform
(11) http://www.patdollard.com/facebook-deems-hunt-kill-white-women-post-not-hate-speech/
(12) For a similar opinion see: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/17/banning-broadly-defined-hate-speech/id=70009/
(13) https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/charles-bradley/why-facebook-s-fake-news-filter-won-t-work