On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:32 AM lloydwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <lloydwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps, if you're all proud of getting banned from Facebook, you might want to consider how you communicate more generally?
The OP in question was a newspaper report that a group of seditionists are planning an armed occupation of a federal property. It is my opinion that if someone is carrying an AK47 and is threatening to use it to shoot police, they should be treated as terrorists and lethal force is justified.
I really don't consider calling an armed uprising 'terrorism' to be hate speech or consider suggesting that people threatening to murder police and the military should be shot without remorse is hate speech.
Dean says a lot that is hyberbolic. I was merely pointing out that the US should respond to an armed protest in the exact same way that I would expect the UK police to deal with a similar situation.
I will also note that this process board that Facebook is now hiding behind has only been called to decide the case of one white male bigot and that after he was allowed to spew hate for over four years. Other people have been banned for life with absolutely no process. There was a purge of left wing accounts before the 2020 November election which attracted little comment. Only when a racist bigot was banned was a board invented to hide behind.
What we have here is the predictable result of a company that failed to take moderation seriously and is now desperately throwing technology at a problem rather than fixing the core problem that they designed their environment to maximize conflict because that was most profitable for them.
