Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.
Meta said fascists should have their voices heard. Zuck's a coward, what a fucking surprise.
Trump recently threatened multiple times to jail zuck. I wouldn’t be suprised if that had an impact on this decision.
Zuck’s a coward, what a fucking surprise.
E: though tbf it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he's letting trump back on the platform because he wouldn't mind him winning. After all, trump is good for billionaires, there's no question about that..
And if he loses, ban him again for saying something malicious and appear to be doing diligence
Terrorism works I guess.
Meta is cancer that has metastasized
so that's what meta is short for
I hope they know they should hide Mark Zuckerberg’s grave, because that thing is going to be so vandalized when he goes. Ill be the first to take a huge messy shit on it.
You're assuming this country won't be blown up before that time. I doubt any of us poors will live to see the day these assholes die. I've always wanted to watch trump have an aneurysm while at his Hitler esk rallies. Sadly that probably won't happen.
We won't see it, but at least we will die with other people. They're going out just like those billionaires on the Titanic sub - alone in a hostile environment, scared, banking stupidly on their own hubris instead of science.
The worst of our generation. Like the single worst person from Millennials by a long shot.
Hey, it is rude to shit in a urinal!
Thermite. Ensure that his body gets destroyed
Don’t deny future generations an opportunity. Mummify him and stick the mummy in a pillory.
Seal the neck with fire
That makes sense. It's hard to foment an insurrection or race massacre when most of your loyal soldiers don't use Truth Social.
Also, it doesn't make sense to give him tons of money ands then restrict him on your website at the same time too.
A few days after trump threated to arrest zuck after the election? What a surprise
at this point, the people who STILL support trump are going to vote for him regardless. all this accomplishes is giving him another outlet to spew ridiculous bullshit that demonstrates his idiocy and/or incriminates himself
there are still undecided voters and/or unmotivated voters.
sorry, if someone's trying to claim they're "on the fence" about whether to vote for trump or biden, then they just don't want to say out loud that they're voting for trump because they know they'll be (rightly) ridiculed by whoever's in earshot
unless they know they're surrounded by troompa loompas. in which case all of a sudden that "on the fence" bullshit goes out the window
Ok, but that's my point. The more campaigning those people hear from Trump, the more likely that they feel that they're right and they should go out for Trump. Also, I think there are people who are undecided nonetheless.
Which allows him to mobilize and weaponize their idiocy. ¡No bueno muchachos!
Yep his poll numbers went up after he was originally banned. Could be a coincidence, but it does make sense.
I'm sure this time he will respect the rules.
Oh wow what terrible timing
Gotta let a traitor be traitorous because the country might decide we want to overthrow the country again...
I'm pretty sure 'the country' decided against overthrowing 'the country'. The Minority Against Governing in America was largely rebuffed. Though I'm deeply concerned that they have not stopped planning their insurrection, and will try again.
"3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/3-years-jan-6-numbers-1200-charged-460/story?id=106140326
It took the Nazis two tries as well.
And this is why I'm glad I quit using this shit website three years ago.
Why now? Idiots.
“All I can say is that if I’m elected President, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time,” Trump wrote. “We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”
At the very least, even if Zuck isn't the best example, it's worth considering that the further conservatives descend into fascism, the more we'll see people take the easier option of not resisting.
$$$
Meta said it had a responsibility to allow political expression and that Americans should be able to hear from presidential nominees on an equal basis.
I hate to say it, but they're right. They can't silence one of the two candidates for the presidency.
Yes they can. They are a private corporate and can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't target a protected class, and it doesn't.
And in particular, they didn't silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.
The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other. There are very strong arguments that insisting on "no political discussion" is an inherently conservative stance, but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.
And the US Government has made it clear that they don't consider a violent insurrection to be treason. So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?
The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other.
And the US Government has made it clear that they don’t consider a violent insurrection to be treason.
No they didn't. They prosecuted a LOT of people for that.
So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?
That's the reason. Fuck Facebook's own rules, they are trying to mitigate an attack by a fascist dictator.
The problem is that it fundamentally makes them a political org to choose one side over the other
Yes. They have once again sided against their own rules and the law in favor of unlimited disinformation and calls for violence.
NOT because they're taking a stand against unfair censorship. The real reason is that his stochastic terrorism breeds TONS of engagement and thus advertising income and marketable data.
but by allowing one candidate to speak but the other to not they are implicitly supporting the former.
That would have been true if either both or neither had exhibited a pattern of blatant contempt for the rules of the platform. Since only one did that, it's preferential treatment to NOT kick him off permanently.
And the US Government has made it clear that they don't consider a violent insurrection to be treason
Prosecutors sacrifying full justice and accuracy in exchange for an easier path to conviction isn't the US government making anything clear.
So why should facebook go to bat and make themselves an even bigger target come January?
Because aiding and abetting a fascist uprising by voiding the rules that everyone else has to abide by isn't an admirable or even acceptable thing to do.
And in particular, they didn’t silence him because of politics, but because he was conspiring with insurrectionists. Active treason. Stochastic terrorism.
Has he been convicted of that? We can all wring our hands as much as we want, and god knows I'm not a Trump supporter, but Facebook are not going to embroil themselves into a legal battle over this.
Facebook does not have nearly as high a burden of proof as a court of law.
Facebook most likely has a far larger budget for their legal team, too. I don't think they'd be worried about a lawsuit.
He’s been convicted in the court of public opinion. Facebook doesn’t need to wait for a court to bar him from their platform.
I would say that staging a coup definitively breaks the TOS.
Imagine piping up to defend the non-existent "right" of a self declared fascist to spew his lies. 🤯
Careful not to choke on that boot...
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.