[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Spoiler:

Interesting timing!

Spoiler:

"Dean Smith" might

Conspiracy theories just obscure the very simple truth. BBC has no power over facebook and vice versa, the idea that facebook might be retaliating against a BBC 'expose' that has no worldwide impact is fairly ridiculous. That Twitter user is reaching to absolve that prick of his own blame.

Originally Posted by Alf

If you was in control and capable of running your own life, then you wouldn't need people to censor other people for you.

It's as simple as just turning him off yourself. You can do it. But remember to defend his freedom at all costs. Because one day, there might be people in positions of power that don't agree with you, and will take away your freedoms, and who will defend you, when you don't want to defend freedom yourself?

You keep saying censorship, why? We've already established it's not censorship and you can pretend it isn't by ignoring the facts. He has not been censored, he has never been censored, neither or his fans understand the concept of censorship.

Peoople are allowed a negative opinion on him, free speech after all.

Also stop trying to make out that he's been targetted, he got warned multiple times and he still insisted on breaking the rules that he agreed to follow. He's not a martyr, he's not innocent, he's a prick that can't follow basic rules and nothing more. He only has himself to blame.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Conspiracy theories just obscure the very simple truth. BBC has no power over facebook and vice versa, the idea that facebook might be retaliating against a BBC 'expose' that has no worldwide impact is fairly ridiculous. That Twitter user is reaching to absolve that prick of his own blame.



You keep saying censorship, why? We've already established it's not censorship and you can pretend it isn't by ignoring the facts. He has not been censored, he has never been censored, neither or his fans understand the concept of censorship.

Peoople are allowed a negative opinion on him, free speech after all.

Also stop trying to make out that he's been targetted, he got warned multiple times and he still insisted on breaking the rules that he agreed to follow. He's not a martyr, he's not innocent, he's a prick that can't follow basic rules and nothing more. He only has himself to blame.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's not, I'm telling you it's 100% censorship.

And I'm gonna say that he didn't even post any of these comments, because if he had, they'd be available to see. It's more likely that some other person posted them in his comments section, if they were posted at all.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you can.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's not, I'm telling you it's 100% censorship.

And I'm gonna say that he didn't even post any of these comments, because if he had, they'd be available to see. It's more likely that some other person posted them in his comments section, if they were posted at all.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you can.

I've proved that the very idea of calling it censorship is plain wrong, you just believe that if you don't acknowledge that, then it's not true. You'll do the same for anything anyone provides to prove you wrong because you won't accept anything that goes against your world view no matter how factually true it is.

Facts are facts, this is not censorship.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've proved that the very idea of calling it censorship is plain wrong, you just believe that if you don't acknowledge that, then it's not true. You'll do the same for anything anyone provides to prove you wrong because you won't accept anything that goes against your world view no matter how factually true it is.

Facts are facts, this is not censorship.

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

For breaking the terms of the platforms service.

Do you call getting banned from TiBB for breaking the rules "censorship"?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

For breaking the terms of the platforms service.

Do you call getting banned from TiBB for breaking the rules "censorship"?

Ask James if I call that censorship, he'll tell you that I always do.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Ask James if I call that censorship, he'll tell you that I always do.

Well then you're wrong about that too.

Ridiculously so.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs

2. What you can share and do on Facebook

We want people to use Facebook to express themselves and to share content that is important to them, but not at the expense of the safety and well-being of others or the integrity of our community. You therefore agree not to engage in the conduct described below (or to facilitate or support others in doing so):

You may not use our Products to do or share anything:

That breaches these Terms, our Community Standards and other Terms and Policies that apply to your use of Facebook.

That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.

That infringes or breaches someone else's rights.

You may not upload viruses or malicious code, or do anything that could disable, overburden or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products.

You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data that you do not have permission to access.

We can remove content that you share in breach of these provisions and, if applicable, we may take action against your account.

The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";

12. Hate speech

We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.*

When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs



The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";



When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.

This, if he wanted to be on Facebook, maybe he should’ve adhered to the rules.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs



The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";



When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.

My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.

Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by Alf

My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.

Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.

A lot of it comes down to how many people push the report button though Alf......whether it is him or not actually posting if his page is reported they will remove it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.



Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.

It's irrelevant whether or not the apply the rules equally because, again, they're not providing a public service. They run a private business that they allow people to post in, in exchange for signing a document that says they can delete your content and remove your account as they see fit if you violate the terms and conditions. It doesn't mean they HAVE to, it just means they can, and if they choose not to apply the rules equally and fairly... that's entirely their business, too.

The irony is that believing that this should not be the case - that Facebook as a company should NOT be able to make that decision and that there should be rules on what they can and can't do with their site - is "Lefty-Liberal" thinking

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

You aren't right, you've shown yourself to be repeatedly wrong.

He was using someone else's platform and he misused it often and it was taken away from him because of his own actions. He can still air his views, they are his own but social media is a privately owned platform that's up to it's owners' discretion to set the rules.

Everyone has the right to an opinion but they don't have the right to use platforms that they don't own without terms and conditions in place. You are not entitled to use Facebook, it's not a human right. He has no been silenced, he just can't use Facebook because he misused it.

You do not understand what censorship is, that much is apparent. Tommy Robinson can still speak to his followers, he just can't do it on Facebook. His opinions have not been silenced and he has not been censored.

All this is just a silly convoluted attempt to absolve him of his own blame. It's dumb, I hate how his followers blame the world for his own mistakes although it's senseless to do so and takes leaps of logic to even force yourself to believe he's a victim.

He's a grown ass man responsible for handling his own ****, only children blame the world for their problems and if he's crying about being banned and calling it censorship then he is nothing but a huge manbaby crying about having to deal with the consequences of his own actions, he's pathetic.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You aren't right, you've shown yourself to be repeatedly wrong.

He was using someone else's platform and he misused it often and it was taken away from him because of his own actions. He can still air his views, they are his own but social media is a privately owned platform that's up to it's owners' discretion to set the rules.

Everyone has the right to an opinion but they don't have the right to use platforms that they don't own without terms and conditions in place. You are not entitled to use Facebook, it's not a human right. He has no been silenced, he just can't use Facebook because he misused it.

You do not understand what censorship is, that much is apparent. Tommy Robinson can still speak to his followers, he just can't do it on Facebook. His opinions have not been silenced and he has not been censored.

All this is just a silly convoluted attempt to absolve him of his own blame. It's dumb, I hate how his followers blame the world for his own mistakes although it's senseless to do so and takes leaps of logic to even force yourself to believe he's a victim.

He's a grown ass man responsible for handling his own ****, only children blame the world for their problems and if he's crying about being banned and calling it censorship then he is nothing but a huge manbaby crying about having to deal with the consequences of his own actions, he's pathetic.

So basically, Zuckerberg is king of the World? and he will control what people can and can't say?

I don't think he should have that responsibility and power.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

So basically, Zuckerberg is king of the World? and he will control what people can and can't say?

I don't think he should have that responsibility and power.

Your reading skills are very....interesting... if you got that from what I wrote. It takes a lot of imagination to disregard what you've read like that and come up with a load of bull**** in it's place.

Facebook isn't the be all and end all, it's one social network, one website. He can speak to thousands of people through other means, people did so before Facebook after all and they do so without facebook.

Robinson is free to say what he wants to say, his opinion is his own but he's not entitled to someone else's platform. When you rent a home or when an act books a stage, you abide by the owner's rules or you'll be thrown out of that home or off that stage. You don't have a right to it if you can't abide by the rules.

All you are doing here is spreading falsities and lies, He wasn't banned for his views or because of the BBC or any other bull****, he was banned because he broke the rules. You can either accept the facts or look foolish for denying reality.