[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.

[AnnieK]

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.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well then you're wrong about that too.

Ridiculously so.

And that's why they get away with censoring, because they rely on people like you to defend them

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So she's either off topic or completely misunderstands what's actually happening.

As do you, so you know, shut up.

Your rudeness and downright disregard for people's personal life is the only thing I understand clearly...pretty low and downright nasty imo.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Your rudeness and downright disregard for people's personal life is the only thing I understand clearly...pretty low and downright nasty imo.

The only person who's come in here and got rude and personal is you.

Spoiling for a fight again.

Count to 10. Breathe.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

And that's why they get away with censoring, because they rely on people like you to defend them

Who? James?

If you agree to, for example, not use swear words on a message board and then get blocked for saying "twat" you haven't been censored, you've broken a rule you agreed to follow to use a service/platform provided by someone else.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who? James?

If you agree to, for example, not use swear words on a message board and then get blocked for saying "twat" you haven't been censored, you've broken a rule you agreed to follow to use a service/platform provided by someone else.

When you get banned for a week for a telling a joke, it makes me think otherwise.

Stop defending the establishment, you're supposed to be one of us little people, get back on side.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

When you get banned for a week for a telling a joke, it makes me think otherwise.

Stop defending the establishment, you're supposed to be one of us little people, get back on side.

That's the point though. James isn't the establishment.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's the point though. James isn't the establishment.

He is in Tibb world.

[Northern Monkey]

Well,FB is a private company and can ban who they want.However they should stick to their own rules.
If it was Robinson that posted the comments then fair do’s.

If it was other people though then surely it’s them that should’ve got the ban hammer not him.

They may have just been looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to his reputation.It wouldn’t surprise me tbh.
Or maybe it was him that posted the racist stuff.That wouldn’t surprise me either.
Whoever it was that posted the incitment to violence definitely deserves to be banned without a doubt.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Well,FB is a private company and can ban who they want.However they should stick to their own rules.
If it was Robinson that posted the comments then fair do’s.

If it was other people though then surely it’s them that should’ve got the ban hammer not him.

They may have just been looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to his reputation.It wouldn’t surprise me tbh.
Or maybe it was him that posted the racist stuff.That wouldn’t surprise me either.
Whoever it was that posted the incitment to violence definitely deserves to be banned without a doubt.

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its content

[Alf]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its content

Well that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its content

So rather than having to do the work of sifting through thousands of posts themselves they basically pass the buck to the one person who may not have broke the rules personally.

Thing is.Within those accounts that replied there could be all kinds of white supremacists or would be terrorists etc.FB should be looking into the accounts that actually post the bad stuff and banning them.It seems lazy to do otherwise and not addressing the problem users.Surely if it’s their multi billion dollar site then it should be their job to clean it up.

[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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Alf

Well that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

True.

[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

Well that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

You seem to be confused, this isn't a personal account in which he's been targetted by trolls. This is his fan page, a group page that he is in charge of. Those kind of pages are ripe for deletion if they break the rules and it seems like Robinson was banned after receiving warnings about his own conduct as well. This came a month after a final warning, after all.

Group owners have a responsibility to make sure their groups follow the rules and act accordingly and according to what's been said, Tommy cultivated a lot of the rule breaks his pages incurred. He's a repeat offender and he wouldn't have been banned if it was a case of other people breaking the rules, at worst, his page might have been shut down but he'd be able to make another.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You seem to be confused, this isn't a personal account in which he's been targetted by trolls. This is his fan page, a group page that he is in charge of. Those kind of pages are ripe for deletion if they break the rules and it seems like Robinson was banned after receiving warnings about his own conduct as well. This came a month after a final warning, after all.

Group owners have a responsibility to make sure their groups follow the rules and act accordingly and according to what's been said, Tommy cultivated a lot of the rule breaks his pages incurred. He's a repeat offender and he wouldn't have been banned if it was a case of other people breaking the rules, at worst, his page might have been shut down but he'd be able to make another.

Freedom is miles more fun than all these oppressive rules.

But if it is as you say a fan page group, then that means that people must have joined it just so that they could pretend to be offended and try to get him censored. When if they don't like what he says, they were free to ignore him.

[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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

Freedom is miles more fun than all these oppressive rules.

But if it is as you say a fan page group, then that means that people must have joined it just so that they could pretend to be offended and try to get him censored. When if they don't like what he says, they were free to ignore him.

Robinson has the freedom to his views but both you and him are very self entitled to think that you have a god given right to misuse things that aren't yours.

Do you wander into people's houses and do what you want because you believe you are entitled to do so? No, because it's another person's property. Facebook essentially leases out a free page to it's members as long as it follows the rules.

You are not automatically entitled to use things that you don't own. If you or Tommy don't like it, create your own platform with whatever rules you please but you can't demand access without limits to things that aren't yours.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Robinson has the freedom to his views but both you and him are very self entitled to think that you have a god given right to misuse things that aren't yours.

Do you wander into people's houses and do what you want because you believe you are entitled to do so? No, because it's another person's property. Facebook essentially leases out a free page to it's members as long as it follows the rules.

You are not automatically entitled to use things that you don't own. If you or Tommy don't like it, create your own platform with whatever rules you please but you can't demand access without limits to things that aren't yours.

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World, things need to be changed. Because as I say, it looks like Zuckerberg is king of the World, with a monopoly on what people can and can't say.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World.

No, that would be Twitter. It's not 2010 Alf, Facebook died

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, that would be Twitter. It's not 2010 Alf, Facebook died

I did think that when I was typing. But you get my gist, so stop splitting hairs.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World, things need to be changed. Because as I say, it looks like Zuckerberg is king of the World, with a monopoly on what people can and can't say.

Wrong on all accounts, again.

Facebook does not have the monopoly on debate or discussion, Robinson has a youtube channel, he could use Twitch and other streaming sites to interact with fans. There are people who aren't active on facebook that have massive followings everywhere else. Facebook isn't the only place for discussion and you're just making out that it is to fuel a silly point about censorship which has been ripped to shreds by multiple people in this thread.

You keep trying to make this about censorship although you've been blown up by multiple people in this thread who has shredded the censorship argument completely and the freedom of speech argument doesn't pan out either since his opinion hasn't been forced to change, he hasn't been thrown in prison or deprived of his rights for his opinions. He's just been banned from using someone else's platform for breaking the rules too much.

There are plenty of far right leaning people on facebook who are more prominent than he is that are still on the platform because they don't break the rules, it's not an issue of freedom of speech or censorship, it's an issue of sticking to the rules.

What part of that are you struggling to understand?

[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