[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

Facebook and Twitter for a kick off.

Facebook and Twitter are not government bodies, they are privately owned platforms in which uses are granted access to if they accept a code of conduct.

If you agreed to rent a flat from someone and you disregarded the rules, could you blame the owner for throwing you out? No because you broke the rules you agreed to follow. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is not being censored, he can shout his views from the rooftops and no one can stop him doing so but they can remove him if he breaks the rules of the platform he is using.

To call it censorship is to misunderstand what censorship is in the first place. You are entitled to your views, you are entitled to share them but you aren't entitled to use a platform that you don't own if you can't follow the rules of that platform.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Facebook and Twitter are not government bodies, they are privately owned platforms in which uses are granted access to if they accept a code of conduct.

If you agreed to rent a flat from someone and you disregarded the rules, could you blame the owner for throwing you out? No because you broke the rules you agreed to follow. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is not being censored, he can shout his views from the rooftops and no one can stop him doing so but they can remove him if he breaks the rules of the platform he is using.

To call it censorship is to misunderstand what censorship is in the first place. You are entitled to your views, you are entitled to share them but you aren't entitled to use a platform that you don't own if you can't follow the rules of that platform.

They may have started as private companies, but they are now the biggest public square for debate.

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Yeah, which is why I said he doesn't have the right to a public platform for his free speech.

He is setting up their own Sites
so those that are loyal & follow him
will carry on.

[LeatherTrumpet]

He can use all the UKIP channels if he needs to

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

They may have started as private companies, but they are now the biggest public square for debate.

Wrong.

Social Media platforms were privately owned platforms when they're created and they are still privately own platforms now. None of us are entitled to use social media without limits, we all have to abide by a code of conduct we agreed to when we signed up. Nothing has changed and popularity of a platform doesn't change the facts.

Nobody is telling Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon that he can't have his own opinions, nobody is punishing him for having those views but that doesn't mean he can break the rules that he agreed to when he signed up to those websites. He is entitled to his views but he isn't entitled to use a platform that he doesn't own.

Trying to make out that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is being censored is just factually incorrect and by continuing to do so you are spreading misinformation.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i am sure he is devastated

Given that he's built literally his entire "political" career around Social Media-outrage and winding people up into a frenzy online... being banned from Social Media platforms does represent a bit of a problem for him.

[parmnion]

Good....makes more room for the paedos to work in....well done facebook, loving the stability.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Imagine if William Wilberforce had been censored from giving his opinions.

If people in positions of power need to censor other human beings, then they'd be my biggest concern, what do they have to hide?

He's not being censored, he was banned for breaking the terms of service on a website.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Good....makes more room for the paedos to work in....well done facebook, loving the stability.

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more .

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more .

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ge-and-gender/

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more .

i cant see it lasting too much longer its an awful platform, literally the worst useability one can imagine

dreadful technological dinosaur

[Underscore]

Great stuff

and can we also ban folk like Katie Hopkins at the same time

[LukeB]

Good news.

Banned from Australia and now facebook. good stuff

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Underscore

Great stuff

and can we also ban folk like Katie Hopkins at the same time

yes pls

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dia.

He's not being censored, he was banned for breaking the terms of service on a website.

The problem with that is that they're not consistent with this, and it looks, to the observing eye, that these rules are enforced by partisan political leanings.

[Elliot]

and yeah Facebook is 100% not used by younger people anymore. everyone from my high school, college and all my irl friends haven't posted on it in years lmfao its a wasteland filled with boomer memes

[Oliver_W]

While islam as an ideology is disgusting and should be kept away from the West, I don't think Robinson is the best advocate against it.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

While islam as an ideology is disgusting and should be kept away from the West, I don't think Robinson is the best advocate against it.

I just hope that more people have the courage to speak out against it and its hideous lies and ways and hopefully one day it will be eradicated in the UK

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

The problem with that is that they're not consistent with this, and it looks, to the observing eye, that these rules are enforced by partisan political leanings.

Based on what? He broke their guidelines and he got banned for it. You're just pulling out a political motivation out of nowhere to try and paint Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon as a victim when he made his own bed.

It wasn't censorship, it wasn't a targetted attack on him, he broke the rules he agreed to and got banned because of it.

This is no one's fault but his own.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Based on what? He broke their guidelines and he got banned for it. You're just pulling out a political motivation out of nowhere to try and paint Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon as a victim when he made his own bed.

It wasn't censorship, it wasn't a targetted attack on him, he broke the rules he agreed to and got banned because of it.

This is no one's fault but his own.

I bet I can go on there and break their guidelines and nothing will happen.

Now if that turned out true, would you then agree?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

I bet I can go on there and break their guidelines and nothing will happen.

Now if that turned out true, would you then agree?

You're basically asking "If the facts you have provided did not exist would you agree with me?"

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're basically asking "If the facts you have provided did not exist would you agree with me?"

You'd never make a good mind reader.

[AnnieK]

I've known people to get temporary bans on facebook for posting and sharing inappropriate content. It does happen. People report posts and if it breaks their rules they issue bans.

[parmnion]

I'm hoping the persons who wrote this stuff on tommy Robinson wall have been exposed and had thier facebook accounts removed....arista?

[Alf]

One day the gun could be turned on you. I'd hope someone would defend you.