Facebook was only interested in shutting down the speech of dissenters from the Leftist agenda, not Islamic jihadis.
“Facebook allowed photos of beheadings and violent hate speech from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as ‘insightful’ and ‘engaging’ – despite claims to crack down on extremists, report reveals,” by Jonathan Chadwick, MailOnline, December 21, 2021:
Facebook allowed photos of beheadings and violent hate speech from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as ‘insightful’ and ‘engaging’, a new report reveals.
Extremists have turned to the social media platform as a weapon ‘to promote their hate-filled agenda and rally supporters’ on hundreds of groups, according to the review of activity between April and December this year.
These groups have sprouted up across the platform over the last 18 months and vary in size from a few hundred to tens of thousands of members, the review found.
One pro-Taliban group created in spring this year and had grown to 107,000 members before it was deleted, the review, published by Politico, claims.
Overall, extremist content is ‘routinely getting through the net’, despite claims from Meta – the company that owns Facebook – that it’s cracking down on extremists.
‘We do not allow individuals or organisations involved in organised crime, including those designated by the US government as specially designated narcotics trafficking kingpins (SDNTKs); hate; or terrorism, including entities designated by the US government as foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs) or specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs), to have a presence on the platform. We also don’t allow other people to represent these entities.
‘We do not allow leaders or prominent members of these organisations to have a presence on the platform, symbols that represent them to be used on the platform or content that praises them or their acts. In addition, we remove any coordination of substantive support for these individuals and organisations.’
The groups were discovered by Moustafa Ayad, an executive director at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that tracks online extremism….
Wellington says
Certainly America, and really all of the West, would have been much better off if Facebook (Farcebook?, Fascistbook?) had never been invented.
Zuckerberg is an extremely rich negative which the world would have been far better off without in the first place, except in the sole sense of possibly learning what not to emulate in the future. But since mankind rarely learns, I wish this enormously rich nothing had never existed at all.
Really? Does anyone of sense and knowledge care to explain how Facebook has, in the final analysis, been a benefit to mankind? I see its negatives as almost infinitely outweighing any positives it has had. Would welcome any response about this.
Westman says
Zuckerberg recently admitted that Facebook user sanctions were mostly, “opinion”.
Frankly, I think all of these tech media giants pose a danger to democracy. They may be more powerful than government in the “persuasion” of the citizens. They are quite proud of their influence and gate-keeping during the last election. Nerds tripping on power.
The latest monopolistic trend is to partner with important businesses, providing logon control and “Google Analytics” in exchange for scraping off user information. We citizene are their lab rats on whom they have more information than does government.
When Twitter removed a former President’s access to the citizens it stepped into the role of Banana Republic communications. YouTube is currently controlling info about Covid, subverting the First Ammendment.
What’s next, some “private” citizen rating system like China except with no government input?
The politicians better wake up before they are nullified. Of course government could partner with them and have a, “private”, “Ministry Of Information”. Orwell was prescient.
mortimer says
Facebook thereby shows its complicity in the RED-GREEN AXIS OF EVIL with its totalitarian partner.
Islam commands its followers to ‘TERRORIZE’ (turhibunna – Koran 8.60) the enemies of Allah and Mohammed.
The litmus test of whether one is a ‘good’ Muslim (according to Mohammed is whether the KAFIRS fear the Muslims. Allah considers Muslims who are not feared to be no better than ‘rubbish’ to be swept away:
“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” – Abu Dawud 4284
Who are they at FACEBOOK to disagree with Mohammed and Allah?
That would be blasphemous of Facebook … wouldn’t it?
somehistory says
Is fb not the business which was sued and said it was all just “opinion”?
Or am I mistaken and it was the twit?
It just matters to the ones deciding what is “good” and what is “misinformation’ and “bad.” They allow themselves to lie and publish content that would actually violate their “terms” if they had any integrity.
“Woe to those who put bad for good, darkness for light, and bitter for sweet (Isaiah).”
mortimer says
The panel of biased, Globalist judges at Facebook decide what is politically correct … this week … for it will inevitably change next week.
Facebook is like a card cheat who plays with a marked deck and always wins.
gravenimage says
Facebook allowed photos of beheadings from ISIS and the Taliban to be tagged as ‘insightful’ and ‘engaging’
…………….
Good god–this sort of thing keeps happening. And if Facebook simply had a policy of letting anything be posted it would be different–but they regularly go after anyone mentioning anything critical of Islam, including this kind of murderous savagery from ISIS.
john smith says
So true Gravenimage, any criticism of islam and they close you down straight away. Look what happened with Paul Golding and his party Britain’s First, and even Trump, just to name a few.
But what really annoys me with facebook is, they allow sites such as “Death to America”and “Death to Israel” to operate with impunity. After many complaints about this, “they concluded they did not violate their community standards.”
Now imagine trying to open a site “Death to Iran”, that would be different, because that certainly would violate their standards.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, John.
Keith O says
Interesting how an organisation owned by a Jew allows Jihadi content and calls for the extermination of all Jews.
What the hell is Suckarseburgs game?
Westman says
He is about as religious as a rock, being, “The smartest Man In the Room”, who screwed over his early business partners. This is a problem with bright people becoming wealthy before becoming mature through real sacrifice.
Unfortunately, Muslims can point to him and say, “See, the Quran is right about Jews”.
Keith O says
Yup, greed over rides any religious beliefs. Only have to look at the Saudi royal family.
James Lincoln says
Westman says,
“This is a problem with bright people becoming wealthy before becoming mature through real sacrifice.”
Very true.
I remember when I was in my late teens / early 20s I thought that one of the best things that could happen to me would be to win a mega lottery.
I was wrong.
Looking back, I would have been too young and immature to handle it.
mortimer says
Z is a spoiled whiz kid on a power trip. He’s a Soros of the internet … a megalomaniac.
gravenimage says
There are also Gentiles doing the same.
VICTOR COWEN says
Simple, Zuckerberg and his crew are common criminals.
mortimer says
They hate the First Amendment.
mortimer says
When Facebook is in bed with Islamic terrorists … what is the moral philosophy of Zuckerberg?
How can Zuckerberg be so naive?
VICTOR COWEN says
Gates, Zuckerberg et al are common criminals I rid myself of ALL of them well over 10 years ago. WHY Oh why can’t the world see this? I really don’t understand.
ANYTHING that drifts into my inbox via someone else is sent straight to SPAM and NEVER gets opened.PS: I get almost nothing now having made my feelings clear to everyone who wants to correspond.
OLD GUY says
Freedom of speech means you can say almost anything you want to that doesn’t cause immediate panic or physical harm to an individual. Freedom of speech is not telling only the side of the story you want, without rebuttal.
When you think about it, Hollywood can show any vile subject or say anything that the average person would consider offensive and nobody say anything. These same Webb sites will promote it. We used to ban vulgar movies now we rate them and just warn the public you might not want your Kidds to see this film. Maybe the Facebook needs to just rate sites from family content to inappropriate sex and violent content.