Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'

Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, InfoWars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'

Read more on CNN

Featured contributions

  • The platform has greatly evolved over the past 15 years and I think they are still trying to figure out where they stand. Their timeline shows just that:

    - We are a social media platform exclusive to having a university email address

    - We are a social media platform for the people

    - We now allow businesses

    The platform has greatly evolved over the past 15 years and I think they are still trying to figure out where they stand. Their timeline shows just that:

    - We are a social media platform exclusive to having a university email address

    - We are a social media platform for the people

    - We now allow businesses to have pages and we take in profit from ads and promotions

    - We allow news sites to share consumable bites of information to followers

    - We are a free for all where anything goes including hatred and fake news

    Something has to be done to gain the trust of the users and putting your foot down to deny access to those seen as dangerous is a step in the right direction in helping rid the world of hatred. Freedom of speech is extremely important but when you use that freedom of speech only to stir up division among the people, there can only be negative outcomes.

More contributions

  • Slippery slope. I wonder if this will only create more division between sides because they will head underground... Moles are hard to catch...

  • Freedom of speech and expression is not license to be published on every platform. You can be as bigoted as you want but you can't espouse your views everywhere you want. Billboard companies can refuse your messages and they have to be paid for so can Facebook . What it does mean is that bigots will

    Freedom of speech and expression is not license to be published on every platform. You can be as bigoted as you want but you can't espouse your views everywhere you want. Billboard companies can refuse your messages and they have to be paid for so can Facebook . What it does mean is that bigots will find a new rock to hide under.

  • Setting aside any concerns about ethics relating to freedom of speech, there is ample data that shows that restricting expression will actually result in catalytic violent. Outright bans are the far cheaper and easier solution, a simple zero tolerance solution for sanctioned or censored persons. Proper

    Setting aside any concerns about ethics relating to freedom of speech, there is ample data that shows that restricting expression will actually result in catalytic violent. Outright bans are the far cheaper and easier solution, a simple zero tolerance solution for sanctioned or censored persons. Proper monitoring and governance down deeper to individual posts and what is in the text or imagery is far more complicated technologically and far more costly, but might ring-fence and contain violence rather than instigate.

  • Considering just how far back Farrakhan predates Facebook, we are reminded that as big a problem as social media can be when it comes to hate, the much older, and much bigger, problem is hate itself.

  • I, for one, applaud this timely, thoughtful, and progressive action on the part of Facebook and its associated partners

  • I fully support Facebook’s right to ban individuals who spread hate on their platform. Social media is supposed to be about connecting with friends, interacting and it should have a feel good vibe.

    Whereas lately logging onto Facebook has been a thoroughly depressing exercise with comments and posts

    I fully support Facebook’s right to ban individuals who spread hate on their platform. Social media is supposed to be about connecting with friends, interacting and it should have a feel good vibe.

    Whereas lately logging onto Facebook has been a thoroughly depressing exercise with comments and posts boosted on level of interactions often driven by polarisation and conflict. Facebook should focus on what brings people together, not what draws them apart.

  • It will just lead to more hatred, we will just don’t hear about it until it goes too far to be reasoned.

  • Good. At least someone at Facebook paid attention in class and learned the difference between free speech and ethical speech. Misinformation, especially dangerous misinformation, should be restricted.

  • Pure hypocritical move by Facebook. Expect a new rival to emerge from it.

  • Fascism is a one way street. Expect both black and white nationalism to grow exponentially in their own stove pipes, financed by increasingly foreign and undetectable flows of money. Hell, you might have just have given all these banned groups a common enemy! The great value of Democracy is that we don't

    Fascism is a one way street. Expect both black and white nationalism to grow exponentially in their own stove pipes, financed by increasingly foreign and undetectable flows of money. Hell, you might have just have given all these banned groups a common enemy! The great value of Democracy is that we don't aspire to be a 'house divided'. We are not the Balkans. We are not Lebanon or the whole of the Mid East. *We are not Europe*. Sure "hate speech" is ugly. But the overriding legal and spiritual principle of our country is the first amendment. Without it, most Americans are just groups of brooding, blood thirsty savages waiting to overthrow their own country. Here it is:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." We have this law so we don't kill one another.

  • Not the way to go about doing this!!!! No content, short of threats or direct insights to violence should be censored. Sorry not sorry. Yes the people they banned are problematic, but this sets a bad precedent. Are you going to ban all their followers/supporters next? What’s the threshold?

  • Facebook is the perfect judge for deciding who is on Facebook. Let the chips fall where they may.

    It is their platform. And their business model.

    I.e. this is not a free speech issue.

  • Good job Facebook you biased losers. Censorship the RIGHT only. They spread the truth not hate. The ones spreading hate is the Left but that's ok because Facebook is 100% Liberal.

  • Facebook is publicly traded? If so, the stockholders chose the Zuckerman gang to run it and make them money. If not the same gang bow the knee to their boss. Right...? Either way they make alot of money. That is their job, their business. They have chosen to ban this guy because of his speak. What he

    Facebook is publicly traded? If so, the stockholders chose the Zuckerman gang to run it and make them money. If not the same gang bow the knee to their boss. Right...? Either way they make alot of money. That is their job, their business. They have chosen to ban this guy because of his speak. What he talks about. It is not his business. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. He can still speak just not on FB. The Bill of Rights came from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. There are 17 of them. Patrick Henry wrote them. 10 of them are our national Bill of Rights. Life, liberty and property is the presupposition of all that follows. The Bill of Rights submits to and supports this presupposition. FB is property. It does not belong to Farrakhan. The banning is a business decision by the owner. That is their right. But no one is interested in constitutional rights. It's about property folks. Wake up!!

  • Love this! There have always been laws, going back to the drafting of the First Amendment, against threatening and inciting a riot, in fact those are the Amendment's only two exceptions. And that's exactly what these provably dangerous people constantly do. Hey Zuck, how about Limbaugh next?!!

  • It is when freedom of speech is the tool of hatred and goes beyond creating division to inciting harm to others that something must be done. “They” will call it censorship. “They” will continuously search for places to lurk and spring forth from. One might think that simply reverting to the .edu theory

    It is when freedom of speech is the tool of hatred and goes beyond creating division to inciting harm to others that something must be done. “They” will call it censorship. “They” will continuously search for places to lurk and spring forth from. One might think that simply reverting to the .edu theory would weed some out, but even they have accessed higher education, though it might not reflect in them any gains. Let’s give Facebook it’s due for using do diligence.

  • Of course FB & Google control the content on there platform. Watch "The Cleaners" on PBS. They are notorious for controlling the content we read and profit by it.

  • The bad thing about this move is that it feeds the clowns who do not know how to take up the responsibility of freedom. It further swathes them in the mind killing idea of being taken care of by their betters.

    The good part is that it opens up the field for the next platforms, who have learned from

    The bad thing about this move is that it feeds the clowns who do not know how to take up the responsibility of freedom. It further swathes them in the mind killing idea of being taken care of by their betters.

    The good part is that it opens up the field for the next platforms, who have learned from the privacy invasions, religious zealotry, and condescending treatment Facebook has stumbled through. As with all the social platforms that have gone before it, this too shall pass.

  • Shots fired.