Thread: Facebook's politically biased censorship is real and very extreme.

I haven’t used Facebook in ages. Same reason I left twitter. It’s too political for me.

Facebook locked me out of my account when I got a supposedly temporary ban for making a slightly disrespectful but joking remark to somebody who was being a major jerk toward me in a political discussion group. I was supposed to get a 30-day ban but still be able to log in, but I got locked all the way out. Facebook then told me that I need to upload a picture of my ID to get back in (but still not be able to post for 30 days). I had already uploaded my ID for the censors twice in the past. I keep trying to upload a picture of my driver's license, but Facebook will not accept it. I am getting a message saying that my photo needs to be in the format of JPG, PNG, GIF, or another listed option. I have tried JPG, PNG, and GIF format many times each, and I keep getting the same message anyway. My profile is locked out, and there is no way for me to get back into Facebook with it. What Facebook did is a really shady and dishonest form of political censorship. That is one of my many stories of politically biased Facebook censorship I have experienced.

For those who are opposing the political propaganda narrative Facebook supports, Facebook is a censorship minefield. It is a widespread problem, and Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly lied to Congress about what is blatantly obvious to those of us who have experienced it. Mark Zuckerberg is a censorship-crazed psycho and a pathological liar.

zuckerberg censorship 2.jpg

Social media companies are pretty much all very political, almost unanimously biased toward the left. I don't very much like it, but I just choose not to use their services either at all, or very much. I don't really think any rational person out there would disagree with the statement that Facebook and Twitter are extremely biased toward the left and they selectively enforce their purposefully vague rules in ways that fit their agendas, which usually takes place in the form of silencing opinions they don't like, and giving a greater platform to the opinions that they agree with. I find it disgusting, especially their denial of it, but I don't have to use their services. All you can really do is stop providing Facebook with the ad revenue they get from you using their services.

Echo chambers are just as dangerous for the people in them as they are for the people excluded from therm. Cutting themselves off from people's differing opinions are what caused many democrats to mistakenly believe Hillary would wind by a landslide, only to have the rug swept out from underneath them.

I am not an American (so I probably lack some context) and I don't understand the (valid) reason why they banned you for the picture of Biden with children. As of now, I agree they shouldn't have censored you in that case.

(This does not relate with the actions you did but with the broad topic discussed in this thread):
The thing is for social media to prosper, they have to censor the cultural right because the cultural right tends to... feel entitled to pushing marginalized people out of spaces by publishing and expressing discriminatory and hateful speech (which infringes on these people's freedom of speech). If left uncontrolled, many people will leave the platform. That's the kind of bias social media has for the "left". But I don't think Facebook and these companies are on the economic left at all. You think Mark Zuckerberg wants to pay more taxes or share Facebook via worker co-ops?

I do realize I am probably missing some nuance here and there but I think this is the direction you need to look in to understand the situation. Maybe when you say "left" you only meant the democratic party. But I felt you meant the cultural left. Anyway, Trump has attacked the rights of many during his presidency so even if Biden is far from ideal, it needs to be him that wins to safeguard human rights (from Trump) in America (which should be the bare minimum: what's the use of a state if it doesn't protect us). If the right wants to not be censored, they should stop attacking human rights and focus on their other political values (I'm not saying you are doing that but I am saying Trump is doing that and many important and overt values of the right are doing that).

I really think this thread is a bad idea. It's just my experience that people cannot be civil or objective when talking about politics. It's not a good idea.

It seems increasingly that when content creators are banned on one platform, they tend to get banned on other ones on the same day, or within a few days. This strongly suggests that these platforms are taking their orders from the same organisation higher up. It is disgraceful.

It is also an indication that whoever is really pulling the strings is increasingly feeling the need to do so. In other words, the manipulator is under strain.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I am not an American (so I probably lack some context) and I don't understand the (valid) reason why they banned you for the picture of Biden with children. As of now, I agree they shouldn't have censored you in that case.

(This does not relate with the actions you did but with the broad topic discussed in this thread):
The thing is for social media to prosper, they have to censor the cultural right because the cultural right tends to... feel entitled to pushing marginalized people out of spaces by publishing and expressing discriminatory and hateful speech (which infringes on these people's freedom of speech). If left uncontrolled, many people will leave the platform. That's the kind of bias social media has for the "left". But I don't think Facebook and these companies are on the economic left at all. You think Mark Zuckerberg wants to pay more taxes or share Facebook via worker co-ops?

I do realize I am probably missing some nuance here and there but I think this is the direction you need to look in to understand the situation. Maybe when you say "left" you only meant the democratic party. But I felt you meant the cultural left. Anyway, Trump has attacked the rights of many during his presidency so even if Biden is far from ideal, it needs to be him that wins to safeguard human rights (from Trump) in America (which should be the bare minimum: what's the use of a state if it doesn't protect us). If the right wants to not be censored, they should stop attacking human rights and focus on their other political values (I'm not saying you are doing that but I am saying Trump is doing that and many important and overt values of the right are doing that).

Most people on the right are not hateful. Some are. I understand banning calls for violence against gay people and joining the KKK, etc., but Facebook goes way beyond that. They ban people just for speaking out against socialism and gun illegality. Meanwhile, they allow the real Antifa pages to encourage violence against people for being Republicans and allow BLM terrorists to call for killing people for being white. A communist on Facebook once told me that he was going to find me and shoot me. I replied by saying that I will shoot him first if he ever tries to. I got a temporary ban for saying that, but Facebook told me that the jackass who said he was going to kill me didn't violate the Community Standards. I have many stories like that one. It is part of a pattern.

Zuckerberg supports left-wing economics because big government intervention in the economy makes things much more difficult for small business than it does for big business. Facebook is a monopoly. If it were a lot easier for small businesses to rise up and compete, Facebook would have real competition.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

I really think this thread is a bad idea. It's just my experience that people cannot be civil or objective when talking about politics. It's not a good idea.

This is primarily a political forum. We had hundreds of political debates in here in the old days, when this was a booming website. It stopped being a heavily trafficked website because of Facebook. They killed the forum craze. Now they are the only major place to debate politics, and they censor the Hell out of conservative and libertarian views. That is a big part of why I am so pissed about what they are doing.

I wouldn't create a thread like this in Lucid Experiences or Beyond Dreaming. It is interesting that I joined this website during the Iraq War because I wanted to have a place to get away from political arguments and chat about far out things. Then I discovered this forum, and everything changed.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It seems increasingly that when content creators are banned on one platform, they tend to get banned on other ones on the same day, or within a few days. This strongly suggests that these platforms are taking their orders from the same organisation higher up. It is disgraceful.

It is also an indication that whoever is really pulling the strings is increasingly feeling the need to do so. In other words, the manipulator is under strain.

That is really bizarre. I wonder if the U.S. government is somehow involved and if they will eventually declassify what all of it was really about. Funny things have been happening.

Facebook didn't just lock me out of my account. They have been immediately banning every new profile I create, no matter which device at my house I use to create it.

Interestingly, I am about done with arguing about politics. I have done it for a long time, and I am ready to move past it. I did my part. I will still make jokes about it here and there, but that's about it. I said that on Facebook a few times lately. I wonder if there is a connection.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is primarily a political forum. We had hundreds of political debates in here in the old days, when this was a booming website. It stopped being a heavily trafficked website because of Facebook. They killed the forum craze. Now they are the only major place to debate politics, and they censor the Hell out of conservative and libertarian views. That is a big part of why I am so pissed about what they are doing.

Let me ask you a question, and then I'll refrain from interfering again. Promise.

Have you ever had a political debate then ended well? And by well, I mean, someone actually changed their opinion to yours, based on your arguement? Honestly, I think best case scenario is that people wind up agreeing to disagree, but so often, it's way, way worse than that. Especially when doing it in a public forum like this.

It is addicting... I think. It's a trap. We get so fired up.. the anger is addictive. But really? The best, and most effective way to change someone? It's to not try. It's to respect their own opinion without trying to shove our own down their throat. And to just show our beliefs, rather than tell our beliefs.

Anyways. Good luck. I'll bow out now! <3

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Let me ask you a question, and then I'll refrain from interfering again. Promise.

Have you ever had a political debate then ended well? And by well, I mean, someone actually changed their opinion to yours, based on your arguement? Honestly, I think best case scenario is that people wind up agreeing to disagree, but so often, it's way, way worse than that. Especially when doing it in a public forum like this.

It is addicting... I think. It's a trap. We get so fired up.. the anger is addictive. But really? The best, and most effective way to change someone? It's to not try. It's to respect their own opinion without trying to shove our own down their throat. And to just show our beliefs, rather than tell our beliefs.

Anyways. Good luck. I'll bow out now! <3

A few people have admitted to changing their minds as a result of debating me. It is something I don't really expect to happen. I don't know how many people have changed their minds because of our debates and not told me. However, that is not my major goal. The political points I post on the internet aren't so much aimed at changing the minds of the people I debate. They are meant for undecided people who read the conversations. Also, it is a fun thing to do. It is a game, like chess or tennis. Being able to post funny memes and silly emoticons adds to the entertainment. I agree that it is an addiction, and that is why I need to cool it. I never get angry because of the debates themselves, though. Strangers on the internet only piss me off when they get my posts censored. I am emotionally immune to the words of internet strangers, but that doesn't mean messing with them is never fun. I am burned out on internet debate at this point although I had fun with it for a long time. I am just going to smart off about politics here and there because I see it as a big clown circus now more than ever before. My era of serious arguing in the trenches is pretty much over.

I know you didn't ask me, but:

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Have you ever had a political debate then ended well? And by well, I mean, someone actually changed their opinion to yours, based on your arguement? Honestly, I think best case scenario is that people wind up agreeing to disagree, but so often, it's way, way worse than that. Especially when doing it in a public forum like this.

As a matter of fact, many times. I've even seen a few minds get changed on this very forum (though it was years ago).

Yes, it is definitely a far better idea to show our beliefs rather than try to force them on others
(tough to do online, but a good point regardless), but in my opinion it is a very, very bad thing to not discuss our beliefs with those who don't share them with us, because it is by this kind of sharing that we learn and grow as a people. One of the things that is really trashing U.S. society right now is the fact that so many people either exist in hermetically sealed echo chambers where everyone must agree or they're out (sometimes brutally), or they scream at each other from behind the safety of their distant devices without ever having an intention of arguing a point to convince someone with an opposing opinion... and thank you Big Social Media for perfecting the stage for both options. In both those scenarios there is no chance of a meeting of minds, or even the occasional distant nod.

But, in a forum like this, attached to a site that has nothing to do with politics or society, people tend to be a lot more polite, and willing to listen, simply because they have already had a meeting of minds about another subject, and can be more able to respect their opponents because they know that someone exists behind the words who shares their opinion about something.

And so, in a forum like this, opinions can be flung with great volume and velocity, but they also can be amicably caught, digested, and returned with equal speed by folks on the other side. And sometimes a mind is changed, or at least its armor is dented a bit. Of course, as someone said above, special places like these forums have been decimated by Big Social Media, and arguing now has degraded to a kabuki theater where the actors hurl slogans and epithets past each other, with nobody learning a thing, except how better to hate the people with whom they're sharing this world. Kind of sucks, if you ask me. What sucks even more is that, though Big Social Media has finally removed their blinders to the problem they created, their ham-handed and arguably biased repairs tend to do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I know you didn't ask me, but:



As a matter of fact, many times. I've even seen a few minds get changed on this very forum (though it was years ago).

Yes, it is definitely a far better idea to show our beliefs rather than try to force them on others (tough to do online, but a good point regardless), but in my opinion it is a very, very bad thing to not discuss our beliefs with those who don't share them with us, because it is by this kind of sharing that we learn and grow as a people. One of the things that is really trashing U.S. society right is the fact that so many people either exist in hermetically sealed echo chambers where everyone must agree or they're out (sometimes brutally), or they scream at each other from behind the safety of their distant devices without ever having an intention of arguing a point to convince someone with an opposing opinion... and thank you Big Social Media for perfecting the stage for both options. In both those scenarios there is no chance of a meeting of minds, or even the occasional distant nod.

But, in a forum like this, attached to a site that has nothing to do with politics or society, people tend to be a lot more polite, and willing to listen, simply because they have already had a meeting of minds about another subject, and can be more able to respect their opponents because they know that someone exists behind the words who shares their opinion about something.

And so, in a forum like this, opinions can be flung with great volume and velocity, but they also can be amicably caught, digested, and returned with equal speed by folks on the other side. And sometimes a mind is changed, or at least its armor is dented a bit. Of course, as someone said above, special places like these forums have been decimated by Big Social Media, and arguing now has degraded to a kabuki theater where the actors hurl slogans and epithets past each other, with nobody learning a thing, except how better to hate the people with whom they're sharing this world. Kind of sucks, if you ask me. What sucks even more is that, though Big Social Media has finally removed their blinders to the problem they created, their ham-handed and arguably biased repairs tend to do more harm than good.

You make a good point. I'm just so used to my parents, especially my mom, just yell and yell and yell her political opinions at me. And I'm not even on the other side? I just don't like to buy into either party. I don't like the way they are so aggressive to each other. Much prefer to let my vote get lost in independent land, never to count for anything, but at least I'll feel good about myself.

Is it bad that I promised not to post here again, and I did? Sheesh. I'm awful.

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Let me ask you a question, and then I'll refrain from interfering again. Promise.
Have you ever had a political debate then ended well? And by well, I mean, someone actually changed their opinion to yours, based on your arguement? Honestly, I think best case scenario is that people wind up agreeing to disagree, but so often, it's way, way worse than that. Especially when doing it in a public forum like this.

I recognize that perspective so well, I've definitely been there. Going in with the primary intent to change the other person's mind entirely (whether done consciously or not), no that's never ended well for me when I've engaged that way in the past, even marginally. Even if I make the "better" argument and actually verbalize it effectively, the stress, burnout, and potential for damaging relationships just never felt worth it for me. Part of that is that I really don't have the personality or skill set for heavy handed, full force debating I'm more of a "share and compare" kind of person, which could at times be considered a form of debate, I guess. And no, that style doesn't seem to be as common in public political discussions. Although, watching other people who are inclined to debate passionately, even aggressively while still making well thought-out arguments, I have to admit that can be useful in exploring an issue thoroughly. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to engage with that particular style myself or understand the appeal. And I do agree that there's always that risk of a flame war when touching these topics - it's something to be mindful of for sure.

Here's another angle to consider; what if we tweak the purpose of the debate? What if it's not to change someone to drop their views and take on ours, but rather to expose ourselves to differing perspectives, expose other people to new perspectives, and to come up with solutions and policies that integrate the best of both? In my experience, the greater the difference in perspective, the greater the tension, the greater the challenge to communicate or to even keep the motivation to maintain an open engagement with one another... but also the greater the potential for innovative ways of approaching issues.

When we're willing and able to meet those kinds of challenges, the potential for positive change is enormous. Yes, you spend more time not knowing the details of what to do, have to think harder and be more creative in order to come up with solutions that meet a wider range of parameters, and have to be more focused and dedicated to overcome the inevitable temptation to give up on trying to understand someone who's position baffles you. Even after all that, trade offs still have to be negotiated. But on the other hand you've got more minds working on it towards a common goal from more angles and you've got the leverage afforded by insight rather than an eternal tug of war that only results in a weird mish mash of half formed, vestigial policies from opposing value systems.

Originally Posted by snoop

Echo chambers are just as dangerous for the people in them as they are for the people excluded from therm.

Yes! Plus it really tends to lead to a lot of black and white thinking. Nuance, complex trade offs, consideration for context, all tend to go straight out the window, in part because people in an echo chamber do share so many assumptions that it's easy to neglect questioning the premises of a position. It becomes seen as "obvious" and therefore not in need of explanation.

Originally Posted by Sageous

One of the things that is really trashing U.S. society right is the fact that so many people either exist in hermetically sealed echo chambers where everyone must agree or they're out (sometimes brutally), or they scream at each other from behind the safety of their distant devices without ever having an intention of arguing a point to convince someone with an opposing opinion... and thank you Big Social Media for perfecting the stage for both options. In both those scenarios there is no chance of a meeting of minds, or even the occasional distant nod.

Absolutely. Personally I see the amount of vitriol and division in the US as a bigger problem than any of the individual issues we're facing because it's cutting us off at the legs. There needs to be some recognition of a shared value system (at least to some degree) on a national level in order to provide rules of engagement when hashing out political disagreements and keep outright violence from erupting. As for social media I've managed to stay away from it for that and other reasons until more recently when I needed to create a couple accounts for my business. I try to keep it compartmentalized. I think we're seeing a trend here in this thread; DV members are more likely to be put off by social media


Edit:

Originally Posted by MoonageDaydream

Is it bad that I promised not to post here again, and I did? Sheesh. I'm awful.

Oops, I just gave you more fuel... And no it's not bad. You went in expecting to watch things go down any minute like a YouTube comment section, but instead you just prompted us to think and engage in further thoughtful discussion

Originally Posted by nautilus

Oops, I just gave you more fuel... And no it's not bad. You went in expecting to watch things go down any minute like a YouTube comment section, but instead you just prompted us to think and engage in further thoughtful discussion

Thank you. Your comment made me feel really good.