Facebook VP on ad boycott: We have 'no incentive' to allow hate speech.

AOC Inspires Man To Run False Facebook Ads Testing Mark Zuckerberg.

Mark Zuckerberg told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) that false political ads about Republicans
are allowed on Facebook — so this man already took up the challenge.


Published November 1, 2019

That's a clever way to make the point (and I am thrilled that Lindsey Graham has finally come around on the Green New Deal).

No one is answering the basic question How do you decide who is allowed to speak?. If you are going to give one political viewpoint free rein while censoring, hiding or marking other viewpoints, then the whole point of user generated content on social media is meaningless. It just becomes editorial content with a specific bias.

My answer is that you let free speech take are of it. On this site you have liberals claiming that violence against women is at a historical high (it isn't even close) and conservatives claiming that global warming is a hoax (in spite of overwhelming scientific data).

The able2know strategy of letting any number of claims and perspectives have their say works.

The idea that one political viewpoint should control the dialog bothers me.

Let someone claim that Lindsey Graham is having sex with AOC. Let someone else pont out that such a claim is ridiculous. We all know that Lindsey Graham is the sexiest elected official at any level of government.

Free speech all around. It works.

Pics, or it did not happen.

It has been answered countless times, yet you keep lying about it. Various countries have hate speech defined in law.

It would be quite straightforward to adopt any of those.

You keep repeating same lie on every thread about free speech.

Are you really that absent minded or just a compulsive liar?

Those would be countries like the UK, Germany, and others where free speech is punished and not allowed. They join China and Islamic countries in their intolerance.

Izzy is being silly.

His country has no constitutional guarantee of free speech. They have a law that states they respect freedom of expression combined with contradictory laws that specifically restrict free expression.

The result in the UK is a set of arbitrary laws with sometimes ridiculous results (including a case where someone was charged with the crime of saying that McDonald's food is crappy).

Izzy's answer to "free speech" is a set of arbitrary laws to restrict speech that change every couple of decafes.

That's not a very good system in my opinion.

You’ve got nothing. Give the whole story, not rumours and half truths.

The Mclibel case had nothing to do with hate speech but with libel laws and lead to a change. McDonalds came off very badly with their work practices being highlighted by the media.

All you have are lies and half truths.

You live in a country where the NRA shoots up schools on a daily basis.

The point is my dear chap, in your country what you can and can't say is is dictated by the whims of the current government. If your government decides that what you believe is unacceptable, then you will be arrested, fined or jailed for saying it.

Recently people have been arrested for saying that we should end homosexuality. I disagree with this viewpoint, as do you, but in England simply expressing this opinion is illegal.

And what beliefs the British government will allow you to express changes every few decades. It wasn't that long ago that suggesting that maybe it is time tondo away with the institution of the monarchy would get you arrested.

There is no free speech in the United Kingdom except what the current government allows.

Condescending and dishonest. The only example you give is Mclibel, something that had absolutely nothing to do with hate speech and everything to do with libel laws. It actually resulted in changes to libel laws to stop this sort of thing happening.

You say people have been arrested for saying “we should end homosexuality,” no names no examples given.

All you have are lies and half truths just like your hero Trump.

Google Charles I. We cut his head off, you can’t get more more doing away with the monarchy than that.

One case is Harry Hammond. There are a couple of others you can Google (assuming that they aren't censored).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond

There is no Free Speech in the United Kingdom except what is deemed acceptable by the current government.

It was a public order offence.

If there was free speech in America Colin Kaepernick would have kept his job after kneeling.

He became a social pariah. There is no free speech in America, not for poor people anyway.

Colin Kaepernick is an American Athlete who has been widely acclaimed in the US and internationally and received quite a bit of positive coverage on the front page of the largest American media.

Colin Kaepernick is a uniqely American figure. He is a perfect example of what it means to be American.

Quick question.... Name an English football player who comes even close

Name an English footballer who lost his job because he took a stand against racism. None, because I live in a country where free speech, (real free speech,) and peaceful protest is tolerated.

Btw, Kaepernick is the only grid iron figure I can name. And I only know him because of kneeling furore. I’m not interested in minor sports.

I can name plenty of English football players who are well known throughout the World.

You’ve avoided the question as always. Kaepernick is proof there is no free speech in America. What has happened to him could only happen in America.

Give me an example of a "peaceful protests" against the institutional racism in British society from a British footballer?

If it is allowed, where is it?

There is no British Colin Kaepernick. There is no British Rosa Parks. There is no British Martin Luther King or Malcom X. These are all great American figures.

Without question, people in the United kingdom have benefited from the work done by these great Americans. But, it is great Americans who have done the work.

Our legacy of social justice and public protest stems from free speech.

Google Marcus Rashford and you can see the impact on poverty a black working class man can have.

The difference is, he succeeded and didn't lose his job in the process

Your ignorance of matters outside of America is breathtaking.

Then there’s the fact that premiership footballers have Black Lives Matter on the back of their shirts.

You didn’t wait for my response before jumping to conclusions. Figures.

There’s no British Joe McCarthy. Plenty of Americans had to come over here to work after being blacklisted.

So much for free speech.

Marcus Rashford seems like a typical football player doing his bit. I don't see anything he has done to rock the boat. He is no Kaepernick.And sure, some British football players have put the slogan from an American social movement on their shirts.

I suppose for an Englishman that means something.

I don't see any English footballers doing.l anything that requires courage for social justice.

You are just following in America's footsteps.