5039
5040
5041

Interestingly enough, one of her later “news” outlets is declaring bankruptcy:

Karma’s a bitch!

Also, boycotts work. The initial article noted that she wasn’t jettisoned from Breitbart until the advertising boycott made her views unprofitable.

5042
5043

5044

“LITERALLY EXACTLY” how the holocaust happened? Really?

Die in a Trump hotel fire, hag.

5045

First they banned their tweets. Then…

5046

Well, at least she’s not a Holocaust denier.

5047

Honestly probably the best thing that has ever been said about her.

5048

First they came for the Nazis and well, after that no one needed to worry about being taken away.

5049

I am so very confused by this ban.

Won’t all these people just form their own network, or expand 4/8/ twenty dozen chan?

5050

Maybe? Are you suggesting that Facebook should not ban them because they might go somewhere else?

5051

Really? You own some property. Nazis keep coming by to chant slogans and wave flags and carry around tiki torches. You tell them to fuck off and get off your property, especially because it was making the people you do like feel threatened or unwelcome.

Whether or not they all head down to Alabama where they’ll have a warmer welcome doesn’t really matter, does it? You can’t stop them from believing what they believe but you sure as hell don’t have to put up with that shit in your own yard.

5052

Neighbourhood watch, travel bans etc. Police can STOP people coming to physical areas if they deem it not in the public interest, at least in the UK.

And Facebook is not my private property. Not yours either.

I’m suggesting banning them from social networks is an empty gesture that might well backfire because Milo etc can point to it as literal censorship.

If you are going to ban them, why not remove them from society? If what they are doing is criminal, that is.

If it isn’t criminal, then what is the argument for banning them?

edit: at the very least, a super concerted effort to remove them from all forms of online sharing, including youtube.

5053

Just checking: you know Facebook is a private company right? That they are allowed to ban anyone for any reason they feel like? That it’s not their job to make the world a better place?

Their argument for banning them is that they are spreading hate, and that is against their TOS. Internally, though, I’m sure the reality is that they view these folks as bad for business, long term.

5054

Yes I am.

Relating to what Kevin said, FB isn’t MY property, nor is it physical property, so I think his analogy falls down.

5055

It strikes me as a pretty weak argument (spreading hate) but I think they should have been removed a long time ago, along with all sorts of undesirables who FB has turned a blind eye too, like Cambridge Analytica etc.

5056

Yes? And neither of us banned those people, right? Facebook/Twitter/whatever did from their own platforms… which ARE their property.

Personally, I’d love to remove them from society but I don’t have the legal standing to do so. And criminality aside, there’s plenty of reason to ban people outside of criminal behavior. If someone came into my business and starting shouting “THROW THE JEWS IN THE OVEN!” or “Mexicans are vermin and rapists!” I’d throw them the fuck out. And that sort of thing is all that Facebook did, they threw them out of their store. They don’t want their business.

5057

But if we are going with this analogy, what if I invited them in the first place, or at least made them feel welcome once there, because it benefited me financially, because that is precisely what FB did…

5058

They don’t even need to have an argument. They could ban them because they rolled a dice and it came up the wrong number, or just because they feel like it.

It seems like you’re wishing that Facebook was an accountable public service, run by the government.