Facebook Censorship? I'm banned right now!

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 03:42:45PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/6/19 12:19 PM, jim bell wrote:> Jim Bell's comment:
> >
> > If a well-functioning AP-type system were available, Zuckerberg
> wouldn't even dream of doing this.
> >
> > Mark Zuckerburg wants censorship to protect his business model:
> https://nypost.com/2019/04/05/mark-zuckerburg-wants-censorship-to-protect-his-business-model/
> >
> 
> I just got my first three day suspension from The Facebook, for
> "Bullying and Harassment."  We all know how the internet interprets
> censorship and what it does; here's the offending text:
> 
> http://pilobilus.net/My.Thoughtcrime.html

Your "speech", Steve, if you can call it speech at all, is pure and
unadulterated hate speech, through and through. Let me count thy
ways:

 - statement of not one, but at least 3 facts

 - the writing or vocalisation of an opinion, even, and especially
   when, that opinion is couched as a postulation/ possibility

 - questioning the (((Main Stream Media))) story line/ party line

 - responding to any article (or comment) on any violent thought
   crime website posing as a "news" or blog, in particular any site
   which is not one of [ CNN | MSNBC | FOX ]

 - use of the phrase "very powerful folks"


Seriously Steve, you might need to watch your back at this point.

Another strike and you might be subject to arrest, possibly by SWAT
team busting down your front door...

Good luck bro,



> The offending text contains none of the following:  Hate speech,
> disparagement of any person or product, incitement to violence,
> solicitation of crime, commercial content, personal attacks of any kind,
> violent or sexual language of any kind.  It was on-topic in the reply
> thread where I posted it.
> 
> My thoughtcrime?  I questioned the accuracy of the New Zeland Mosque
> shooter's video, without explicitly describing anything in it.  Then I
> very briefly speculated on the propaganda intent of the video,
> concluding that the two most obvious but seemingly 100% contradictory
> objectives would /both/ serve Corporate State interests by "playing both
> ends against the middle."
> 
> Bullying and harassment?  On second thought, maybe I /did/ break some
> Perfect Citizen's brain and send him howling into the night.  If so, go
> and do ye likewise.
> 
> :o)
> 
> 
>