Posted on 10/21/2016 1:11:34 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Ruling by CEO Mark Zuckerberg to keep presidential candidates posts spurred heated internal debates
Some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trumps posts on Facebook have set off an intense debate inside the social media company over the past year, with some employees arguing certain posts about banning Muslims from entering the U.S. should be removed for violating the sites rules on hate speech, according to people familiar with the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The rest is behind the wall
Maybe someone here can post the article
Anyone doubt FB is a government operation? They’re discussing how far they can push it.
Facebook can fall flat on it’s book for all I care.
If Hillary wins, all dissent will be deemed “hateful” and removed - along with the dissenters themselves - and not just from social media.
My right to live without a scimitar being buried in my skull by a Muslim religious homicidal maniac because he feels like it should outweigh their being offended at me not wanting to let them into the country at any damn time.
“Hate speech” is a label for something you don’t like. It is the equivalent of name calling.
After all, Muslims are NOT instructed by their Islamic leaders to hate Christians and Jews, to terrorize us, to kill us, and to conquer and dominate our countries. /s
Commonsense says do not allow people who hate your country, hate your constitution, hate your religious and other freedoms, and hate your people to immigrate/infiltrate into your country.
Something to think about!!!
While there is no Constitutional religious requirement, there is no prohibition on people discussing religious issues--quite the contrary. Nor is there any doubt that many of the original settlers came here to found Faith based communities of various denominations, exclusive to their denomination. The ACLU has sought to mask the fact; but a fact it is.
I still cannot believe how the left is so in charge of so much concerning communications/media. How did the right let this happen? Anything from the right, right out of the gate, would be exceedingly much more interesting and compelling than anything the left offers. When are we going to run our own outlets of information on a national/international level. I mean Conservative companies that profess Conservatism and are not ashamed of it right out front. Where are our rich, motivated people???
WSJ is a little late to the party.
Wish they’d been on the anti-Trump thing a year ago. But.....
Now, we’re down to what, 18 days?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFBnP1HQ7rQ
5 minutes .. what happened in Romania
First, paid rally goers
Then cutting off tv coverage
All downhill from there
We have paid rally goers, paid _violence inciters_, media collusion including cutting off live tv of things that embarrass the establishment and a blackout of news unfavorable to it. Now we’re seeing internet problems. What of the numerous deaths surrounding the Clintons, foster, brown, etc. then breutbart, Scalia, maybe assange.
Sure times are different that 1989 Romania but a lot is the same.
Bet these same pissant snowflake employees had no problem with Hillary’s deplorables comment of some of Obama’s hate comments. Any conservative who uses Facebook should have his/her head examined. You are just supporting a very dangerous company, just like Google.
I’ll say it again. Facebook is for idiots.
For wsj articles, copy yhe article title from here, go to google.com, paste the title and the first 1-2 results should be to the article. When you click on it from googly, there’s no paywall.
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, (FACEBOOK) self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the partys construct is classified as “thoughtcrime”.
Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting, vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts, are eradicated. The goal is for everyone except the Proles the working-class citizens of Oceania to be speaking this language by the year 2050. In the meantime, Oldspeak (current English) is still in common usage with Newspeak interspersed into conversation.
Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”[1] In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he saw as encouraging unclear thought and reasoning. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states: I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.”
Newspeak’s contracted forms, such as Ingsoc and Minitrue, are inspired by the Russian syllabic abbreviations used for concepts relating to the government and society of the USSR, such as politburo, Comintern, kolkhoz (”collective farm”) and Komsomol (”Young Communists’ League”), many of which found their way into the speech of Communists in other countries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.