Posted on 06/13/2019 7:23:53 PM PDT by KC_Lion
Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant. The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.
Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”
Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.”
....
The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.
....
The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I considered going back into Facebook with another name and another telephone number, but I was so disgusted with them that I figured why bother!
I miss contact with many of my friends, and I don't know of any way to get back in touch with them.
I considered Instagram, but that's owned by Facebook.
Facebook is a de facto monopoly.
It bothers me that Facebook is part of the Democrat Party's propaganda machine. That's why they expelled me: I am an outspoken supporter of President Trump.
Facebook has become an important communications network, and its owners should no more have the authority or the right to censor communications than do the owners of a telephone company.
I do not miss Facebook's ubiquitous bias.
I do not miss Facebook. I'm better off not having any association with them.
I don't know of a valid replacement for the contacts and the communications. They should not be able to expel people.
If there was another social website that everyone could join that wasn't owned or monopolized by Zuckerberg, that was user friendly of course, I would join it instead but I haven't found any such site. All of the rest of them are too complicated or "too open."
Facebook should not be able to expel people or censor communication. They cling to this authority because they intend to be a propaganda machine. They have excellent excuses, e.g. “We cannot permit terrorists from using Facebook” and “We cannot allow hate speech;” however, in fact, that gives them the authority to define “terrorist” and “hate speech” (anyone or anything they don’t like) and gives them complete license to use their power for propaganda.
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.