It's f*****g sad that the Ones that fought and got EVERYONE those rights have to live in fear. The same people that marched and protested, attended funerals of perfect strangers to protect families and friends from being exposed to Hate, while they were mourning their loved ones. All of the these current Generations needs to learn history about where WE come from and what WE fought for, so they have the rights to do what they want now. WE fought to give these newer Generations the freedom to speak and live in a world of Acceptance and the Tolerance that we DEMANDED that they have now. Go back and live in our world and then b***h to me about all of the Rights and Opportunities that we NEVER had then. I have Family that is part of the Community and you can be damn sure that they've been educated on our history and where they come from.

Your two-post rant can be summarized as "I fought and got what I wanted, now the rest of you who want stuff can screw off." DADT was a travesty. "Keep your orientation real secret and spend your career in the closet hoping someone doesn't tell us what you get up to on your own time and maybe you'll luck out and not get fired for being who you are." It was a necessary travesty as a stepping stone to the end goal, but the idea that it was good enough is laughable. By your logic Black people should have been satisfied in 1865 and not fought for equal rights. I mean hey, people fought and died to end slavery, that's plenty good enough for them ingrates, ain't it?

You are absolutely right that freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequence. But it is for the people, not the government, to impose those consequences. FB and its leadership have no values beyond monetary gain and this decision reflects that. And if their users have the courage of their own convictions, FB would suffer the consequences of this decision by the end of the day. The power to change this is in the hands of the people who use FB and support the businesses and organizations who do. Sadly, I think we need only to look at X to know that, despite all the outrage, they aren't going to change.

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"".

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Me being downvoted kinda supports my point. This line of logics ends with us not being able to write "winnie the pooh" like in CCP controlled Internet. Us not being able to write "hijab is bad" like in Iran or saudi arabia... Listen to me. THIS IS THE TACTIC of the bad ppl who want control. They give no F***s! about gay ppl. NONE AT ALL. These "allies" call themselves that to make you have an enemy and to control you! If somebody pushes for censorship of ANYKIND... they are bad people! Censorship only leads to the "evil" and "good" being hidden... With you and me with a collar on our necks.... submissive and under control...

Censorship has NEVER been good? Do you show kids porn? Are snuff films released in movie theaters? People downvoting you doesn't support your point. Your point is meaningless and without context. I have already proven some censorship is good. So get back to the drawing board and refine your diatribe.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You are gasping at straws and whatabouting your way out of that obvious thing. First it was the use of lgbt ppl now the use of children... Pathetic... But I will humor you. "Do you show kids porn? Are snuff films released in movie theaters?" What you are talking about is not censorship of speech. Those are totally unrelated evil things outside the scope of this discussion. That is sex slavery and violence on the unwilling to make money... Clearly evil things that have nothing to do with free speech. You see free speech is someone saying "I think 9 year old being married to so called prophets is a good thing we should follow in the footstep of mohammed and lower the age of consent." And ppl like me going "You are a f*****g insane pedo". I lived in a world where that was suppressed and pushed against by people who claim THEY decide what people are allowed to talk about...censorship is NEVER a good thing.

You described censorship, claimed that it wasn't censorship, and then you stated and I quote "censorship is never a good thing" It seems the problem with you is that you don't understand what censorship is. Limiting what people can watch is definitely censorship. Movies are speech whether you like it or not. You just want to change the definition of censorship to things I don't like censored. Who decides what is "clearly evil". People claiming things are evil is precisely where censorship comes from. You can't claim something isn't censorship because you agree with it being censored like "clearly evil" things. Besides what is evil?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Do i sound like that? an angry incel simply because i said censorship is the hight of evil? If these angry incels are left to say what they want to say... THEN WE CAN SEE THEM ON THE OPEN and laught ahaha it is a good thing! But suppressing speech? Now that is scary! Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide? The god dam ministry of truth? The IMAM? The CCP overlord? WHO decides? Those who use lgbt ppl and minorites and claim to be their allies? As they use them as human shield and treat them like subhumans who are so poor and helpless they need to be protected? the "sheaperds"? Where have i heard that before? Ohh churches when they were in power... THINK about it. When in the history of humankind was censorshiop EVER a good thing? Give me ONE example. JUST ONE! Then downvote me all you want!

I get your point but the internet is psychotic already and parents let their kids on it as soon as they're out of the womb sometimes, along with so many other easily influenced people. It should be fine to abuse everyone online and not just one group. I think ideally the internet would just get rid of opinions, news, and social media so it's just a neutral place like a library, in my dreams!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

The alternative of that is now some smart equally angry [insult word for thing you hate here] uses the censorship as fuel to gather more to their cause. Only now they do in secret...And they start to look more and more like rebels against a controlling regime... When ppl like me revolted against our dictator that is what they called us XD angry terrorist... Censorship is never a good thing. The more you push for it the more i am scared of you.

Neither Facebook nor any other private entity is governed by the 1st Amendment. And hate speech alone is not a crime. I can go to my local public park and say "All [group of people] are [bad word]" and that is 100% legal. It is only when that speech is a call for, or accompanied by, unlawful action that it is criminalized. FB is making a legal business decision based on their monetary interests. The public's recourse is to stop using the platform so that it hurts their bottom line. But I think we both know that they won't, this will sadly disappear from the headlines soon enough and FB will continue to be as toxic and ubiquitous as X.

While what your saying is true, Andrew, the constitution does allow for limitations in regards to obscenity, false statement of facts, true threats etc. "The limitations on government power reflect the framers' belief that individuals possess natural and inalienable rights, and that these rights may be restricted only when absolutely necessary to ensure social order and stability." Things like obscenity, true threats or speech that will incite imminent lawless action can be construed as hate speech, if such statements were bigoted.

Andrew, just wanted to say you are factually wrong. There is no such thing as hate speech according to the federal government. It is protected under free speech. Don't go off on ignorant people when you don't have the facts straight.

Hate speech is not protected if it incites hate, slander or libel. Calling someone in print mentally ill could be considered slander. Wow hard to understand I know

Andrew could you show me the "hate speech" law you are talking about. Libel and slander are not hate speech. Nice try though. They could veer into the realm of what people consider hate speech, but there is no law against hate speech. Prove me wrong.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Aahah remember the old black and white pictures of cute CLEARLY GAY COUPLES that are just "roommates"... YEAH, censorship of everything gay was the CAUSE OF THAT! Censorship is never a good thing. NEVER!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You need to just quit talking. Shut that mouth of yours and move on.

Andrew you need to learn about federal hate speech laws and the fact that they don't exist. Shut that mouth and go find me this mythical hate speech law you keep going on about.

No i will not because then the censorship pushing evil wins! You continue to prove my point so i wont shut up! and i am mentally ill for not doing or acting exactly as you want me to??? Then yeh so be it! Again that is what the control freaks do! Turin was castrated for being mentally ill too no? See i too can practice the use of lgbt ppl as a shiled to further my argument and see you control freaks implode... So by all means keep doing what you are doing. Practice your free speech to show us exactly what you are...

Ben, it is becoming clear you are not to be taken seriously with your idea that censoring "evil things" isn't really censorship.

dude, just admit you're wrong and move on

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I am not American... I am originally from north africa and in the EU now... Law never had any meaning to me cus the firts laws i have ever had to deal with were written by a dictator... SO Censorship in all its forms is bad. It is the highest FORM OF EVIL! Because it is not YOU, Nor the UK "ministry of truth", NOR the IMAM, NOR the CCP overlord who deices what is and what is not Free Speech...NO control freak ever gets to decide what is and is not allowed to be spoken...PERIOD. If you are pushing for censorhsipo and sounding EXACTLY like my good old dictator... Ask yourself this "are we the baddies?" Also again disgusting use of the LBGT as a human shield... for these perverted control freak ideas...

Ben, I get your point. But ... what meta does now does only allow a certain, already selected, group to receive the baddest of insults. There's not a single freedom that actually is freest-possible by application of the least restrictions - there's power imbalances that, for example, would relentlessly be exploited by employers (whereever they can, they do) to further exploit labourers. They've shown every single time that the bare minimum that keeps them from being legally de-businessed is the only reliable barrier between a civilized society (that requires wide-spread wealth rather than equal or larger, concentrated wealth) and one of bitter slavery for us mere mortals, while the higher kind of human being consists of dudes who build and enter Dildos to fly in them, or to buy an actual medium in order to have more control over public opinion, and have their oh-so-cherished principles applied on all the other equals, but not themselves. When Corona first struck in serious quantities, people already opposed the "suppression" of not being allowed to run a factory, although it would turn into a breeding facility for the virus within one or two shifts. People were dying, while other people, obviously being struck harder by their oh-so-bad luck, were protesting for essential things to open again - "We demand Haircuts!". Non-regulation, obviously, isn't the best protection from invasive regulation. Plus, a lot of our freedoms are highly restricted, regardless of being private issues nobody can justify having a say in. For example, opium is banned practically worldwide. Now, me smoking a pipe of O wouldn't hurt anybody else. What right to prohibit does the state have? That it's highly likely that your health won't benefit? Why is Currywurst allowed, then? There's a line to draw somewhere, and obviously, even obviouslier than all the other things, mentioned and unmentioned, people only care for it once it bothers their actual plans and wants. Almost nobody is in it for the principle anyway... But, the line drawn, in the case of opium, seems to be that the damage is considered to exceed the benefit. But still - it's invasive and should rather be a decision of the individual by weighing the expected benefit and expected harm something does to them (a majority wouldn't try opium if it were free, clean and would bear no legal implications whatsoever), but it's not even a decision we're free to make - and it doesn't even harm anybody else, at least not by a principle that isn't evadable.

I don't care about the ZUCC or trump or any of them! SPEECH should NEVER be controlled. There is no BUT! If someone wants to tell you exactly what an a*****e they are they should be free to do that! Now imagine if they are not FREE to do that... Imagine how much worse everything becomes when they are not both doing it in secret and having fuel to get more to their side? You make some sense in what you say, but no freedom that does not infringe on another's freedom should be restricted. This applies to speech. The confusion happens because ppl can't tell the different between actual life threats and abuse... and human shield and emotional manipulation applications... I have lived this. "You cant say anything bad about islam because you want to send kids to hell if you do" "You cant say anything bad about our beloved dictator because you want to ruin our nation!"

I don't think people should downvote Ben. Just because Ben thinks all censorship is bad does not mean Ben is a bigot. I think it makes sense to ask questions about who gets to decide, if we're accepting censorship is necessary. I just makes me sad that we can't collectively agree that queer people are not sick... what a world to live in.

Look at the reaction of andrew... It is like they hate it when the evil manipulations are exposed... They care not about gay people... Or anyone. They want control. The very definition of conservative or religous cult behavior where only ONE WAY of thinking is allowed.

He should be downvoted. If you think a tiny bit about our society you will see censorship everywhere. I can't walk around naked is an obvious one. Stating all censorship is bad is a simplistic, childish way to look at the world. And then when a person goes on long diatribes about a subject they seemingly though long and hard about that is easily disproven with a simple thought they deserved to be downvoted. Think about it, which censorship we currently have in place would you get rid of. We censor children all the time. Would you allow them to go to strip clubs?

So it's fine to say something like "we should end all people of a certain group? STFU you turd.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You need to go back to your dictator with ideas like that. Ya know, I think you might he mentally ill

And that's a great thing. But it lost only 1/4 of 1% of its active monthly users. I do hope that Meta suffers for this but unless users leave in droves, it won't. It will continue to dominate in reach and influence and be a toxic presence in all of our lives.

And nothing of real value was lost in that.

... and then, upon losing customers who are free to chose where to advertise, it cried about a ThErMoNuClEaR nAmE & sHaMe. Pathetic.