Friday, May 17, 2019

Facebook Suspends Candace Owens For Saying Black America Needs to Wake Up to the Great Liberal Hoax

Candace Owens
Update below.

Facebook has suspended activist and commentator Candace Owens.

 Owens was hit with a 7 day ban for posting, “Black America must wake up to the great liberal hoax. White supremacy is not a threat. Liberal supremacy is.”

She then included a screenshot of a tweet which pointed out that the poverty rate amongst married blacks is 7 per cent, compared to 22 per cent for blacks generally. “My @facebook page has been suspended for 7 days for posting that white supremacy is not a threat to black America, as much as father absence and & liberal policies that incentivize it, are,” she tweeted.

 Malcolm X said pretty much the same thing as she did in her tweet.




So the question then becomes would Malcolm X think Mark Zuckerberg with his banning operation is what he would refer to as a white liberal drooling at the mouth?

 -RW

UPDATE

34 comments:

  1. According to libertarian code - this is voluntary -- so stop complaining. Also look at LRC political theatre page which is riddled with complaints of how culture is changing -- but is voluntary - so why is LRC complaining? Propertariasm is the way to go. Wake up time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if that was the point by posting this, merely mainly to point out another example of bias by fb is the way I'm interpreting this post, given the historical context of overall postings here. I highly doubt Wenzel is confused about what libertarianism is or means. Also, I personally of course recognize that as long as there are no state regulatory capture, or no state interference with respect to the said private company that happens to be discriminating and establishing it's own rules of conduct, than we should complain loudly about whatever we are dissatisfied about, but politely so as to point it out to others and let everyone decide whether or not they want to keep patronizing it. I quit Facebook a year ago.

      Delete
    2. It's hypocritical of Facebook. That's the point. They selectively and/or incorrectly apply their rules to hinder speech that doesn't align with MZ's worldview. Article's like this expose that hypocrisy.

      Delete
    3. Ok. I've heard that. I've never read their rules for myself, I quit for other reasons. I've heard the same thing about Twitter; I don't use it either.

      Delete
    4. limelemon, just because an economic actor is private, and interacting with that actor is voluntary, doesn't mean that a libertarian cannot complain. Libertarians are also consumers and, like all consumers, can like or dislike products created by the private sector. In a stateless world (not sure how "propertarism" differs from that), consumers would still be able to abstain from buying inferior products, buy them and complain, buy them and seek a refund, etc.

      Don't confuse commerce with political philosophy.

      Delete
    5. So FB makes consumers unhappy because they have bias, this means that the competition to FB will gain many new customers, right? Wrong. Therefore FB is not a free market.

      Delete
    6. >>Therefore FB is not a free market<<

      What a great argument, Aristotle!

      FB is a private company. A 'free market' is a state of affairs concerning the great network of daily interactions between billions of persons. You should get a better grip of basic concepts before showcasing your ignorance like that.

      Delete
    7. I think we know what freedom mom means, oldmexican, even though she didnt say it exactly right. No need for rudeness bro.

      Delete
    8. Hello, Pancakes,

      If you think "freedom mom" meant something different than what is suggested by that person's written word, she could've chosen better words. Why are you being so condescending towards the user?

      Delete
  2. Of course FB can do whatever it damn pleases provided they don't break any laws - it's their business. But this haphazard application of punishments and sanctions meant to enforce a nebulous speech code is counterproductive. It is not going to work to ingratiate FB with left-leaning haters of free speech plus it only gives further ammunition to the rightwing crazies who follow that woman to argue that social media is out to get them. I mean, even paranoids have enemies but why help support their hallucinations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do break any number of laws - stalking, defamation, libel, etc. They're not held liable because the law treats them as common carrier who doesn't look and edit the content - which they absolutely do. They are a publisher, not a common carrier service. They became the publisher the moment they decided to select what to publish and what to suppress.

      Delete
  3. I'm sorry. Although private companies can "do what they like", I do not think that means they can violate their terms of service. Facebook is free to propound terms of service announcing that they are platform with the purpose of promoting SJW themes and ideas. Contrary points of view are not welcome and will not be tolerated. They have not done that while strongly suggesting that they are a mostly neutral forum open to all ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FB gains its monopoly because of the network effect. This is a negative externality that only Propertarianism will address and libertarianism fails.

      Delete
    2. Hello, Rob,

      Yes, they can violate the terms of service - to their detriment, of course, but that would be their prerogative, not yours. The point to keep in mind is that Ms. Owens doesn't have a right to someone else's podium; she is merely renting a space that is paid for by advertisers.

      Delete
    3. This is exactly it. Even, and especially, in a NAP society or PPS, social media can not break TOS or contracts. Candace, and those in her situation, should sue. Punch back.

      Vox Day is doing this with IndieGoGo and he seems to be winning. We arnare powerless.

      Delete
    4. Hello, Sherlock,
      You're completely mistaken. A company can definitively break a terms of service contract without any other consequence say a loss of good faith among customers. A company may not take your money without performing, of course, because that would be fraud, but what fraudulent action is FB committing here and under what legal theory can Ms. Owen sue FB? I do not know what kind of agreement Vox Day had with IndieGoGo but the mere fact of bringing it up doesn't mean the two situations are at all comparable, it would only mean you have a penchant for throwing red herrings around.

      Delete
    5. Hello, limelemon,

      You would be mistaken, for two reasons: One, there's no such thing as a "negative externality" provided no ACTUAL property is affected. What property is being affected here, when the venue belongs to FB and not Ms. Owen? Besides this, your argument is an example of begging the question. Just because you think FB looks like a monopoly due to the 'network effect' doesn't mean FB is a monopoly and therefore a negative externality.

      Second, FB is not a monopoly just because a lot of people use it. The characteristics that define a monopoly is that it possesses a special protection from competition and that it creates a very high barrier to entry, but FB has no such protections, it merely has a lot of customers, that's all. And the barriers are not that high; it isn't o difficult to start a social media platform, it is just that FB is very good at it.

      Delete
    6. OM,

      I would think a social media company breaking a TOS in a way that causes a financial harm would be actionable in court.

      Also, OM, throwing snark is not helpful in a discussion. Some of us are trying to get to truth here.

      Delete
    7. Hello, Sherlock,

      Sure - like *what* financial harm? People are using the space for free.

      Stop making stuff up.

      Delete
    8. It's not free, Old Mexican. Facebook trades service for personal information (which you have to give them the right to use for selling ads and more as a pre-condition for using their service).

      In other words: if you don't know who the mark is, the mark is you.

      Delete
  4. A white billionaire limiting what a black woman has the right to say? I guess he's afraid of black women getting all "uppity" and demanding freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She's always free to build her own internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just like she's already free to build her own facts.

      Delete
  6. Just to add more fuel to the anti-SJW fires: in 1940 the black poverty rate was 87%. By 1960, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it dropped to 47%. The black poverty rate declined from 1965 to 2017 (a period of 52 years) to just over 21% and it measured in a range between 24% and 21% from 2002 to 2017.

    Liberals and SJWs would have you believe that the Welfare State has been a net positive for blacks, but when you check the facts the opposite is true. The Welfare State has actually retarded the black poverty rate and decimated the black family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone knows that white racism is the only cause for any problems non whites have. Just look at Haiti. Over 200 years after all the whites were slaughtered they're still oppressing the black population there and keeping them trapped in poverty.

      Delete
    2. Hello, Paul,

      Are you feeling all right? Are you taking medication that causes hallucinations? I'm asking because I am concerned you are stressing about 200 years of a total slaughter of whites that never happened. Maybe you should speak with someone about that.

      Delete
    3. Paul,
      Where are your facts??? You sound like an apologist for the pathologies of blacks.

      Delete
  7. Many are missing the real point here. Sure, Facebook can ban anyone they'd like, at any time. However, in my opinion, when they act this way they are becoming a "publisher" and not a "platform". If Facebook is a publisher, then they should no longer be exempt from standard libel law [as they are now under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] and should be held responsible for all content on the site.

    Let the lawsuits commence!

    They shouldn't get to have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds reasonable to me. Being selective sounds more like what a publisher does.

      Delete
    2. FB is not a publisher any more than the bulletin board in the break room at the office is a publisher. A publisher creates physical goods that it sells for money. FB is simply a big bulletin board sponsored by advertisers. I can argue that FB has an obligation to advertisers, not to content creators.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Unknown, if it quacks like a duck and walks like it must be a publisher. The only difference is now the Idiocracy doesnt seem to be able to turn its back on the platform that controls content like a publisher.

      There is a simple solution ... walk away

      Delete
    4. Writers create novels that publishers...publish. they may choose to mainly publish sci fi, or textbooks, but they choose what of others' creations they distribute. The analogy, in this respect, seems appropriate.

      Delete
    5. Publisher or bulletin board? There is no neutrality with either one. Some e we or something will be "discriminated against" by someone else.

      Delete
  8. The real problem with fb is that Zuckerberg is busy lobbying (i.e. "testifying before") Congress to have fb's version of private censorship codified into government censorship to effectively monopolize fb's customer base as they won't have a better place to go to.

    ReplyDelete