Personality Cafe banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lately my friends have spread following story in Facebook, first in Finnish and now in English too.

So I got banned from Facebook for criticising the actions of a politician who is trying to silence anyone questioning him.Twice.

I'm writing this in English to see if it makes any difference to the outcome. It's a long one, but please stick with me.

I am, among few other people, being constantly harassed by a low-level Finnish politician and a posse of hive-minded loiterers with thug-mentality who, it seems, have little else to do besides seeking out negative posts about said politician and mass-reporting them to Facebook resulting instantly in a 12hr ban. I've just come out of a second one within two days (DISCLAIMER: it might not all be the work of the politician in question even if we have screen captures of him confessing to some of the reports).

This un-democratic, argumentally challenged circle-j*rk (DISCLAIMER: not claiming the politician is any of that, or part of this circle thing mentioned. Necessarily) already managed to take down three antiracist discussion groups with this tactic. Yes, we have proof.

While discussing these take-downs on a friends wall I, regrettably, called him a human ass. I now know it is impossible for a human to be an actual butt. Where would you stuff the food, for example? That led to a report and my first 12hr ban.

I get it. It's not nice to be called an ass, even if you act like one. (DISCLAIMER: not saying this politician is acting an ass. I don't know how an actual human as an ass would act - that was a rhetoric sidenote). Maybe it was a bit harsh, even. But was it a 12-hour-ban-and-we-will-delete-your-post harsh? Really?

I then wrote a lengthy reply explaining the situation and saying how passive-aggressively reporting people criticising your work as a politician and refusing to use adult arguments is not really how you should work, and if you cannot back up your statements and/or actions with words but instead try to silence the criticism by force and harass people exercising their freedom of speech, well, maybe your values aren't based on much anything. I also stated that reporting things wouldn't help a thing and maybe he should just, you know, join in on the conversation.

The text spread quite nicely, I gotta admit. Love the social media.

Then. Banned. Text deleted. My friend made a post mentioning the names of five people who just happened to criticise said politician and got banned. The post said nothing else. That post? Deleted, friend banned.

Yes, I know. It all seems very petty. People arguing on internet. Big whoppydoo. And I agree, I do. I shouldn't have to be doing this.

But what we have now is a situation where a politician goes around throwing remarks that many are viewing as homophobic (not gonna even argue about this Heteropride he's organising), is not willing to take part in a democratic discussion but instead is being part of a red neck-y (DISCLAIMER: purely based on their rhetorics and actions, not saying they're from the boonies, or even the suburbs. Or that they know how to play the banjo) virtual posse trying to silence any critical talk. I mean, I like this thing where we're free to speak up and question the beliefs and actions of our politicians and I'd hate to see it go. Right? So I felt I had to do this.

Now. All I said above, we have proof. I have not made false accusations. Don't think I used very abusive language. God knows I'm capable. I even restrained myself from calling this guy a **¥**{^\ and a big &/@;&€***. In other words, I think I played nice.

And dear Facebook moderators. Can you now see there's nothing worth a ban here?

Ok then.

Jani Salomaa (Perussuomalaiset, Salon varavaltuutettu): What do you really think about this freedom of speech we have? Is it only reserved for similar minded people, or are the opposite opinions welcome after all? And if so, why did you rejoice when the first two democratic discussion groups were taken down, and is it only a coincidence the third fell just a couple days after you said "now let's target that one too"?

While I have your attention, could you also elaborate on this "homosaatio" (gay-sation in english? Maybe?). How does it really work and how does it manifest itself in your everyday life, watching telly and all that? You got your time on television explaining your views. That is: YOU were able to speak out what's troubling you (gays, it seems). Now grant us others that same courtesy.

Oh. And for the love of all that is holy. This time do not make an actual ass out of yourself and report this one too. It will not make a dent as you can see.

All the others: I know you spread the last post like hell, but please once more, make social media proud.

This post is public, go mad.

Jussi Saarelma - a fan of discussion and the ability to participate in such activity in the future as well
https://www.facebook.com/jussi.saarelma/posts/10153209016020277

Does similar things happened in your country too? Politics is in the area where you always get someone displeased, especially when he/she makes homophopic comments publicly. That kind of area of work is not for those for overly sensitive mindsets and reporting unpleasant conversations to Facebook mods and getting those discussions removed. This might lead to little drama I look forward to follow.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
People try to do it in America but I think it gets caught a lot more often. Whenever it does happen our media makes a huge deal about it for several weeks. I don't know if that is because they are outraged or because it sells more views and creates more sensationalism. Probably the latter.

I hope that politician gets what is coming to him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
People try to do it in America but I think it gets caught a lot more often. Whenever it does happen our media makes a huge deal about it for several weeks. I don't know if that is because they are outraged or because it sells more views and creates more sensationalism. Probably the latter.

I hope that politician gets what is coming to him.
I wish that too, he's from far right party and most of the educated youths stand firmly against him. I reported those discussions for couple of newspapers who usually are fastest to write stories about things like these. I really hope that they take the bait. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
I'm not aware of this happening overtly in the US. The US government's goal, like any other corrupt system, is to silence opposition, but that will never be admitted to or become a public object. Transparency (and free speech) is the primary bane of all governments. Because Free Speech is literally a founding principle and law in the United States, it can only be overcome through subtle and incremental items that build up over time.

Transparency however was never a goal of our government (in the last hundred years at least), and ever since the late 19th century, corruption has existed in both political parties due to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts

There is no democracy.

Also this kind of censorship proves that even social networks are in the hands of injustice and you can literary buy anything. Money behind everything, GG, this world is shit.

Not sure if similar things happens in our country, but before elections all the facebook add were reserved to one particular political party (right handed), not sure if it is all about money and who pays the more or if there is anything else behind...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lumi

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I'm not aware of this happening overtly in the US. The US government's goal, like any other corrupt system, is to silence opposition, but that will never be admitted to or become a public object. Transparency (and free speech) is the primary bane of all governments. Because Free Speech is literally a founding principle and law in the United States, it can only be overcome through subtle and incremental items that build up over time.

Transparency however was never a goal of our government (in the last hundred years at least), and ever since the late 19th century, corruption has existed in both political parties due to this.
Many experienced politicians don't usually do anything like this, it's more like public notion of inexperience, new politicians taking personal insult of their personal beliefs being violated. Some get upset when citizens criticize them whereas some get upset when unusually large contact attempts about a major issue is under progress.

E.g. campaign for fur-free Finland got a cold treatment when citizens contacted on their parliament members to guide their opinions and votes. Instead of listening, parliament members just ignored those messages and called it all rubbish. They get paid for listening, not for ignoring, it was outrageous. It's not personal, it's their work and they should do it properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Money behind everything, GG, this world is shit.
Yah, money and politics shouldn't go together. Too bad there isn't a real or truly viable way to force transparency. Especially in already-existing government structures (such as the two part US system).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I myself haven't heard of any such cases

It is not good for political freedom to ban criticism of a politician. I don't think that any government should order a ban. I don't think that Facebook and social media should ban someone because of political criticism (though it's their right to use any policy they want).

This story does show the ability of social media. Even if there is a ban, a person can repost (after 12 hr, using new account, new IP, on different social network, etc.). For political expression, social media allows people to criticize politicians openly.

In this case, it was not government which issued ban. It was decision of Facebook moderators. I don't think the situation was a case of extreme political repression by government - because it was not by government but by Facebook. I think Facebook should avoid doing such an action to avoid such publicity in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

I read that post, and I know nothing of the previous posts, but it sounds like Tumblr justice to me. That is, someone feeling slighted when they honestly shouldn't and responding by flipping the hell out and declaring some kind of "social justice attack" on some kind of "hater". Facts are, did they follow the rules of the site they were on? That might have caused a ban. Freaking out about it and posting a retaliation or passive-aggressive post just after that one would merit another ban, because the admin could plainly see they wouldn't let it go and is trying to do damage control by limiting their access before it blows up into a shitstorm that gives their site a bad name. The friend of that friend could be seen as perpetuating said shitstorm and have their account banned as well. The site's gotta protect it's namesake, and they generally don't have rights to that social media anyway because of the Rules & Agreements form they agreed to when they checked the box and made an account. To be brutally honest, no one has any rights over something like Facebook or any other site (including this one!) because all information goes on World Wide Web, also known as a public domain that can't be/isn't regulated for the most part or agrees to that Rules & Agreements form (or Terms of Service or whatever).

JUST TO CLARIFY, playin' devil's advocate over here. No need to bring the hate or anything. Personally, I don't have enough information to make an informed judgement call and I won't pretend to. My opinion is officially neutral, I just enjoy debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
I'm not aware of this happening overtly in the US. The US government's goal, like any other corrupt system, is to silence opposition, but that will never be admitted to or become a public object. Transparency (and free speech) is the primary bane of all governments. Because Free Speech is literally a founding principle and law in the United States, it can only be overcome through subtle and incremental items that build up over time.

Transparency however was never a goal of our government (in the last hundred years at least), and ever since the late 19th century, corruption has existed in both political parties due to this.
You won an oscar this year .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
If you guys are flinging mud in a lude and inappropriate fashion, then it could violate the terms of service, or rule of conduct that a social media site requires in order for it to meet acceptable standard.

If you want to insult someone, the best way to do it is tactfully, using facts and subtlety as a method of reinforcing your observations and judgements.

If you want to fling shit, then you might want to purchase a network, and even then you would have to adhere to the standards of acceptable decency.

I believe you are in the wrong for shit-flinging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
I don't know about over there, but Free Speech here, as I understand it, basically means that the government can't throw you in jail for whatever it is you said (with some exceptions, like being an idiot and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, resulting in deaths from trampling). It doesn't cover Facebook banning its customers for whatever it is said customer said.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top