Facebook Algorithm Flags, Removes Declaration of Independence Text as Hate Speech

Jymbopalyse

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
4,959
Reaction score
10,574
I am still amazed at the expectations people have of a web site/service that was created by a looser who couldn't get a date with a female if his life depended on it - - so he created a misogynistic web site to marginalize, degrade, and objectify women where he went to school instead.

It's roots (Facebook) aren't known for having the most positively social redeeming qualities you might expect.


Facebook was designed for introverted, self loathing losers, who can only create a sense of worth by destroying the self worth of others. It is also a convenient communication tool for others.

Use it at your own d̶i̶s̶c̶r̶e̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ peril.
 

Bytor1958

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
12,294
Reaction score
30,318
I am still amazed at the expectations people have of a web site/service that was created by a looser who couldn't get a date with a female if his life depended on it - - so he created a misogynistic web site to marginalize, degrade, and objectify women where he went to school instead.

It's roots (Facebook) aren't known for having the most positively social redeeming qualities you might expect.


Facebook was designed for introverted, self loathing losers, who can only create a sense of worth by destroying the self worth of others. It is also a convenient communication tool for others.

Use it at your own d̶i̶s̶c̶r̶e̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ peril.
I only use FB to stay in touch with my family back home. Those are my only friends. I don't branch out to people I personally don't know. If I know you fine, if not, Who are you?
 
Last edited:

Roberteaux

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
132,162
Because it's so subjective, the grey area is pretty large.
Though I agree that there should be a couple of specific limits when it comes to free speech, this grey area you mentioned is perfectly enormous.

I thought JTM45 made an excellent point back in post #27 when he wondered aloud who would be the person or group entrusted to make decisions as to what forms of speech should be limited under penalty of law.

Frankly, I have always believed that an allowance for expression of thought (i.e., free speech) is very important to the functioning of a healthier and more benign form of government. It also allows both the citizens and government itself to make various types of evaluations that cannot be conceived of without freedom of speech. What one ends up with without it is a bunch of Yes Men spewing the official line only-- while thinking other things privately. And this is not conducive to any sort of stability whatsoever.

I don't think that any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were put in place for the sheer hell of it.

I also believe that it is an enormous error to attempt to divest US citizens of any of those rights, whether one appreciates their rights or not. Only once has the US Constitution been used to curtail rights, and that would be the Volstead Act and 18th Amendment. We all saw what happened when the government decided to try and curtail popular behavior by banning alcoholic beverages...

...and that was just booze!

I have said this before: given enough of a curtailment of any right, there will be violence.

I am not willing to get into the whole "who would win if..." question once again, and didn't even go too deep with it last time because my point in mentioning armed resistance had almost nothing to do with winning and losing... and everything to do with the stability of our nation.

Any sort of true crackdown meant to enforce a denial of the rights listed within the Bill of Rights is a formula for a very unpleasant experience for all those under it. Not just the cops and soldiers who will do the dirty work-- but the citizens, who will all be treated as criminals until it is proven that they're toeing whatever the party line happens to be.

Depriving the people of those rights will not be accomplished with a stroke of a pen, or with a court ruling. Those rights we have, though described as "inalienable", only came to pass because people were willing to fight for them. They were willing to kill and die for them.

And whether anybody likes it or not, there are those among us who are willing to fight all over again. It doesn't matter that one side might have an overwhelming advantage or not. People will die anyway, if push goes beyond shove and the shooting starts. And I think that recent events may have illuminated some to the fact that some people are indeed willing to risk their lives and physical freedom on behalf of a struggle that has something to do with their rights.

I am also of the belief that while the government should be at least benign enough to be trusted to adhere to its own regulations whereas its official operations are concerned, I do NOT think the government should ever be trusted implicitly. There have been too many critical failures in the past for us to simply abandon the tenets by which our government is to be guided-- even if one group or another finds its feelings hurt by not being universally loved, and must coexist with its detractors peacefully.

I do believe that free speech should have a few limitations. For instance, I don't have a problem with laws such as the Florida statute against "assault', which is defined (in this state) as a specific threat made against other persons or a group of persons, coupled with the apparent ability to carry out that threat and with the victim having been placed in fear as a result.

But if a person doesn't feature unequivocal affection or trust for another person or group, or some governmental initiative-- and actually dared to say so-- and the statement is then considered to be unlawful "hate speech" or sedition, and the government moves against that person with sanctions that include (but are not limited to) censorship... well, I think there's gonna be a big problem with that.

And it won't be just in the form of private individuals starting to take pot shots at other people-- or any of the other ten thousand forms of violent behavior I can think of. There will be corruption within the ranks of the government itself as extremist elements within it seek to serve their own agenda.

Our government form was designed to be malleable enough to be responsive to the will of the people. I believe that the observation of de Tocqueville and others, that in a democracy people get "the sort of government they deserve" is a valid point... and a very good reason the Founding Fathers opted to go with a representational republic. As Churchill and others have noted, the best argument against a pure democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

There's a balance built into all this. If it gets too far out of whack, really bad things start to happen. We need a government for sure... but we don't need a Big Daddy or a Big Brother who is gonna make everything all nice and safe and perfectly pleasant, because that leads to other forms of behavior even less pleasant than those some might object to as they call for a curtailment of free speech.

Humans tend to go with emotion as a guiding basis for their beliefs. It's often a mistake... people should be more careful about what they get their panties into a wad over.

We must all be very careful what we wish for. The possibility of the causation of unintended consequences is a distinct danger.

The role of the government is more or less to keep a lid on a pot of boiling water-- not to serve as a pressure cooker.

If the wrong decisions are made, there will be NO safety for anyone.

--R
 
Last edited:

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
7,345
Reaction score
16,015
Though I agree that there should be a couple of specific limits when it comes to free speech, this grey area you mentioned is perfectly enormous.

I thought JTM45 made an excellent point back in post #27 when he wondered aloud who would be the person or group entrusted to make decisions as to what forms of speech should be limited under penalty of law.

Frankly, I have always believed that an allowance for expression of thought (i.e., free speech) is very important to the functioning of a healthier and more benign form of government. It also allows both the citizens and government itself to make various types of evaluations that cannot be conceived of without freedom of speech. What one ends up with without it is a bunch of Yes Men spewing the official line only-- while thinking other things privately. And this is not conducive to any sort of stability whatsoever.

I don't think that any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were put in place for the sheer hell of it.

I also believe that it is an enormous error to attempt to divest US citizens of any of those rights, whether one appreciates their rights or not. Only once has the US Constitution been used to curtail rights, and that would be the Volstead Act and 18th Amendment. We all saw what happened when the government decided to try and curtail popular behavior by banning alcoholic beverages...

...and that was just booze!

I have said this before: given enough of a curtailment of any right, there will be violence.

I am not willing to get into the whole "who would win if..." question once again, and didn't even go too deep with it last time because my point in mentioning armed resistance had almost nothing to do with winning and losing... and everything to do with the stability of our nation.

Any sort of true crackdown meant to enforce a denial of the rights listed within the Bill of Rights is a formula for a very unpleasant experience for all those under it. Not just the cops and soldiers who will do the dirty work-- but the citizens, who will all be treated as criminals until it is proven that they're toeing whatever the party line happens to be.

Depriving the people of those rights will not be accomplished with a stroke of a pen, or with a court ruling. Those rights we have, though described as "inalienable", only came to pass because people were willing to fight for them. They were willing to kill and die for them.

And whether anybody likes it or not, there are those among us who are willing to fight all over again. It doesn't matter that one side might have an overwhelming advantage or not. People will die anyway, if push goes beyond shove the shooting starts. And I think that recent events may have illuminated some to the fact that some people are indeed willing to risk their lives and physical freedom on behalf of a struggle that has something to do with their rights.

I am also of the belief that while the government should be at least benign enough to be trusted to adhere to its own regulations whereas its official operations are concerned, I do NOT think the government should ever be trusted implicitly. There have been too many critical failures in the past for us to simply abandon the tenets by which our government is to be guided-- even if one group or another finds its feelings hurt by not being universally loved, and must coexist with its detractors peacefully.

I do believe that free speech should have a few limitations. For instance, I don't have a problem with laws such as the Florida statute against "assault', which defined (in this state) as a specific threat made against other persons or a group of persons, coupled with the apparent ability to carry out that threat and with the victim having been placed in fear as a result.

But if a person doesn't feature unequivocal affection or trust for another person or group, or some governmental initiative-- and actually dared to say so-- and the statement is then considered to be unlawful "hate speech" or sedition, and the government moves against that person with sanctions that include (but are not limited to) censorship... well, I think there's gonna be a big problem with that.

And it won't be just in the form of private individuals starting to take pot shots at other people-- or any of the other ten thousand forms of violent behavior I can think of. There will be corruption within the ranks of the government itself as extremist elements within it seek to serve their own agenda.

Our government form was designed to be malleable enough to be responsive to the will of the people. I believe that the observation of de Tocqueville and others, that in a democracy people get "the sort of government they deserve" is a valid point... and a very good reason the Founding Fathers opted to go with a representational republic. As Churchill and others have noted, the best argument against a pure democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Humans tend to go with emotion as a guiding basis for their beliefs. It's often a mistake... people should be more careful about what they get their panties into a wad over.

We must all be very careful what we wish for. The possibility of the causation of unintended consequences is a distinct danger.

The role of the government is more or less to keep a lid on a pot of boiling water-- not to serve as a pressure cooker.

If the wrong decisions are made, there will be NO safety for anyone.

--R
Without 2A, the first amendment is not possible!
 

mudfinger

Thanks for the memories.
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
17,252
Reaction score
50,477
I seriously doubt that the general public understands the word "algorithm". I also doubt that Facebook's algorithms have anything to do with the removal of the post we're discussing. Someone who read the post reported it. I see substantively more inflammatory and outrageous posts on FB every day; effigies of political figures, blatantly racist posts, misogyny, misandry, you name it. It's a wilderness over there. I'm a bit surprised we're not talking about recent changes to the TC Electronics product line, at least as a corollary.
 

OldBenKenobi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
7,425
Reaction score
8,666
I am still amazed at the expectations people have of a web site/service that was created by a looser who couldn't get a date with a female if his life depended on it - - so he created a misogynistic web site to marginalize, degrade, and objectify women where he went to school instead.

It's roots (Facebook) aren't known for having the most positively social redeeming qualities you might expect.


Facebook was designed for introverted, self loathing losers, who can only create a sense of worth by destroying the self worth of others. It is also a convenient communication tool for others.

Use it at your own d̶i̶s̶c̶r̶e̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ peril.
Seems a little dramatic to me.
 

LtDave32

Desert Star Guitars
Super Mod
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
33,176
Reaction score
104,916


I wasn't whistling Dixie, guys...
 

Malikon

말 러 곤
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
74,330
Reaction score
211,549
that whistled tune did sound a little bit like, 'Iron Man', now that I think about it.

Dixie is a nice tune though. ...needs banjos.


....what a second, who whistles Sabbath tunes?

You crazy man,..you crazy. :laugh2:
 

Fiat Lux

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
6,663
Reaction score
12,876
Yep.... sounded a bit like Dixie to me...

cheers
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,004
Reaction score
186,303
Though I agree that there should be a couple of specific limits when it comes to free speech, this grey area you mentioned is perfectly enormous.

I thought JTM45 made an excellent point back in post #27 when he wondered aloud who would be the person or group entrusted to make decisions as to what forms of speech should be limited under penalty of law.

Frankly, I have always believed that an allowance for expression of thought (i.e., free speech) is very important to the functioning of a healthier and more benign form of government. It also allows both the citizens and government itself to make various types of evaluations that cannot be conceived of without freedom of speech. What one ends up with without it is a bunch of Yes Men spewing the official line only-- while thinking other things privately. And this is not conducive to any sort of stability whatsoever.

I don't think that any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were put in place for the sheer hell of it.

I also believe that it is an enormous error to attempt to divest US citizens of any of those rights, whether one appreciates their rights or not. Only once has the US Constitution been used to curtail rights, and that would be the Volstead Act and 18th Amendment. We all saw what happened when the government decided to try and curtail popular behavior by banning alcoholic beverages...

...and that was just booze!

I have said this before: given enough of a curtailment of any right, there will be violence.

I am not willing to get into the whole "who would win if..." question once again, and didn't even go too deep with it last time because my point in mentioning armed resistance had almost nothing to do with winning and losing... and everything to do with the stability of our nation.

Any sort of true crackdown meant to enforce a denial of the rights listed within the Bill of Rights is a formula for a very unpleasant experience for all those under it. Not just the cops and soldiers who will do the dirty work-- but the citizens, who will all be treated as criminals until it is proven that they're toeing whatever the party line happens to be.

Depriving the people of those rights will not be accomplished with a stroke of a pen, or with a court ruling. Those rights we have, though described as "inalienable", only came to pass because people were willing to fight for them. They were willing to kill and die for them.

And whether anybody likes it or not, there are those among us who are willing to fight all over again. It doesn't matter that one side might have an overwhelming advantage or not. People will die anyway, if push goes beyond shove and the shooting starts. And I think that recent events may have illuminated some to the fact that some people are indeed willing to risk their lives and physical freedom on behalf of a struggle that has something to do with their rights.

I am also of the belief that while the government should be at least benign enough to be trusted to adhere to its own regulations whereas its official operations are concerned, I do NOT think the government should ever be trusted implicitly. There have been too many critical failures in the past for us to simply abandon the tenets by which our government is to be guided-- even if one group or another finds its feelings hurt by not being universally loved, and must coexist with its detractors peacefully.

I do believe that free speech should have a few limitations. For instance, I don't have a problem with laws such as the Florida statute against "assault', which is defined (in this state) as a specific threat made against other persons or a group of persons, coupled with the apparent ability to carry out that threat and with the victim having been placed in fear as a result.

But if a person doesn't feature unequivocal affection or trust for another person or group, or some governmental initiative-- and actually dared to say so-- and the statement is then considered to be unlawful "hate speech" or sedition, and the government moves against that person with sanctions that include (but are not limited to) censorship... well, I think there's gonna be a big problem with that.

And it won't be just in the form of private individuals starting to take pot shots at other people-- or any of the other ten thousand forms of violent behavior I can think of. There will be corruption within the ranks of the government itself as extremist elements within it seek to serve their own agenda.

Our government form was designed to be malleable enough to be responsive to the will of the people. I believe that the observation of de Tocqueville and others, that in a democracy people get "the sort of government they deserve" is a valid point... and a very good reason the Founding Fathers opted to go with a representational republic. As Churchill and others have noted, the best argument against a pure democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

There's a balance built into all this. If it gets too far out of whack, really bad things start to happen. We need a government for sure... but we don't need a Big Daddy or a Big Brother who is gonna make everything all nice and safe and perfectly pleasant, because that leads to other forms of behavior even less pleasant than those some might object to as they call for a curtailment of free speech.

Humans tend to go with emotion as a guiding basis for their beliefs. It's often a mistake... people should be more careful about what they get their panties into a wad over.

We must all be very careful what we wish for. The possibility of the causation of unintended consequences is a distinct danger.

The role of the government is more or less to keep a lid on a pot of boiling water-- not to serve as a pressure cooker.

If the wrong decisions are made, there will be NO safety for anyone.

--R
Hiyas Rob, I read this post yesterday and liked it because I generally agree with your thinking, but I was pressed for time and didn't have much to expand upon a couple of points you touched on:

1) I hold that freedom of speech is the bulwark of democracies. The ability to talk back to one's government without fear of repercussion is vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. As such, I am leery of delegating powers of limiting that right beyond what is obviously needed for public safety. That phrase reads nebulous, but in essence I mean that unless exercising one's free speech immediately threatens the safety or property of another, the government should not be able to stifle it.

2) I agree that moving against free speech is likely a losing move for government absent the condition above-listed, especially in a polity heretofore accustomed to it. And that is good; it's a reaction I would and indeed have supported with my votes and my donations. Let us hope those reactions from us are sufficient.

But while I'm generally tolerant of PC pushback on offensive statements -- lord knows I've offended enough folks in my day exercising my rights, it's only fair to let them have their say too -- the changing mood of our society worries me, because I regard dissent as valuable and necessary, from all sides including those with whom I disagree. I find it worrisome that there's so much "four legs good, two legs bad" blather taking the place of actual civil disagreement ... again, from both sides of the national discussion, which I view as more generational than political.

3) Your point about never trusting our government's beneficence is spot-on, and bears repeating:

I am also of the belief that while the government should be at least benign enough to be trusted to adhere to its own regulations whereas its official operations are concerned, I do NOT think the government should ever be trusted implicitly.
One hell of a post from you, and thanks for taking the time to really sink your teeth into it.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,004
Reaction score
186,303
I'm a bit surprised we're not talking about recent changes to the TC Electronics product line, at least as a corollary.
It prompted a meltdown or two at TGP before that thread got locked, heh.

Hope all's well with you, bud!
 

mudfinger

Thanks for the memories.
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
17,252
Reaction score
50,477
Glad to hear there was some melting going on...

Life is good up here, hope Tejas is still treating you right!
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,004
Reaction score
186,303
Glad to hear there was some melting going on...

Life is good up here, hope Tejas is still treating you right!
I'm happier than a pig in a puddle of mud, brotha. My son moved out here for a fresh start, and if things with the gal get slip-slidey sometimes, hey, that's par for the course, I'm good.
 




Top