Facebook takes down Trump ads over 'organized hate' policy

[candide]

6 hours ago, schlog said:

According to the OP, the symbol was nearly never used in the US. So do you mean that the Trump campaign checked which symbols were used by an Antifa organisation in Utrecht (NL) in order to find out which symbol to put in their ads?

Below the most commonly used Antifa symbols.

Edited June 19, 2020 by candide

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why did the Trump re-election campaign use this symbol? 

 

Seriously, you don't put a big red triangle in a campaign ad for no reason.  What was the reason?

Dog whistle to white nationalists, his core base. 

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I agree that censorship is difficult.

But the president and his reelection team should never use such a symbol, even if others use it.

The president should be better than that. Should be...

He's simply calling out Antifa for what it is, an outfit which uses violence and terror to pursue its political objectives. 

 

Of course, speaking truth to power these days is a one-way street only open to those who keep left.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Another nail in the I am not going to get re-elected Trump coffin. Time to change this guy out. Only good thing he has done is pushed against China. 

Seems that push has been just meat for his base.

 

'Trump’s China-bashing strategy falls apart'

 

"The passages that have generated the most headlines this week center on Bolton’s account of Trump’s talks with Xi, in which he apparently asked the Chinese president to help him win the 2020 election by boosting agricultural imports from the American heartland, spoke openly of executing journalists, and — perhaps in the most eye-catching anecdote — encouraged Xi to carry on the industrial-scale detention of more than a million people from Turkic Muslim ethnic minorities in the far-western region of Xinjiang."

Edited June 19, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[BobBKK]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I agree that censorship is difficult.

But the president and his reelection team should never use such a symbol, even if others use it.

The president should be better than that. Should be...

I agree it doesn't seem seemly but... if it is ANTIFA'S emblem, logo I cannot see why there is no outrage from the left on ANTIFA. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

I agree it doesn't seem seemly but... if it is ANTIFA'S emblem, logo I cannot see why there is no outrage from the left on ANTIFA. 

I am not the speaker for the left or any group of the left. But as far as I see Trump is the one who brought up that name Antifa all the time. He seems to see them everywhere even when others don't see them. I don't know if any of those BLM protesters are radical left. It seems many people, and not just radicals, join the protests. But of course Trump tries to use the protests to stir up his radical right supporters. 

[DoctorG]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Dog whistle to white nationalists, his core base. 

yawn

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I agree it doesn't seem seemly but... if it is ANTIFA'S emblem, logo I cannot see why there is no outrage from the left on ANTIFA. 

It is not antifas emblem in US. So why would trump use it.

[Sujo]

I can see no reason why organised hate speach should be allowed. Ban it from any side. 

[Sheryl]

8 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

And he would be right. If you read the article you would understand that antifa are allowed to use the inverted red triangle,

 

Not by Facebook, they aren't. The issue is what Facebook allows.. Their platform, their rules.  And they aren't letting anyone use hate symbols.

 

That Antifa may use that symbol on their own sites is their business just as Trump is still free to use it on his own site (not a very good idea IMO, but he can, if he wants). 

 

 

[DoctorG]

[DoctorG]

3 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

So Trump is trying to lighten the mood with a fun meme? OK then, now I get it. Trump is again showing us what a statesman he's become by trying to create merriment in this time of national crisis.

Riiiiiiight..........

I wonder if you, and your 6 friends actually viewed the video, which was quite clever, and was aired in 2019, not in this time of so-called national crisis.

[holy cow cm]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Seems that push has been just meat for his base.

 

'Trump’s China-bashing strategy falls apart'

 

"The passages that have generated the most headlines this week center on Bolton’s account of Trump’s talks with Xi, in which he apparently asked the Chinese president to help him win the 2020 election by boosting agricultural imports from the American heartland, spoke openly of executing journalists, and — perhaps in the most eye-catching anecdote — encouraged Xi to carry on the industrial-scale detention of more than a million people from Turkic Muslim ethnic minorities in the far-western region of Xinjiang."

And people in the USA are just mesmerized by this liar Jack r se. 

[Morch]

I think it's more of a diversion thing. Create some media scandal to take attention from other stuff. Case in point, Bolton's book. Do something outrageous and people will talk about that rather than the real stuff. All (or most) of them I-wouldn't-believe-he'll-go-so-low-again instances come following some serious debacle. If these stunts bolster the base, that's a bonus.

 

As to why he's courting right wing (more or less extreme) elements is simple. Voters-wise, he can't seem to make much headway among undecided, or even moderate Republicans, never mind swaying Democrat and liberal voters. Trump's reelection prospects hang on preserving his base. He can't afford any losses there, but he loses little when already "lost" voters are upset.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

I think it's more of a diversion thing. Create some media scandal to take attention from other stuff. Case in point, Bolton's book. Do something outrageous and people will talk about that rather than the real stuff. All (or most) of them I-wouldn't-believe-he'll-go-so-low-again instances come following some serious debacle. If these stunts bolster the base, that's a bonus.

 

As to why he's courting right wing (more or less extreme) elements is simple. Voters-wise, he can't seem to make much headway among undecided, or even moderate Republicans, never mind swaying Democrat and liberal voters. Trump's reelection prospects hang on preserving his base. He can't afford any losses there, but he loses little when already "lost" voters are upset.

I agree with all of that with the added comment, Trump’s ‘base’ are not enough to win an election.

[Rimmer]

Unattributed post and replies removed

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

I wonder if you, and your 6 friends actually viewed the video, which was quite clever, and was aired in 2019, not in this time of so-called national crisis.

And I wonder if you and your imaginary friend knows when 45 tweeted this doctored BS video.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree with all of that with the added comment, Trump’s ‘base’ are not enough to win an election.

Let's not get over confident. Voter suppression is the main republican strategy. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree with all of that with the added comment, Trump’s ‘base’ are not enough to win an election.

 

The base is not enough by itself, sure. But being made of people who go out and vote, carry Trump stuff and what not, it's essential for keeping his chances alive. As long as he got this, he can look sort of alright on polls, get his rallies, and whatnot. No base, no show.

[Venom]

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I suppose Trump soliciting re-election assistance from the country that gave America a coronavirus pandemic is not a double standard.

Are you calling Bolton a fascist? 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I agree it doesn't seem seemly but... if it is ANTIFA'S emblem, logo I cannot see why there is no outrage from the left on ANTIFA. 

No, it's a Nazi emblem used to identify political prisoners.  It's rarely used by Antifa and apparently never used by them in the US.

 

So the Trump re-election campaign used a symbol primarily associated with the Nazi's during World War II.  Why did they do that?

[dundee48]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, it's a Nazi emblem used to identify political prisoners.  It's rarely used by Antifa and apparently never used by them in the US.

 

So the Trump re-election campaign used a symbol primarily associated with the Nazi's during World War II.  Why did they do that?

Rarely,apparently,,primarily.Hilariously.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Do you think banning people with strong views on things is the right way to go? Isn't it better to let them be heard so that their views can be challenged and debated? 

Hopkins goes too far occasionally, but most of the time she speaks for a silent majority who are too scared to air those same views for fear of attack from the left. 

 

Shutting down people like Hopkins and Farage is akin to censorship in countries like China - IMO.  

No I think removing those who violate policies against spreading hate from a social media site is fine. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Bluespunk

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Do you think banning people with strong views on things is the right way to go? Isn't it better to let them be heard so that their views can be challenged and debated? 

Hopkins goes too far occasionally, but most of the time she speaks for a silent majority who are too scared to air those same views for fear of attack from the left. 

 

Shutting down people like Hopkins and Farage is akin to censorship in countries like China - IMO.  

No it is not.

There are certain types of speech that is regulated because it spreads false information that can cause immediate   an irreparable damage.

For instance  yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire. is speech that is regulated for obvious reasons. It spreads wrong information that  will cause irreparable damage that can not be mitigated through reasoning. 

[CG1 Blue]

27 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No I think removing those who violate policies against spreading hate from a social media site is fine. 

Yet presumably you're happy for BLM to spread hate against whites for the bad things done by people several generations ago

[OZinPattaya]

So Facebook has a problem with "organized hate"? Which is why, of course, that they unequivocally support the BLM. Facebook has a problem with right-wing politics even when certain symbols are used as a means of obvious parody. If Facebook had any integrity whatsoever, it would just admit its left bias. But it won't. So we keep having to endure this absurd clown-act of social-media giants pretending to be impartial while deplatforming, de-monetizing, and shadow-banning right-of-center channels.

[farang51]

14 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

for the bad things done by people several generations ago

I think, what they are protesting is the bad things done by people now.

[Crazy Alex]

Just as i figured... the ad was taken down because it speaks the truth. Liberals literally HATE the truth.

[OZinPattaya]

35 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Just as i figured... the ad was taken down because it speaks the truth. Liberals literally HATE the truth.

The Ad was taken down because it came from a right-wing source, pure and simple. Had it come from a left-wing source I seriously doubt there would have been much of an issue here. It's not a question of truth, which can always be debated. The problem is not the suppression of the "truth" but rather the very conditions and means of even discussing it. As in, freedom of speech and discourse without undue fear of reprisal. That would be a start.

[dundee48]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

No it is not.

There are certain types of speech that is regulated because it spreads false information that can cause immediate   an irreparable damage.

For instance  yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire. is speech that is regulated for obvious reasons. It spreads wrong information that  will cause irreparable damage that can not be mitigated through reasoning. 

When did Hopkins shout "fire"in a crowded theatre?

If she didn`t why has she been banned?