Private gun adverts to be prohibited on Facebook

[rooster59]

Private gun adverts to be prohibited on Facebook



Private firearms transactions coordinated on Facebook or its Instagram photo-sharing service should become a thing of the past under new measures announced by the world’s biggest online social network.

Groups advocating increased gun control have applauded the policy which reinforces restrictions on person to person gun sellers already imposed by Facebook.

Previously private firearms sellers had been prohibited from advertising “no background check required,” or offering transactions across US state lines without a licensed dealer because Facebook said such posts indicated a willingness to evade the law.

The new ban updates Facebook’s regulated goods policy, introduced in March 2014, that banned people from selling marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs.

It comes as the United States debates the issue of access to guns after a string of mass shootings.

President Obama has announced a series of executive actions to tackle gun violence and he has urged social media firms to clamp down on firearms sales organised on their platforms.

Licensed gun retailers will still be allowed to promote their services on Facebook although no transactions should be made on the site.

Gun control has become a potent, polarising issue in US politics. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, a right that is fiercely defended. Congress has not approved major gun-control legislation since the 1990s.

The debate is however likely to take a backseat to concerns over immigration and homeland security in November’s presidential election.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-30

[up-country_sinclair]

This only seems logical.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why this would be allowed in the first place.

[NeverSure]

The writer doesn't understand gun laws and is confusing following the law with politics regarding gun control. They are two different topics, poorly mixed here.

It is already a federal offense for private parties to sell guns across state lines. If I want to sell a gun to someone in another state, I have to take that gun to a dealer in my state. My dealer will send it to a dealer in the receiving state. That dealer will deliver the gun to the buyer, but not until there is a federal background check and paperwork. This has been the law for a long time. So Facebook is right - a lot of the ads are circumventing the law just as drug deals which they also seek to ban would.

In my state I can't sell a gun to any private party unless we go through a federally licensed gun dealer. (All gun dealers are federally licensed.) We have to meet at the gun dealer who does a background check on the buyer, does the federal paperwork, charges a reasonable fee for doing the paperwork (perhaps about $35) and only then gives the gun to the buyer.

Facebook is doing only what a lot of other online sites are doing - banning gun ads for all but licensed dealers. No biggie but rather a good idea.

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

This only seems logical.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why this would be allowed in the first place.

FB is finally a private experience and if people object to their rules they can use another service. But this OP illustrates a rarely addressed issue in the public debate that is manipulating much of the US if not the world- the collusion between corporations and politics. Without question the political leanings of the few running a number of corporations are acting their views upon the whole by increasingly politicizing their companies (Facebook, Starbucks, others). While clearly this may be legal I am unsure it is moral; it is another facet of social engineering. The political space being its obverse. Facebook has repeatedly leveraged its power to influence politics directly and indirectly through manipulating news feeds, manipulating public opinion, managing opinion, and redirecting perceptions. There were multiple articles on this in the past year calling FB out for its "studies" that turned their database into a leftist experiment in perception manipulation. This information is widely available to research.

Its ironic that FB, a platform that is based entirely upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, uses this platform to restrict/attack/manage the debate or association with the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In essence, its duplicitous and abhorrent. People should be alarmed at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others directly entering the political space in their hybrid relationships providing poll night software, polls, news, search algorithms , etc.

[NeverSure]

I don't see this as political although I don't know what Facebook's politics are. The OP says they are still going to allow ads by licensed gun dealers which at least to some extent tells me they aren't anti-gun per se.

I can think of many sites and I believe Craigslist is one of them that don't allow gun ads. My understanding is that they are afraid of civil liability if a gun is illegally sold and then the gun is used to harm someone. After all the site is the pipeline that could allow or disallow potentially illegal gun sales. As we know, in America someone will sue the deepest pockets. We just saw an outrageous award against Walmart for $30 million dollars because they fired someone.

I'm very pro gun and even chastise my European neighbors for being unarmed in the face of all of this Muslim invasion. I really think "a people" should be armed. But if I owned a public website I wouldn't allow anonymous private parties to use it to buy and sell guns. There's just too much potential liability not to mention the potential criminal activity. That's not how we transfer guns in the US despite what the press might lead people to believe. In all cases and at the least any private gun sale must be face-to-face and never by mail. It must be between two residents of the same state. In many cases it must go through a gun dealer.

Cheers.

PS It is a federal offense for any private party to send a gun via the US postal service. A licensed dealer can do it but only with the proper paperwork. I resist every attempt to restrict gun rights but I understand Facebook's position on this. They are private and not the government and they aren't restricting my gun rights.

Cheers.

[JHolmesJr]

Facebook keeps lying and changing policies to suit whoever zuckerberg wants to pander to.

I remember when he firmly said there'd be no ads on FB....now you find one everywhere you look...even in your frickin timeline.

[Publicus]

This only seems logical.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why this would be allowed in the first place.

FB is finally a private experience and if people object to their rules they can use another service. But this OP illustrates a rarely addressed issue in the public debate that is manipulating much of the US if not the world- the collusion between corporations and politics. Without question the political leanings of the few running a number of corporations are acting their views upon the whole by increasingly politicizing their companies (Facebook, Starbucks, others). While clearly this may be legal I am unsure it is moral; it is another facet of social engineering. The political space being its obverse. Facebook has repeatedly leveraged its power to influence politics directly and indirectly through manipulating news feeds, manipulating public opinion, managing opinion, and redirecting perceptions. There were multiple articles on this in the past year calling FB out for its "studies" that turned their database into a leftist experiment in perception manipulation. This information is widely available to research.

Its ironic that FB, a platform that is based entirely upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, uses this platform to restrict/attack/manage the debate or association with the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In essence, its duplicitous and abhorrent. People should be alarmed at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others directly entering the political space in their hybrid relationships providing poll night software, polls, news, search algorithms , etc.

Its ironic that FB, a platform that is based entirely upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, uses this platform to restrict/attack/manage the debate or association with the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Neither amendment is absolute. Each amendment is subject to restrictions in law and modifications in both the law and in the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

The two amendments are complementary of one another.

For instance, 50% of the land in the city of Boston is tax exempt. Ten percent of the tax exempt land is owned by universities or religious organisations, such as the private Boston University and the very private Catholic Church. All universities and all religious organisations that qualify as such under the laws and the Constitution get this privilege.

Nothing in the Constitution provides a tax exemption under the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment is not an exemption from anything. It is also complemented by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which regulates sales, transactions, transport and mobility etc to include taxes.

Good on FB and keep us posted.

[NeverSure]

I think that what we may be missing here is that Facebook is a private organization, not the government. Their rights to freedom of speech and association etc. are theirs to keep and use as they see fit. The Constitution binds the government and no one can tell Facebook that it has to run these ads.

If this was the government acting we'd have a different conversation. This is why I totally support Facebook in this. Freedom 1A.

To me this isn't about guns as Facebook doesn't deal in guns. It deals in freedom. The internet is probably one of the most glaringly good evidences of freedom of the people and of speech we've ever had. Talk about free! It's the Wild West all over again!

To me, if this is about the Constitution it has nothing to do with 2A but rather 1A and Facebook's right to decide what to publish.

Cheers.

First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Gotta love it.

[scorecard]

This only seems logical.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why this would be allowed in the first place.

FB is finally a private experience and if people object to their rules they can use another service. But this OP illustrates a rarely addressed issue in the public debate that is manipulating much of the US if not the world- the collusion between corporations and politics. Without question the political leanings of the few running a number of corporations are acting their views upon the whole by increasingly politicizing their companies (Facebook, Starbucks, others). While clearly this may be legal I am unsure it is moral; it is another facet of social engineering. The political space being its obverse. Facebook has repeatedly leveraged its power to influence politics directly and indirectly through manipulating news feeds, manipulating public opinion, managing opinion, and redirecting perceptions. There were multiple articles on this in the past year calling FB out for its "studies" that turned their database into a leftist experiment in perception manipulation. This information is widely available to research.

Its ironic that FB, a platform that is based entirely upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, uses this platform to restrict/attack/manage the debate or association with the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In essence, its duplicitous and abhorrent. People should be alarmed at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others directly entering the political space in their hybrid relationships providing poll night software, polls, news, search algorithms , etc.

'facebook is a private organization' .... Spare me such convenient twists. In other words your saying there should be no controls / no scrutiny on what people put on their facebook accounts.

Personally I wish there were more controls on opening facebook accounts.

Why? Last year my10 year old Thai granddaughter came home from school and announced she now had a facebook account, her new teacher had helped every kid in the class to open a facebook account.

facebook does have a policy of not opening such accounts for people under 13 years old but the teacher involved manipulated the birth date of every child so the accounts could be opened, but that's not the reason I'm sharing this.

The reason is that with one week nearly half of the 34 kids in the class (girls and boys) got messages 'can I be your friend, your older friend because older friends can give you more knowledge and can buy you more cartoon books, and can i meet you for an ice cream, and many more similar messages.

Parents complained to the school, the teacher was told to cancel all the accounts immediately and was severely scolded by the school head. The teacher approached several parents to complain she had been unfairly treated with the line 'it's not fair, I think it's lovely for kids to have facebook' etc, parents tried to get her to understand the dangers involved, she just refused to listen.

Perhaps you, others, might say but 'freedom of speech' etc. Well that's fine but freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. Can't be any other way.

The bottom line here is in fact very simple.

Ads selling items which are illegal (certain drugs) and other items which are under various controls and should be for at least one point - keep those items away from children, example: selling guns, should not be allowed on faceless websites.

It's so simple to set up facebook (and other) accounts with, where wanted, name etc., details which are: totally false, or designed to cover the real faces, both directions of immoral and highly undesirable people etc. In other words zero controls.

Well done facebook.

Now stand by for the usual it's not guns that are dangerous........' etc.

[arjunadawn]

This only seems logical.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why this would be allowed in the first place.

FB is finally a private experience and if people object to their rules they can use another service. But this OP illustrates a rarely addressed issue in the public debate that is manipulating much of the US if not the world- the collusion between corporations and politics. Without question the political leanings of the few running a number of corporations are acting their views upon the whole by increasingly politicizing their companies (Facebook, Starbucks, others). While clearly this may be legal I am unsure it is moral; it is another facet of social engineering. The political space being its obverse. Facebook has repeatedly leveraged its power to influence politics directly and indirectly through manipulating news feeds, manipulating public opinion, managing opinion, and redirecting perceptions. There were multiple articles on this in the past year calling FB out for its "studies" that turned their database into a leftist experiment in perception manipulation. This information is widely available to research.

Its ironic that FB, a platform that is based entirely upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech and association, uses this platform to restrict/attack/manage the debate or association with the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In essence, its duplicitous and abhorrent. People should be alarmed at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others directly entering the political space in their hybrid relationships providing poll night software, polls, news, search algorithms , etc.

'facebook is a private organization' .... Spare me such convenient twists. In other words your saying there should be no controls / no scrutiny on what people put on their facebook accounts. Personally I wish there were more controls on opening facebook accounts.

Why? Last year my10 year old Thai granddaughter came home from school and announced she now had a facebook account, her new teacher had helped every kid in the class to open a facebook account.

facebook does have a policy of not opening such accounts for people under 13 years old but the teacher involved manipulated the birth date of every child so the accounts could be opened, but that's not the reason I'm sharing this.

The reason is that with one week nearly half of the 34 kids in the class (girls and boys) got messages 'can I be your friend, your older friend because older friends can give you more knowledge and can buy you more cartoon books, and can i meet you for an ice cream, and many more similar messages.

Parents complained to the school, the teacher was told to cancel all the accounts immediately and was severely scolded by the school head. The teacher approached several parents to complain she had been unfairly treated with the line 'it's not fair, I think it's lovely for kids to have facebook' etc, parents tried to get her to understand the dangers involved, she just refused to listen.

Perhaps you, others, might say but 'freedom of speech' etc. Well that's fine but freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. Can't be any other way.

The bottom line here is in fact very simple.

Ads selling items which are illegal (certain drugs) and other items which are under various controls and should be for at least one point - keep those items away from children, example: selling guns, should not be allowed on faceless websites.

It's so simple to set up facebook (and other) accounts with, where wanted, name etc., details which are: totally false, or designed to cover the real faces, both directions of immoral and highly undesirable people etc. In other words zero controls.

Well done facebook.

Now stand by for the usual it's not guns that are dangerous........' etc.

"In other words your saying there should be no controls / no scrutiny on what people put on their facebook accounts" would require that none of my words, or any of my intention is reflected at all. In fact, this quote shows a dire lack of comprehension.

Suggesting Facebook being a private organization and can do what it wants a convenient twist in the first sentence reinforces that this post is emotional spittle; apparently FB's target audience.