Facebook Sued for ‘Censoring’ Posts Naming the Trump Whistle-Blower

[jimnyc]

This is so lame. There's absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with naming him. So it's a personal company decision to censor such things, which of course ALWAYS turn out to be things on the right being censored.

It's a concerted effort from the Democrats, the media & the social media and who else knows, to hide this person and help the democrats.

--

Facebook Sued for ‘Censoring’ Posts Naming the Trump Whistle-Blower

Facebook Inc. was accused in a lawsuit of censorship by a user who says the company hasn’t explained to him why it deleted three of his posts that named “the alleged Ukraine whistle-blower” who kicked off the presidential impeachment inquiry.

Connecticut law school student Cameron Atkinson says he wanted to test whether the social network was blocking posts that mentioned the identity ascribed to the whistle-blower by conservative media outlets. So he called the whistle-blower a “hero” in one post and a “dirty rat” in another -- and said in a third post that he has “conflicting thoughts” about naming the person publicly. All three posts were removed within hours, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in federal court.

Congressional investigators have kept the whistle-blower’s name secret, voicing concerns about the person’s safety if it were made public. Mainstream media organizations have cited the same rationale for not publicizing the person’s identity.

"Any mention of the potential whistle-blower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ’outing of witness, informant, or activist,”’ Facebook said in a statement. “We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistle-blower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.”

Atkinson claims Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg “harbors political ambitions” and his censorship of concerned citizens “is intentional and is inspired by ill-will, malice, and a desire to deflect attention from himself and Facebook’s practice of surreptitiously mining data for profit from consumers who believe they are receiving a free service devoted primarily to their welfare.”

The case is Atkinson v. Facebook Inc., 19-cv-01785, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/faceb...211503373.html

[Gunny]

This is so lame. There's absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with naming him. So it's a personal company decision to censor such things, which of course ALWAYS turn out to be things on the right being censored.

It's a concerted effort from the Democrats, the media & the social media and who else knows, to hide this person and help the democrats.

--

Facebook Sued for ‘Censoring’ Posts Naming the Trump Whistle-Blower

Facebook Inc. was accused in a lawsuit of censorship by a user who says the company hasn’t explained to him why it deleted three of his posts that named “the alleged Ukraine whistle-blower” who kicked off the presidential impeachment inquiry.

Connecticut law school student Cameron Atkinson says he wanted to test whether the social network was blocking posts that mentioned the identity ascribed to the whistle-blower by conservative media outlets. So he called the whistle-blower a “hero” in one post and a “dirty rat” in another -- and said in a third post that he has “conflicting thoughts” about naming the person publicly. All three posts were removed within hours, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in federal court.

Congressional investigators have kept the whistle-blower’s name secret, voicing concerns about the person’s safety if it were made public. Mainstream media organizations have cited the same rationale for not publicizing the person’s identity.

"Any mention of the potential whistle-blower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ’outing of witness, informant, or activist,”’ Facebook said in a statement. “We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistle-blower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.”

Atkinson claims Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg “harbors political ambitions” and his censorship of concerned citizens “is intentional and is inspired by ill-will, malice, and a desire to deflect attention from himself and Facebook’s practice of surreptitiously mining data for profit from consumers who believe they are receiving a free service devoted primarily to their welfare.”

The case is Atkinson v. Facebook Inc., 19-cv-01785, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/faceb...211503373.html

How is it they even think he's "hidden"? I think the toddler running around hereabouts knows his name

I just hope whoever is suing has the bucks to win. A it is, Trump will be through his second term and retired before it comes to trial.

[del]

You'd think a law school student would know that this is going nowhere.

It will be tossed as soon as the presiding judge stops laughing.

[STTAB]

You'd think a law school student would know that this is going nowhere.

It will be tossed as soon as the presiding judge stops laughing.

I personally believe a private person/company has a right to discriminate for any reason but we both know that isn't how our system works at all, and we also both know that this is essentially discrimination against a political view. People on both sides seem to be generally in favor of telling companies like Facebook what they may or may not allow on their website.

I know one thing, if this guy wins, I'm suing USMB

[STTAB]

How is it they even think he's "hidden"? I think the toddler running around hereabouts knows his name

I just hope whoever is suing has the bucks to win. A it is, Trump will be through his second term and retired before it comes to trial.

As a small government conservative you should absolutely oppose a judge being able to tell a private company what they must allow to be posted on their website.

[del]

I personally believe a private person/company has a right to discriminate for any reason but we both know that isn't how our system works at all, and we also both know that this is essentially discrimination against a political view. People on both sides seem to be generally in favor of telling companies like Facebook what they may or may not allow on their website.

I know one thing, if this guy wins, I'm suing USMB

from the OP:

So he called the whistle-blower a “hero” in one post and a “dirty rat” in another -- and said in a third post that he has “conflicting thoughts” about naming the person publicly. All three posts were removed within hours

Facebook took down all three posts. Which political view is being discriminated against?

Take your time.

Then realize how stupid you look.

[Gunny]

As a small government conservative you should absolutely oppose a judge being able to tell a private company what they must allow to be posted on their website.

.You're talking to guy with a free ride in journalism at the University of Miami from the Miami Herald who held his civic duty above lying to people for a living. Antiquated notion, I know, but I still stand on my principle.

IMO, if you disseminate information to the people you have a responsibility to those people to ensure that information is correct and valid.

And I think BOTH sides suck, neither can even spell "civics", so I'm not cherrypicking for a team here. Just hoping some liars get what I think liars deserve.

[STTAB]

from the OP:


Facebook took down all three posts. Which political view is being discriminated against?

Take your time.

Then realize how stupid you look.[/COLOR]

Ah, I had almost forgotten how intellectually dishonest you are Del.

One "side" wants this guy's name out there, the other "side" does not. Thus when Facebook decides to cooperate and keep his name banned on their site, they are discriminating against those who wish to get his name out there. This isn't exactly rocket science. It just requires a little honesty to say "yeah okay they are obviously doing this for political reasons" and then we can agree or disagree on whether they have a right to do so.

Why is it so damn difficult to find a liberal with even an ounce of integrity?

inb4delclaimsheisn'taliberal

[del]

Ah, I had almost forgotten how intellectually dishonest you are Del.

One "side" wants this guy's name out there, the other "side" does not. Thus when Facebook decides to cooperate and keep his name banned on their site, they are discriminating against those who wish to get his name out there. This isn't exactly rocket science. It just requires a little honesty to say "yeah okay they are obviously doing this for political reasons" and then we can agree or disagree on whether they have a right to do so.

Why is it so damn difficult to find a liberal with even an ounce of integrity?

inb4delclaimsheisn'taliberal

Whether or not they have a right to do so isn't a matter of opinion.

Everything I've read about the people who run facebook tells me they don't give a flying fuck either way as long as they get paid.

Try harder.

[STTAB]

Whether or not they have a right to do so isn't a matter of opinion.

Everything I've read about the people who run facebook tells me they don't give a flying fuck either way as long as they get paid.

Try harder.

You DO realize that there have been Facebook employees who have publicly stated that Facebook's algorithms have absolutely been designed in a way that is unfair to conservatives don't you?

Not to mention you can just look with your own two eyes and see that with these social media platforms it is ALWAYS conservatives who get deplatformed. No liberal has ever "accidentally" been banned .

You never were an honest person, so no one expects you to start being so now.