Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech 806
NewsCloud writes "Does Facebook believe that no publicity is bad publicity? Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group? Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages. Shouldn't a startup like Facebook, reportedly worth more than a billion dollars and with over a hundred employees, be expected to enforce its own Terms of Use in less than six weeks?"
Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen (Score:5, Insightful)
What about digg? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free speech, motherfuckers (Score:1, Insightful)
heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech, motherfuckers (Score:3, Insightful)
censorship icon (Score:5, Insightful)
props to the slashdot strawman.
Re:What about digg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?
Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?
I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?
Can I not hate?
Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.
I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.
If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.
As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them.
I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being
Re:What about digg? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tolerance Icon (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
right on (Score:2, Insightful)
FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
Re:heh (Score:2, Insightful)
'Fuck Christianity' will be just as quickly rewarded.
We can't allow too much tolerance!
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, you can say whatever you want on your own website hosted on your own servers. In that case, I also have the right to be disgusted by it and not visit your website..
Maybe we're just old fashioned in believing that free speech extends to people we don't like.
Not Racist (By definition) (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about whether or not Facebook is letting you bitch adequately. After all, there's always Myspace for you people
Re:Why do I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do I think... (Score:1, Insightful)
The submitter is just trolling for traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do I think... (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope. Because you are dead right. And it shows how intellectually dishonest the people you are speaking of are. And they are completely incapable of understanding that. Ever.
Angry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...that's not even close to logical. You may be right, US soldiers may be the ones being violent and the media may be playing it off as the iraqis being more violent. You can't derive that from a casualty count however, not even if you try really hard. Because what it comes down to is that there are 26 million iraqis and many, many fewer US soldiers. 71,000 dead is a lot, a whole lot, but it's also
Yes they might be a minority, an extremely small minority in Iraq, and they might account for every one of those dead. Pure numbers, large as they may be, mean nothing unless accompanied by total numbers.
Note that I'm not trying to make any political statement here, I figure my views are easily found with just a few of my other comments. I am merely trying to show how using a figure like 71,000 casualties on one side (a side that is, for better or worse, known for killing many of it's own members which leads me to question how many of those casualties are directly linked to US soldiers) and only 3,000 on the other proves nothing and shouldn't be used to support, or criticize, any viewpoint. It's a meaningless statistic because a lot of important facts are missing.
Re:Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Close... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.
Re:What about digg? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a $#!+? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that there are people out there that hate us (no matter whom the "us" are), and that, fundamentally, it's their right to do so? If you don't like me because I'm a male, an American, without a degree, overweight, a Christian, from Texas, or whatever, I just flat don't care. I have more important stuff to worry about, and criticism to notice from people whose opinions actually matter to me. A life so empty of strife an conflict that it can be shaken just by someone forming a group called "Fuck <some group that I happen to identify with>" is a life to be envied, I suppose.
Nobody is going to please everyone he meets in life, and if you don't make any enemies along the way, you're probably not doing anything meaningful. If someone is going to waste time and energy hating me, I don't feel threatened. I don't feel endangered. If there existed a group called "Fuck all fat egocentric Texan assholes," I'd get a good chuckle out of it. Because, really, we can be pretty overbearing at times; we all can, though you'd probably never see fat egocentric Texan assholes shooting up the place and lighting fires because someone circulated cartoons of Sam Houston or Stephen Austin.
I mean, really, what's the harm? Short of the US military, there isn't a single group of people organized and equipped to exterminate or even cause widespread inconvenience to all fat egocentric Texan assholes--or all adherents of Islam, for that matter. And, really, if I were Islamic, I'd be a lot more worried about the US military than a club on a social networking website.
We need to all grow up (grow a pair, as the saying goes). Every person on this planet is a pathetic loser in one way or another. Thankfully we're all pathetic losers in different ways. Grow from the worthwhile criticism, and laugh at the rest. Whining for censorship is picking a fight in the parking lot because you lost on the mat. Call me an asshole, and be happy you can; I'll gladly return the favor.
The day we can't is the day we really have something to worry about.
The solution to speech you don't like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech should, in every case, be promoted wherever possible, especially in online outlets of communication. Regardless of whether or not you like the "fuck muslims" group, approve of their message (or not), there is a non-zero possibility that they have some new ideas that nobody's introduced into the marketplace, or have a new way of thinking about old concepts. Hell, even if they don't, they obviously believe what they endorsed via membership in the group, and that should be enough to trigger our desire to protect it.
The ideas contained in speech we find offensive don't go away just because we shut them up. The "fuck muslims" group will move on, maybe list their ideas somewhere else, probably with a smaller readership, but they won't disappear. If you want to combat them, read their args, make your own, defeat them with logic and reason.
Also, the last bit of the squib on the article seems like kind of a whiny thing to say. "Why won't X Company enforce Y provision of their User Agreement?" Well, because they haven't chosen to. They're not OBLIGATED to. The User Agreement is pretty one way. And I'm willing to bet that the poster and people who agree with him would have a HUGE problem if Facebook decided to shut something that they believe in down.
Long and short, free speech is good, always, and man up and argue things you don't like on their merits.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say it with me: the group is called "Fuck Islam".
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
My own morality and sense of good judgment has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Censorship is not a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If one person is willing to express a view then many other people probably also believe the same thing. If they are allowed to express their views openly then those views can be openly rebutted. That's the reason I never mod down people I disagree with on slashtot. Its better to post my on response or mod up a good response.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Racist (By definition) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AC's bore me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
IOW it's mainly Muslims killing each other, so the GPs point about us "still killing them in mass" is bullshit. The main reason we're still there four years later is to try to stop Muslim deaths. (Of course, whether our continued presence is actually helping is very debatable.)
I also have to wonder what exactly the numerous Islamic terrorist atrocities commited before any western involvement in Iraq or Afganistan were "fighting back" against.
Some clarification please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:0, Insightful)
I don't understand why people can't tolerate hecklers and idiots without getting all offended. It is the Internet after all and being a panzy cry baby because someone insults you, your mother or god forbid your religion is just a sign of your own stupidity and insecurity.
Personally I think our efforts are best spent mocking Scientology and the brainwashed cult-wannabee idiots who follow it.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Mindless heterodoxy it turns out is just as bad as mindless orthodoxy. Damn, it's a trickier world than I expected.
6 weeks on... (Score:3, Insightful)
What is their deadline anyway? "Stop that group or we'll quit Facebook somewhere in 2084"?
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
Undeserved Respect For Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.
The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
God, that's so pointless. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who gave you the power to fix the meanings of words? What makes you think that the meaning of terms is a function of their "definitions" in the first place?
You're making a completely pointless argument. As any half-trained social scientist will tell you, the concept of "race" in the sense of the term "racism" is a socially constructed concept; a way of explaining social difference by appeal to an attributed biological difference, which may not in fact exist. But the bigger point is that "race" is just one ingredient in the palette of things that discriminatory ideologies appeal to; religion and language are no less important.
In short, there really isn't any principled important dividing line to be drawn between "racism," "xenophobia" and "anti-Islamism." Calling anti-Muslim attitudes "racism" isn't a big abuse of the term, because the (a) differences are relatively minor, given the context of the discussion, and (b) it's not like vulgar racist thought itself cares about such precise distinctions.
Re:heh (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say that. Groupthink is a sort of self reinforcing majority. Almost every group has it to some extent, since people tend to leave groups where they are in a minority and join ones where they agree with most people. You just only notice it when you're in the minority.
The self deprecating stuff also gets a bit repetitive after a while, whilst posting on
I disagree with the slashdot consensus on most issues actually judging by the way posts are moderated, but because of that it's an interesting place to talk about stuff. Certainly more interesting than somewhere where I agreed with most of what's posted, even assuming such a place exists.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us.
Well now that you mention it, if the only reason you havn't done those things is an irrational fear of pain and suffering in an imaginary afterlife you're a sociopath, so perhaps we do need to keep the mentally unstable members of the population subdued with religion.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Racist (By definition) (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe renaming it to Fuck Sand Niggers would put a finer point on it.
Oh, that wasn't what they really meant?
I'd think you were just trolling but my "earnest misguided n00b idiot" filter is giving your comment a higher rating than my "clever jaded social commentator" filter.
Oh, wait! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, the name has an obscured curse word in the title, but so what? I've heard a hundred times, "If you don't like the content [gratutious sex, violence, adult topics on broadcast], change the channel". Well, now I don't watch TV at all.
If this bothers you so certainly, I suggest you do the same. Isn't that the 'enlightened' thing to do, my liberal friends?
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think PC sucks. I think censoring people because they might say something that bothers or offends me is completely anti-First Amendment. I may not like what the group Fuck Islam has to say, but they have a right to say what they want to say, no matter whether it's offensive, hate speech, politically incorrect, racist, or anything else.
Fuck Political Correctness should be the next group to organize, though the closest I could come was http://www.subgenius.com./ [www.subgenius.com]
Re:Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
-Ralph W. Sockman
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes. But how? I mean, you have to make sure your people heed that without watching them constantly (i.e. expend resources). The genius idea was to fill them with the believe that some omnipresent, allmighty being is peeking at them constantly.
Since promising them any goodies would've meant expanding resources again, they didn't invent Santa Clause but rather thought God is a better idea. He promises you goodies in afterlife (for which you don't really need to expend any resources since, well, try to sue if you don't get jack).
And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
Slashdot arguing for censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of books that slashdot "fights" for are a lot more controversial, and less childish, than this
Re:Censorship is not a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
This is how racial cleansing disasters happen, not because an entire country hates an wants to exterminate a group pf people. The true believers are always a minority. It's a apathy of the bystanders who say "it's none of my business," and fear making a stand, that allows tragedies like the ww2 Holocaust to occur.
Sure stand by while a group is slandered, it's not your group, why should you have an opinion?
Don't worry, they'll come for you eventually too.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we don't need him anymore. Today we replace him with surveillance cams. They're essentially serving the same purpose, but they don't promise you anything for your afterlife.
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you have some social need to provide said numbnuts with some clue, joining the group and working from the inside is usually more effective than ZOMG-must-ban!
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know this how? Ever hear of Hammurabi? Moral codes existed long before the gods. They just weren't recorded until writing was invented. So, you basically have it backwards, Religions based their moral codes on common sense moral codes already extant and tries to usurp the high ground.
"There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code..."
Only if you're a pedant. Golden Rule, we should all follow it. All else is icing on the cake. Others have provided the evolutionary logic behind the GR, I won't repeat. So, we have logically determined why there are basic moral codes. It's the Byzantine flourishes that are somewhat unexplainable.
Referring up-post: Of course there is no a priori good and evil...
I agree with you this is blatantly false. Murder, brutality of any nature... I can think of any number of evil things. Those who can't need to sit in front of a mirror for a very long time and ask the reflection just how they justify the acts.
Re:Nooooo (Score:0, Insightful)
Bit by bit they take your rights away, starts whit free speech, then heabeus corpus. You do know that next is the right to live.
Or F*** Intolerant Faith Based Idealogies (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And what's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book [skepticsan...dbible.com].
Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.
3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.
3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.
Just a taste of what the Quran hides.
Bleh.
Re:Jewish law does as well (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I wanted to take issue with some of your characterizations:
It is important to understand that in Jewish law, things are divided into permitted and non-permitted, and obligatory and non-obligatory. Jewish law is quite binary, there are few shades of grey... as an exception to this, the Hassidic/Hareidi cultures of the past two hundred years introduce a WHOLE BUNCH of grey, because they prohibit things via Minhag (binding custom) or Mensorah (custom) to their followers, but because a Beit Din (House of Law) has no jurisdiction outside of their area, you have things prohibited to followers of one Rabbi that are permitted to another. This introduces a LOT of grey areas of things that aren't permitted but are to be avoided. However, the areas you are addressing come from basic Jewish law.
1. Women were not allowed to speak in places of worship
While American Protestants and Liberal Jews have turned their places of worship into general social halls, basically as social clubs that have religious services on Sunday/Saturday respecfully, that was not historically the case. In Catholic Europe, the Churches held daily services and were fundamentally focused on religious matters, including matters that many today would consider secular in nature, but both Jewish and Christian Law is ALL encompassing on matters (roughly two Thirds of the Jewish Talmud and Shulchan Aruch cover matters of business -- not things considered "religious" in the post enlightenment world). If you look in Israel, where Jews are the majority, the Beit Knessets/Schules (Hebrew/Yiddish for synagogue) are places of worship and learning, not community centers. One would go to a synagogue for Morning or Afternoon/Evening services, or to the study hall during the day for Torah learning, not to discuss community affairs.
As a result, the "speaking in place of worship" is referring to either A) leading services, or B) teaching words of Torah. Now, under Jewish Law these are both privileges and honors to the person that does them, but also obligations upon the people doing them. Because women are generally exempt from time-based obligations for a variety of reasons, they are NOT required to do these commandments. Because Jewish law does not separate obligation from privilege, women are not permitted these functions. In other words, if you permit women to lead services and teach Torah, then the obligation falls on them. It isn't really fair to expect women to fulfill ALL the female oriented obligations (which are just as time consuming and all consuming as the male ones) PLUS the male ones, so the prohibition holds.
Think about it, how quickly did it go from "women are allowed to hold jobs" to "women are expected to hold jobs" in modern America? Few married women with children would consider working outside the home a privilege, but now an obligation. The "extended adolescence" of singles in their 20s and several years married before having children has affected how women view themselves, but it has also put obligations on them that previous generations didn't have. Few homes divide housework or child rearing evenly,
Re:Nice... (Score:1, Insightful)
Probably won't happen or if it does it will be much smaller reaction to perceived disposition towards an overprotecting and favouring of Islam. Christians are more open to, and tolerant of, criticism of their religion and more willing to engage in debate rather than trying to shut down dissent. I'm not saying there aren't those who think such groups should be shut down but that there is much less of this attitude among its adherents.
I should perhaps also point out in the interests of fairness that many of those campaigning against the "F**k Islam" group were possibly not even Muslims but left-leaning, hand-wringing, western "liberals" who would, ironically, be quite happy for a "F**k Christianity" group to stay up.
Re:Nooooo (Score:4, Insightful)
The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.
Define "we" please? The major issue I have with speech restrictions is who decides what is acceptable speech. The group "we" doesn't exist other than as an imaginary peer group modeled after our own likes and dislikes.
That won't ever happen. You don't have the right to not be offended, only to not read what offends you. No restrictions needed - just look away! It is possible to live how you want without forcing others to conform to your values at the same time.
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample. The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal. Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day? We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies. I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway. Uh, as a general rule: yes they are. Especially if I'm not completely sure they won't steal from my society, and if they have done it before to someone else, why wouldn't they do it again to me? No. He is simply stating that there is a non-religious basis for society. No, all moral codes have their roots in society. You keep confusing religion and society. Society is not a construct of religion, rather religion is a construct of society. I think you misread much of what he was saying. If anything he is saying they are natural laws of society. Maybe not in an obvious way, but you have to realize that as a societal creature we view society as very important, and as such we may sometimes sacrifice ourselves (not directly in our individual best interest) for the society (in our species and offspring's best interest). Not always true. Often societal rules are much much more complex. For example, if I steal a gun from someone who was going to go on a random shooting rampage, is that immoral? Yes. (hey, I had to throw in a little humor) But seriously, morals are relative to the society as different societies are structured differently and have different needs. Though, societies seem to be homogeneous, so we can afford to make generalizations. Final answer: morality is about the balance between serving your self interest and societies interest.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what version of Free Speech have you anthropomorphized into demanding free speech without any consequence?
Re:Jewish law does as well (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that Roman religion was diverse and some particular cults were anti-sex and ascetic, some were hedonistic, but MOST promoted what we would call today "traditional family values".
Given the choice of Scientology, which most people recognize is a money-making scam, and Judism, which most people DON'T recognize as a money-making scam, I'd pick the former.