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?"
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
other groups worth joining (Score:1, Interesting)
facebook please shutdown the Group "fuck islam"
FACEBOOK SHOULD DELETE THE GROUP "FUCK ISLAM"
Facebook u have 2 delete the group "fuck islam" immediately
facebook you have to delete the group ((fuck islam))
fuck all people who say fuck islam
fuck all who says a bad word about islam & mohemed(pbuh)
FUCK ANY MUSLIMS THAT JOINED THE 'FUCK ISLAM' GROUP
fuck people who created the group fuck islam
Fuck every1 who created or joined the group " fuck islam"
FUCK FACEBOOK- IF ISLAM IS BEING HUMILIATED
Against "Fuck Islam" ? Join Here
against fuck islam
against the group " FUCK ISLAM "
agenst fuck islam
aginst za group(Islam is a cancer.Fuck it.Fuck Islam)facebook shut it down
everyone whoz against the group fuck islam join here!
facebook admin
facebook get rid of the groups"FUCK ISLAM"and"ISLAM IS A CANCER.FUCK IT..."
FuckU Santiago Matamores da CreatorOf"Islam is a cancer.Fuck it.Fuck Islam"
Fuck Variable Variable
FUCK VARIABLE FROM DA GROUP F ISLAM
Fuck who Ever made The Group ''Fuck Islam"
FUCK WHO EVER MADE F*** ISLAM
if there is a group (FUCK ISLAM) so FUCK FACEBOOK!!
I joined 'Fuck Islam' to fuck with the guy who created 'Fuck Islam'
Islam is a cancer. Fuck it. Fuck Islam
ISLAM IS THE GREATEST RELIOGON (FACEBOOK has to delete group fuck islam Now
I'm going to hope these ones are entirely jokes:
FUCK ANYONE SAY ONE BAD WORLD ABOUT ISLAM
Fuck Christians...Jews...and all other religions that degrade Islam...
2 all those who agree dat da members of fuck islam will end up in jahanam
fuck U.S.A , ISRAEL , all againist ISLAM
fuck you variable variable and fuck your religion
i will smack the shit out of anyone who says fuck islam again....
And where is the news about all the Fuck Israel/Jews groups, there are too many to list:
Fuck Israel & Any One Join In "Fuck Islam" Group
fuck Israel & Jewish
Fuck Israelians
So if Islam is great and Allah's hand is present in everyday life, how can something like Fuck Islam exist?
All this makes me kind of want to join Fuck Islam, even though I don't even use Facebook.
Re:Close... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Nice... (Score:1, Interesting)
and "Thou shalt not be a faggot"
and "Thou shalt engage in holy war"
and "Thou shalt stick your nose in others business"
and "Thou shalt not use birth control"
and "Thou shalt blow up abortion clinics"
and "Thou shalt not masterbate"
and "Thou shalt not allow evolution to be taught in public school"
and "Thou shall protest STD vaccines."
and "Thou shalt not benefit from modern medicine"
That bug most people in the US. I'm sure some people from Europe can fill you in on the downsides to some of the other more obnoxious religions.
Selective Protesting (Score:5, Interesting)
If that is true, then were are all of the other anti-groups protesting these hate groups, which I found on FaceBook in about three minutes of searching:
ALL CHILD MOLESTERS SHOULD HAVE THERE DICKS GET CUT OFF
Fuck The Fucking KKK
FUCK THE KKK FUCK THOSE RACIST BITCHES!!!!
All unite against the group(fuck uslimsand palestine)
FUCK ISRAEL!!! EVERONE HATES IT SO WHY IS IT STILL AROUND?!
Fuck Nazis
Fuck The Enemies of Israel
It seems to me that if they were really concerned, they would protest ALL of these hate groups, and not just the one they selected. After all, if they are truly okay with free speech but not hate groups, then shouldn't they take equal protest against the anti-KKK group, the anti-Nazi group, and the anti-Israel group?
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only one I can think of that doesn't offhand is the Sikh faith, which actually explicitly says that women are equal to men, just different. For instance, Sikh women typically don't take their husband's name when they marry, because that has connotations of "ownership".
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Interesting)
I told my partner that taking my last name in marriage was meaningful because it was belonging and that the reason that Chinese people traditionally don't take their husbands is that they weren't worthy of the mans name... Only his blood, and thereby the children of her, were worthy of his name.
The argument didn't work, but eventually she agreed anyways.
Re:Nice... (Score:1, Interesting)
You make a number of assertions here. Let me detail them:
1. Morality is realized universally - Do I really need to provide you examples to prove this wrong?
2. It is a universal constant that theft incites theft against thieves - I believe history is full of examples of successful thieves. They don't seem to have had that problem.
3. The golden rule is universal - Please provide a few pieces of evidence for this. I don't believe your assertion.
Now, I'll respond: The number of people who do immoral things disproves your assertion. If what you said were true, then very few people would ever steal. The idea that theft is wrong is encouraged by religion and is not found in nature. Animals steal from each other all the time. It is beneficial to the thief. From an evolutionary standpoint, theft would lead to greater success were it not for societal penalties against it. In the same way, any act to protect weaker people from stronger is counter to evolutionary theory and thus does not come from nature. From where does it arise?
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.
Your assertions:
1. Many people are murderously psychotic - Not statistically. You're FAR more likely to be murdered by a government (society) than an individual. Note: Wars are not started by individuals (most of the time)
2. Society was formed to protect people - That was only one benefit. Actually, farming did more than banding together for protection. Of course, you're just talking out of your ass anyway.
3. Thieves are unwelcome in societies - Not particularly. It depends on from whom they stole and what they stole.
4. You are assigning the viewpoint to me that society was formed for religious reasons. This is not only factually incorrect, it's also not a viewpoint I've espoused.
To respond:
All moral codes have their roots in religion. Not always the SAME religion, mind you. However, whether the rules are coming from a guy in the sky or an imp under the earth, they are still external sources for moral codes. That isn't to say that some pieces of some moral codes aren't a good idea, or aren't beneficial on their own. However, the idea that they are codified doesn't come from nature. I've mentioned that before. You cannot set up an experiment to prove the law of theft. You can't set up an experiment to prove that violence is wrong. You just can't. You cannot examine a plant and show how it follows the 'do no harm' code of physicians. These things are societal constructs, not natural laws as you have repeatedly attempted to assert.
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.
Games theory assumes fluid responses to changing states. For example, it behooves a solitary person to cooperat
Re:Nice... (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. However, your opinion of what is 'decent' is heavily influenced by religion, whether you or your parents are/were religious or not. All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people. Even if you hate that, it is impossible to escape for those of us in most of the world.
Of course there is no a priori good and evil (this refers to the interesting part of the parent), but I do not think the solution is to blindly follow a religion.
I submit that this is false. If there is no absolute good or evil, then there is no problem. Do whatever you want. There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons. This includes secular penalties for 'lawbreaking' because if there is no good and no evil, then there is no basis for law. It is not possible to say, "There is no good and evil, but we are punishing you for your actions." There should BE no law, if there is no good and no evil.
To put it another way: If there is no right and no wrong, then it is meaningless to say that anyone has ever done anything wrong.
If it is not meaningless to say that no one has ever done anything wrong, then there MUST exist some absolute concept of right and wrong. If it exists, ipso facto, it came from somewhere. Either it is a set of natural laws, or it came from somewhere outside nature. If it is a set of natual laws, then there is a way to delineate those laws. If that isn't true, then...and here's where I run out of ideas. It would really help me out if someone could show that there is a set of natural laws, and then provide a scientifically repeatable test for at least some of them. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Of course, most people will assume that because of my posts on this subject, I'm some sort of religious shill. However, I will categorically state right here and now that I do not agree with any organized religion I have ever heard of. I just wish I could explain in a scientific manner why some things are right and some are wrong. If it's just an artefact of religion, then we don't need to be basing laws on it. If it isn't, then we need to be able to use logic, reason, and science to defend our laws. We can't, currently.
Re:6 weeks on... (Score:3, Interesting)
And what's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are 1.2 billion Muslims world wide. If only 10% condone violence and terrorism that makes 120 million people out there that need to be dealt with. If another 20% turn a blind eye or promote the "less radical" aspects of Sharia law that is even more people that wish to promote a 12th century view of the world.
Not acceptable!
Jewish law does as well (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the anti-female views in Judeo-Christian beliefs aren't supported by the Bible, they are Roman/Greek customs and things that the early Church picked up when it merged with the Roman Empire. Did the Romans hate women? Well, considering that Roman/Greek societies placed the highest form of love as the love between a man and a young boy...
It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. This got into the Christian Bible by way of bizarre interpretation. It also slipped into Judaism a bit during the Talmudic era, when Judea was an occupied Roman Province.
If you look at the Biblical basis for marriage, it does nothing to prohibit sexual desires on either party. The only thing that is does is require that if a man lie with a woman, he make her his wife. This means that a man can only lie with as many women as he can support, so it somewhat limits male sexual expression. And pre-birth control combined with the timing effects of Family Purity laws, sex had a decent likelihood of resulting in child bearing. So forcing a man to support the woman he lies with can hardly be seen as sexist in an objective sense.
Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. We redefined the concept of gender relations in the last 100 years, and then call the old way sexist. However, if you look at the Biblical laws as applied to twelve wandering tribes in Egypt going through Arabia and into Canaan, they are extremely progressive. If you look at the restrictions added during the Talmudic era, they are extremely progressive. And if you compare their adaptation by the Church to Roman society, a society that used to encourage the men to ignore their women except to produce heirs, encouraged them to have mistresses to produce more off-spring which they could CHOOSE to legitimize or not (but the mistress got no support, while additional wives in Judaism (banned for over 1000 years now in Western Judaism) AND concubines each had levels of support, and the concubine could choose to end the relationship with no strings), the religious basis of gender relations was PRO-woman.
You can't look from a 21st century view of gender relations and look at Church law and call it backwards. Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer. The Church later dealt with gender relations in feudal Europe, where the nobles were marrying and producing legit heirs (with some on the side), and the peasants where gender relations were somewhere between permitted rape and modern dating, and brought marriage out of common law and into general practice.
Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Those that see female promiscuity (in an era of The Pill) as liberation for women may see the obsession
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrary to your opinion, there are reasons beyond absolute good and evil for the rule. A system of morality can be based on religion or it can be based on something else [wikipedia.org]. In fact society's rules are almost always based on the golden rule. It's a little thing called the social contract [wikipedia.org].
If you're actually interested in the moral basis of society, that's the best starting point.
Our laws may be difficult to defend with logic, reason and science because essentially they're decided by popularity (assuming you live in a democracy). Because we believe in the right to self-government we allow capricious and sometimes wrong laws to be created, though we attempt to limit what can be done by setting basic rules (the constitution, charter of rights, etc.) that can't be contravened. It could be worse, they could be decided by a successive line of individuals who have been declared infallible or who impose their will through force of arms.
In fact, it is my opinion that most religions are a poor source of ethics, the biggest problem being the authoritarian nature of most religions. It frequently comes down to a question of is something good because god commands it or is god commanding it because it's good? The former possibility is a path that leads to a very twisted morality where anything is justifiable, the second runs contrary to the Christian, Islamic and Jewish idea of God. It acknowledges that morality exists seperately from God, and therefore there exists and seperate a equally good code of ethics that does not depend on the existence of God. And of course there is the problem of inertia and failure to embrace change. We know from history that the Bible was more often used as an argument for slavery than against it up to the American civil war. Thus we run into the problem that an imprecise, poorly edited series of books written by disparate authors can be used to justify just about any rule you want to make up.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, you will always be successful when playing the "plain distrusting" strategy against a "plain trusting" strategy. That's a given. The problem is that you don't only play with one partner. When two people play the trust-react strategy, they will come out ahead compared to you, even if you keep playing distrust against everyone. Sooner or later you run into your counterpart and then, well, you lose. Permanently. The same happens when you play against a trust-react player. You get an initial advantage, but from then on, you lose.
I play that strategy in everyday life, too. And so far, I'm fairing pretty well with it. You'd be surprised how many people are actually willing to cooperate for mutual benefits. Sure, I run into people like you who gain a minor advantage out of me. You can rip me for 100, but you'll eventually lose out the 10k that I'd rather deal with another trust-react player.
I created the Fuck Islam group. (Score:2, Interesting)