Facebook apologizes for banning evangelist Franklin Graham

[rlvaughn]

Facebook apologizes for banning evangelist Franklin Graham for 24 hours

Facebook is apologizing to evangelist Franklin Graham for banning him from posting on the site for 24 hours last week, a Facebook spokesperson told The Charlotte Observer on Saturday.
It was a mistake to ban Graham over a 2016 post he made on the site, and a mistake to have taken down the post, the spokesperson said.

Facebook has restored the 2016 post and will apologize in a note to the administrator of Graham’s Facebook page, according to the Facebook spokesperson, who agreed to speak only on background, meaning without the spokesperson’s name.

Graham’s 2016 post focused on singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen canceling a North Carolina concert because of House Bill 2. [bathroom bill]

 

[Reformed]

Most people don't know that Facebook has an army of "content moderators" that review reported and high-value content. Depending on what news source you believe there are between 7-10,000 content moderators. These individuals have the authority to delete posts and suspend accounts. It is fair to assume that most of these moderators are not politically conservative. One of these moderators probably suspended Rev. Graham's account as part of a knee-jerk reaction to his opinion. Only after complaints were registered was his account reinstated. I am not upset as some Christians. Facebook is a private company and freedom of speech is not a right in a private setting.

 

[rlvaughn]

Facebook is a private company and freedom of speech is not a right in a private setting.

I agree. A private company doesn't have to allow anyone to say whatever they want on their forum. They make the rules. But I believe that Facebook pretends to be fair while they really are not. If they were upfront and honest they might lose a lot of subscribers.

Also I wonder if this were someone like me rather than Franklin Graham whether if might not have been much harder toward impossible getting the account reinstated?

 

[Reformed]

I agree. A private company doesn't have to allow anyone to say whatever they want on their forum. They make the rules. But I believe that Facebook pretends to be fair while they really are not. If they were upfront and honest they might lose a lot of subscribers.

Also I wonder if this were someone like me rather than Franklin Graham whether if might not have been much harder toward impossible getting the account reinstated?

It probably would be harder. Then again, FB may have ignored you to begin with. Arguably, Rev. Graham was targeted because of his celebrity.

Sent using Tapatalk Pro

 

[church mouse guy]

If Facebook controls content, some say that they then become a publisher and hence responsible for their actions.

It turns out that the masters of the universe are all petty control freaks, huh?

 

[rlvaughn]

If Facebook controls content, some say that they then become a publisher and hence responsible for their actions.

How would that affect them legally, as far as what they could and could not do?

It turns out that the masters of the universe are all petty control freaks, huh?

 

[church mouse guy]

How would that affect them legally, as far as what they could and could not do?

Thank you!

I don't really understand the law and I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems that if "Ma Facebook" controls the content then they become like a newspaper and can be sued for the wildness of some of their hate speech such as Farrakhan's remarks on various platforms. I think that they are trying to skirt around that problem by deplatforming people like Graham who said that he was opposed to same-sex marriage, which silicon valley supports, and then saying oh that was a mistake and you are reinstated. Others they ban saying that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls them a hate group or something. So they have attacked Jews especially and even called in Mastercard, which is owned in part by Arabs, and they have not only deplatformed people but they have also forced Patreon to stop funding them through Mastercard and then Visa follows suit. So you can see how rapidly they are moving to control banking so that you cannot get a credit card because of your political views.

Since the masters of the universe seem to have a monopoly because of the expense of building a platform, then I think that they have to be regulated so that polite debate can ensue.

 

[HankD]

Facebook apologizes for banning evangelist Franklin Graham for 24 hours

Strange is it not that the source of the fiasco is the concern about which bathroom to use?