Unz: The Unz Review Suddenly Banned by Facebook!

https://www.unz.com/announcement/facebook-bans-the-unz-review/

Mox nix, perhaps, but I challenge anyone to make a positive argument to explain how it is a good thing for Facebook to ban The Unz Review. Sure, Facebook has a right to practice censorship, but how is it beneficial?

26 thoughts on “Unz: The Unz Review Suddenly Banned by Facebook!

  1. How beneficial is it to promulgate the idea that our own bioweapons folks planted a virus to destroy the Chinese economy?

    It sounds like an Infowars story.

    Already, social media is under attack for being weaponized by organizations that want to sow nasty partisan divisions.

    Plus we have some top pols in this country who are pursuing the idea that China created the bug and it either escaped or was purposefully released to destroy the world economy. Our own intelligence services have been ordered to pursue that theory. Of course there is nothing like a shooting war to bolster loyalty to an administration. Look at Bush’s numbers after 9/11 before he botched them up with the invasion of the wrong country.

    When true disasters happen, people try to find a reason even though it is most likely just “stuff happens” on a grand scale. Conspiracies abound in catastrophe.

    So back to the ban. FB probably decided, for better or worse, that a history of such conspiracies might not be a good thing for it to tacitly support or encourage.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “How beneficial is it to promulgate the idea that our own bioweapons folks planted a virus to destroy the Chinese economy?”

      The benefit is in tolerating alternative, even minority points of view.

      The challenge remains: How is it beneficial for Facebook to practice censorship?

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        “The benefit is in tolerating alternative, even minority points of view”

        Uh, no. There is no benefit in tolerating lies or fantasy “facts” intended to incite divisions. You are confusing facts with opinions. If someone were banned for saying “Trump is doing a great job.” You would have a point.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “There is no benefit in tolerating lies or fantasy ‘facts’ intended to incite divisions.”

          Really? None at all?

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            No, there is not. But maybe you can name such a benefit. For example, what was the benefit of 5,000,000 people being fed a bunch of bunk about there being almost no risk from corona virus. How many of them got sick and died as a result of that bad information?

            These clowns have their right to free speech but the owners of Facebook have a right to select what they publish. Weeding out lies, nonsense and “alternative facts” seems a reasonable stand for them to take.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Conspiracies thrive in disasters . Scapegoats must be found and destroyed.

        There has been an increase in anti-Asian harassment and attacks.

        FB may well have decided not to be an enabler for hate crimes. If someone wants to spout “alternative facts”, they can do it on their own platform.

        Trump has retweeted racist crap, but being president, he gets away with it. UNZ is not SCOTUS.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Why Ban?

    My guess is to attempt to reduce the amount of crazy by limiting a tiny bit of the constant misinformation by wing nut conspiracy types…Just a guess.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. @Roberts

    If you accept that it is harmful to publish and thereby disseminate complete falsehoods and unsupportable conspiracy theory nonsense then it follows that it is beneficial to stop them from being published. A for-profit business is free to apply its own editorial judgment to protect the public and its own reputation.

    You yourself brought up a similar banning after a completely fraudulent presentation by some unqualified doctors was seen by more than 5,000,000 people, very few of whom would find or read the actual truth of the matter. It would have been beneficial if those 5,000,000 people had not been exposed to dangerous falsehoods.

    It is time that ALL parts of the media took Senator Moynihan’s aphorism very seriously.

    “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “If you accept that it is harmful to publish and thereby disseminate complete falsehoods and unsupportable conspiracy theory nonsense then it follows that it is beneficial to stop them from being published.”

      I don’t accept the premise, if only because, as stated, it is unworkable. I certainly agree that unsupportable conspiracy theories can be harmful. The Russian collusion narrative and the Ukraine phone call hoax are two examples of conspiracy theories that arguably damaged the country, but I doubt that Facebook will ever ban them in the form that CNN and MSNBC, among others, promoted them.

      Like

      1. The Russian INTERFERENCE was not a hoax or conspiracy. (For clarification, you can ask the Senate Intel Committee.) And the Ukrainian phone call, if conducted by Obama, and not Trump, would have had the GOP-led Senate building the gallows on the Capitol steps. To refer to that as a conspiracy is what Trump did, and you, as a blindly led sheep, take him at his word. Even when all of the evidence said otherwise.

        I’m sorry one of your favorites no longer appears in your FB feed. Guess you’ll just have to go directly to their site to get your conspiracy fix.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “and you, as a blindly led sheep, take him at his word.”

          Nope. I believe it all on my own. But since you are capable of reading my mind, what am I thinking right now?

          BTW, I don’t have an “FB feed,” whatever that is.

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            “Nope. I believe it all on my own.”
            LOL! Of course, you do. Until Trump tells you to believe something else.

            If you use Facebook at all you have a Facebook feed. It is shorthand for what their algorithms present for you to read.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Me either. It was a point about not being able to have the UNZ fed to you (or anyone else) without actively seeking it out.

            And I’ll play along. You are thinking let me throw this BS at Mr. Green and see what he says. You throw the phrase straw man around quite a bit and accuse others of using that to support their positions. Yet you do not see the irony that YOU do the same thing when you have no real answer.

            And I stand by my sheep comment. Most sheep don’t even know they are being led to slaughter.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. @Roberts

        You have a very screwy idea of what the words “conspiracy theory” mean.

        Here is the dictionary meaning . . .
        “noun. a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot”

        The standard explanation of the FBI contacts with the Trump campaign is that they were simply doing their job of monitoring Russia efforts at subversion. There is a mountain of evidence and various review findings that confirm that explanation. You posit the non-standard explanation alleging a secret and malicious plot out to hurt Trump but which actually destroyed Clinton.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. @Tabor

        “But there is a great deal more harm in having someone determine what can and cannot be printed.”

        That, of course, is utter nonsense. Every publication left, right and center have people whose full time job it is to determine what THEIR publication prints or doesn’t print.

        Social media giants see their business at risk because so much junk comes through them including junk from foreign actors out to harm us by promoting divisive and incompetent leaders. It is in their economic self interest to clean up their acts. Or, at the very least, that is how they see it and they are starting to act accordingly. Long overdue.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. @Don

        “Maybe” ?

        I understand the point, but balance it against “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

        OBVIOUSLY false and harmful information can legitimately be limited by the private sector (your wheelhouse) when needed.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yes, private entities like FB can exclude anything they want. but at the risk of people leaving because of perceived bias.

          The problem with FB is that some users make a hobby of reporting anything they don’t like and too often FB deletes the reported post and even excludes the poster rather than take the time to determine if the post was accurate or not.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s