Quote:

PAGE:  The Free Thought Project
NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS: 3.1mn
ABOUT: The widely known website which calls itself “a hub for free thinking conversations” focuses on government transparency. Founded in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the site claims to “shed light” on “corrupt entities” across our planet. Its reports have covered the Monsanto row, police brutality and shootings in the US, as well as an insight into how the American government gets personal information about any citizen.
BANNED ON FACEBOOK: YES
BANNED ON TWITTER: YES

---

Quote:

PAGE:  The Anti-Media
NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS: 2.1mn
ABOUT: Initially launched on Facebook by blogger and entrepreneur Nick Bernabe, the Anti-Media is now an independent news aggregator with a hefty amount of followers. The group, which poses as “non-partisan” and “anti-establishment,” publishes loads of “mainstream” stories, including ones dealing with the UN report about a number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, the Tesla crisis, and Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
BANNED ON FACEBOOK: YES
BANNED ON TWITTER: YES

---

Quote:

PAGE: Police the Police
NUMBER OF LIKES: 1.9mn
ABOUT: A page dedicated to exposing US police brutality. The name of the group is apparently inspired by heated discussions following the recent string of deadly shootings by police officers across the country. People on social media, critics and analysts wonder who will regulate police where there is evidence of misconduct.
BANNED ON FACEBOOK: YES
BANNED ON TWITTER: YES

---

Quote:

PAGE: Filming Cops
NUMBER OF LIKES: 1.5mn
ABOUT: Started in 2010, the blogging service’s moto is “Declare War on Police Brutality.” It has been documenting police abuse ever since. It insists that it is not demonizing officers, but is trying to report on “state-monopolized police brutality,” which it says is ignored by mainstream media.
BANNED ON FACEBOOK: YES
BANNED ON TWITTER: YES

---

Quote:

PAGE: Press for Truth
NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS: 340K
ABOUT: An independent media outlet which claims to produce content rarely covered by mainstream media. Notably, a day before being banned, it released a story by the project’s investigative journalist, Dan Dicks, who compared Google Hub and Facebook Portal to George Orwell’s 1984 dystopia.
BANNED ON FACEBOOK: YES
BANNED ON TWITTER: NO

---

Quote:

Facebook said it was removing the publishers and accounts not because of the type of content they posted, but because of the behaviors they engaged in, including spamming Facebook groups with identical pieces of content and using fake profiles.

"Today, we're removing 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior," the company said in a blog post. "People will only share on Facebook if they feel safe and trust the connections they make here."

But the move to target American politically oriented sites, just weeks before the congressional midterm elections, is sure to be a flashpoint for political groups and their allies, which are already attacking the tech giant for political bias and for arbitrary censorship of political content."

---

mndfreeze said:

Of those sites I recognize and have even 'liked' at one point back in the day, they all spread disinformation and propaganda and I'm 100% fine with them being taken out.  They are about as unbiased and realistic as infowars.

---

christopera said:

Because facebook is privately owned and operated and can do whatever the fuck it wants within the limits of the law. And banning morons is certainly allowed.

---

JHOVA said:

We ned communists amd progressives as well as alex jones online.

---

Well then, you will be happy to learn that Alex Jones is very much still online spouting the same stupid shit he always has.

You can visit his websites here:

https://www.infowars.com/
https://www.prisonplanet.com/

Although, I should mention that Jones does ban people he disagrees with, which of course makes him a huge hypocrite.

So yeah, consider yourself warned.

waves said:

Also-Facebook sucks. Who cares if they ban people? Do people really even still use it?

---

JHOVA said:

Styxhexxenhammer666 has been saying for a while we need a internet bill of rights. Im with him 100% on that.

---

Dude...what??? I thought you were more conservative?

You do realize that an "internet bill of rights" would have to be enforced by law, don't you?

Do you really think the government/law enforcement should be deciding who can post what on the internet?

If you had your own website, would you want the government to be able to decide what content you can and cannot have on your own website?

That would be the complete opposite of the "small government" that conservatives claim to want.

This is my problem with conservatives—they say they want small government, then they go and do stuff like support the drug war, try to criminalize abortion, or talk about wanting government regulation on social media websites.

All that stuff is the exact opposite of "small government". If conservatives really believed in small government, they wouldn't give a shit who gets an abortion or who does drugs. If conservatives really believed in small government, they DEFINITELY wouldn't want the government deciding who can post what on social media.

It really doesn't make any sense at all. Can you try to explain that?

JHOVA said:

i believe everyone no matter how bad or crazy should not be banned off the internet for political speech. its like book burning its bad for everyone. i have a lot of libertarian views and one is freedom of speech. you dont need internet police like the UK where they arrest you for talking about islam. what i imagine is the law goes in place and when people are banned they can take their case to a court of law. once companies see they cant ban people for political speech they change their TOS to allow political discourse on major internet platforms. its fucked up that places like paypal, internet registrars and social media can ban people for their going against the establishment democrats. yes i want a small govt but i also want fuckin roads to drive on and a military. a smaller military than what we have, the budget is way too high imo.

---

Nobody has been banned from the internet, we both know that is hyperbole.

Even if all the registrars and webhosts banned Jones, nothing is preventing him or anyone else from hosting their own website on an internet connected computer. He could do it on a laptop FFS, setting up a web server isn't exactly rocket science.

This is such a perfect example of Republican bullshit.

A couple years ago they supported that guy who didn't want to bake a cake for some gay people.

The court made (IMO) the correct decision on that case, and conservatives rejoiced.

Now the exact same situation is happening with websites. In both cases, a business doesn't want to be forced to promote an idea they don't agree with. 

But now you are telling me the government needs to regulate speech on the internet more, which will somehow make it more free?

It's just nonsense my man.

JHOVA said:

you are uninformed about banning people off the internet.

---

waves said:

Also-Facebook sucks. Who cares if they ban people? Do people really even still use it?

---

JHOVA said:

you are drawing a false comparision on the bake the cake. the case was a gay couple wanted a gay cake with two men on it for their wedding. the cake shop said they would sell them a cake, any cake except they didnt want to participate in making it gay. they could put their own gay cake plastic men on it themselves.

---

JHOVA said:

they could put their own gay cake plastic men on it themselves.

---

JHOVA said:

are you fine with the shroomery getting btfo by credit card processors? they have been getting kicked from one to another. around the same time that youtube started banning mushroom cult videos. drug use and cultivation is illegal so banning them for their views should be fine according to you. are you a supporter here or just a free loader?

---