And what’s more, the world’s biggest social media platform, Facebook, has joined ranks with these lunatics, even to the point of inciting its users to commit acts of violence — in violation of the law — against anyone they disagree with.
As reported by Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars and Summit.news, Facebook has issued a “fatwa” against him in a recent post by the platform to its Community Standards policy “saying that it's acceptable to incite violence against” him.
“I’m not even joking,” he said in a newly released video explaining the policy.
Noting that Facebook banned him in May, labeling him a “dangerous individual,” PJW noted that the platform on Tuesday posted this community standards update:
Do not post:
Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following:
— Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or
— Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news events, etc.) (our emphasis)
“That’s me,” Watson says in his video. “So in other words, Facebook just informed its 2 billion users that its acceptable to post statements of intent of ‘high-severity violence’ against me.
“This is literally illegal in the United Kingdom under the 1998 Malicious Communications Act, which states, ‘Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys…a threat…or any article or electronic communication..of an indecent or grossly offensive nature…” (Related: Missouri AG demands all Facebook communications with OBAMA’s 2012 campaign.)
Mocking those who say that Facebook is a “private company” that “can do what it likes,” Watson then asks rhetorically, “Can it break U.K. law? Can it openly incite violence against people?”
On the surface, of course, the answer would appear to be a resounding ‘no.’ But the policy, as of this writing, stands — which means sanctioning violence against Watson and anyone else the platform has deemed “dangerous” also stands.
“The same company that lectures us all the time about the need to stop hate is directly encouraging hate,” he said. “This is like some futuristic sci-fi dystopia where the artificial intelligence takes over and starts marking people for elimination.”
Noting that over the years, when he was still on Facebook, he received dozens of death threats, Watson said Facebook’s “fatwa” “literally places a target on my back.”
“The world’s eighth-biggest corporation has literally sanctioned death threats against me for words I say on the Internet,” he added.
There have been increasing calls in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere for federal regulatory and/or legal actions to be taken against Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media behemoths over their anti-conservative bias.
Also, as noted by NewsTarget, the companies are media behemoths as well, overshadowing the major traditional media companies:
Even if you merged the five major media companies with the five major communication companies (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter, and Dish) and the world’s top five advertising agencies (WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, IPG, and Dentsu) their total net worth is only 90 percent of that of Facebook and Google, which together are worth $1.3 trillion. Facebook and Google are gatekeepers of the news media online, with the power to censor content that challenges the status quo and progressive ideologies.
But sanctioning violence and even death threats is a new level of lawbreaking.
It’s time to reign in the political intimidation by these 21st century Brown Shirts.
Update: Facebook reversed its policy. Read that story here. But that doesn’t mean a policy like this won’t come back again at some point.