Why Facebook Blocks Porn but Lets You Watch a Murder

[Bladewire]

I thought this was an interesting article. Youtube, Facebook , etc. shows puppies & kittens being beaten and/or burned alive and killed, the live torture of a mentally deficient boy & most recently the live murder of 74 year old Robert Godwin, but not porn.

The technology is there now to stop this, but FB plays dumb, why?

We're on these platforms and always have been, always will be, we adapt unnoticed, those of us still around. We all know every new platform courts adult content for their initial growth then gets moral when investors come knocking and restricts or "bans" us.

The truth is the live streamers are the public, civilians, they don't know what we know, get caught & banned as the platform simultaniously telegraphs their actions for publicity to get market share for the live streaming content producers & audience.

Facebook is vying to be the new "place to be seen" over YouTube and they're doing it in a very insidious way. On YouTube you have to be approved to be a live streamer, and have an adsense account, on FB you dont, it's the wild wild west for a reason, so they can benefit from outrageous live conent and draw content creators from YouTube.

What are your thoughts? I think FB will wait as long as possible to do what YouTube has done for years, to currate as much of YouTube's content creators as possible. Insidious

[Evil Chris]

Shrewd assessment.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

Shrewd assessment.

Facebook keeps you at the top of all your friends feeds for as long as you're live streaming. You're top dog in your social group for as long as you stream.

That's a pretty big incentive to make cries for attention for as long as possible, or do outrageous risky/interesting stuff to get views.

YouTube gives low incentive and high barrier to entry for live streaming. On Facebook anyone can go live and is too of their social group for as long as they do it. Insidious lol

[romeo22]

Killing ppl and taking head off are all over FB.It might be restricted very soon

[Barry-xlovecam]

Facebook is the new Roman Colosseum.

[Bladewire]

I project FB will fan the flames through summer as more outrageous stuff happens and the take content creators from YouTube, then miraculously they'll have new standards and/or algos in the fall to filter who can post live & how

[bronco67]

If the video had shown naked titties being shot, then it wouldn't have been on the site.

[notinmybackyard]

Hey guys get it straight.

Murder and violence are wholesome family entertainment. But breasts, vagina and penis will scar a child for life!

[TheDynasty]

Right there should be some type of process you have to do to go live or step not sure exactly if it would prevent a murder but it might make someone give up on recording it

[Matt 26z]

The writer of that article has a book out..
https://www.amazon.com/Move-Fast-Bre...?tag=nypost-20

It appears to be a libtard crybaby book about how the right used what he thinks are flawed social media systems to rise back to power. Translation: "Hillary didn't really lose."

He is essentially calling out the questionable content on the web because he knows it acts as a type of firewall between the first amendment and right wing political speech. In other words, Isis videos will have to be censored before they can make an argument that right wing political ("hate") speech should be censored also.

As Paul Joseph Watson pointed out in one of his videos earlier this year, the left dominates Twitter because their shallow arguments can fill 140 characters and the right dominates YouTube because video requires substance.

The left is desperately trying to find ways to stifle right wing video production.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by TheDynasty

Right there should be some type of process you have to do to go live

Essentially what you are calling for is a broadcast license for the internet. That is a slippery slope. Do they stop at live video? Perhaps websites would be next.

[blackmonsters]

The ultimate answer :

1. Porn is not news.

2. Porn is not educational; (sex education is educational and therefore not porn )

3. Porn only appeals to one's prurient interest.

That's all they need to beat any legal challenge for removal of porn; all other content
falls more neatly into free speech rights.

4. Advertisers don't want to be associated with porn because of 1,2,3 listed above.


End of story.

.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

The writer of that article has a book out..
https://www.amazon.com/Move-Fast-Bre...?tag=nypost-20

It appears to be a libtard crybaby book about how the right used what he thinks are flawed social media systems to rise back to power. Translation: "Hillary didn't really lose."

He is essentially calling out the questionable content on the web because he knows it acts as a type of firewall between the first amendment and right wing political speech. In other words, Isis videos will have to be censored before they can make an argument that right wing political ("hate") speech should be censored also.

As Paul Joseph Watson pointed out in one of his videos earlier this year, the left dominates Twitter because their shallow arguments can fill 140 characters and the right dominates YouTube because video requires substance.

The left is desperately trying to find ways to stifle right wing video production.

What country are you from?

You support Putin, Erdogan and Trump you're just like the other cookie cutter nics and try to derail threads with your alt-white political shit.

Why do you never answer what country you're from and show any links to verify who you are?

[Paul Markham]

Because advertisers don't mind all the nasty stuff so long as it gets views. Hopefully, they will apply the same pressure to murder, torture, etc. As they do to porn.

[potter]

Uhm, it was blocked. They took it down in two hours. That's probably roughly the same amount of time it takes them to block porn when it's put up too. Stop trying to make drama where there isn't any.

[jbvryant]

Dicks are allowed in FB, Pussies are not

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Essentially what you are calling for is a broadcast license for the internet. That is a slippery slope. Do they stop at live video? Perhaps websites would be next.

Read the complete original post before commenting you're just showing your complete ignorance on the topic.

What country are you from? You act goofy just like that Slovakian guy.

On YouTube you have to be approved to be a live streamer, and have an adsense account, on FB you dont, it's the wild wild west for a reason, so they can benefit from outrageous live conent and draw content creators from YouTube.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Facebook is the new Roman Colosseum.

/thread

[mineistaken]

As if people could not stream porn for a short period of time?
It is not that they allow it, it is that they have no tools to shut it down that immediate second somebody start streaming.