Facebook censorship on pro-life/pro-choice

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Check out this article -- made me sick. Considering getting rid of my Facebook now, but the problem is that it connects me to so many good people. Bah!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebo ... n-instruct

[Reactionary]

In the 21st century capitalist world, whenever something is for free, you have to be suspicious.

By the way, I'm not surprised - in my country there used to be (I don't know if it exists anymore) a Christian pro-life page on FB that was frequently censored, closed, reported, deleted, although it was never offensive to anyone as far as I know.

You don't have to get rid of your FB - I haven't either. The fact that you have an account doesn't mean that you support them. In fact, it's better that you have one, so you can keep an eye on what's going on.

[Ivellious]

Here's my take: Facebook is not out to take sides on this issue. In the instance given, Facebook apologized for removing a post of words that some people may have found offensive. There was nothing threatening or breaking of the law or the rules of facebook in her post. The picture, on the other hand, did violate the rules of facebook. Notably the rule that does not permit users to post violent, gory, or pornographic images that may be considered too graphic for children to see. Facebook does clearly say that certain images will not be allowed, while text posts are typically not moderated unless they are considered threatening or terroristic.

For the most part I haven't seen facebook remove too much stuff from people that I know, aside from a handful of (former) friends who posted sexually explicit pics a while back. I've had pages themselves remove my posts...but that's because I was arguing with the premise of the page haha...

[Reactionary]

Children aren't supposed to have FB accounts. The fact that they create accounts while they're still in the kindergarten, is another matter.

These days, political "correctness" has gone mad. Everything is considered "potentially offensive", except for what doesn't suit the pseudoliberal ideology, i.e. Christianity, morals, values, family... Bashing those ideas is not only tolerable, but desirable - it makes you look "progressive" and "brave". On the other hand, all kinds of -phobia's and -ism's are being thrown around at anyone who doesn't "fit". When I complain that I'm being offended by constant attack on my worldview and my values, I'm told that Christianity is a majority religion, and that a Christian can't be discriminated, in fact, that I should shut up because I belong to the majority. The double standard obviously exists. Some people see it, some pretend that they don't.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Children aren't supposed to have FB accounts. The fact that they create accounts while they're still in the kindergarten, is another matter.

These days, political "correctness" has gone mad. Everything is considered "potentially offensive", except for what doesn't suit the pseudoliberal ideology, i.e. Christianity, morals, values, family... Bashing those ideas is not only tolerable, but desirable - it makes you look "progressive" and "brave". On the other hand, all kinds of -phobia's and -ism's are being thrown around at anyone who doesn't "fit". When I complain that I'm being offended by constant attack on my worldview and my values, I'm told that Christianity is a majority religion, and that a Christian can't be discriminated, in fact, that I should shut up because I belong to the majority. The double standard obviously exists. Some people see it, some pretend that they don't.

Here here!

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Here's my take: Facebook is not out to take sides on this issue. In the instance given, Facebook apologized for removing a post of words that some people may have found offensive. There was nothing threatening or breaking of the law or the rules of facebook in her post. The picture, on the other hand, did violate the rules of facebook. Notably the rule that does not permit users to post violent, gory, or pornographic images that may be considered too graphic for children to see. Facebook does clearly say that certain images will not be allowed, while text posts are typically not moderated unless they are considered threatening or terroristic.

For the most part I haven't seen facebook remove too much stuff from people that I know, aside from a handful of (former) friends who posted sexually explicit pics a while back. I've had pages themselves remove my posts...but that's because I was arguing with the premise of the page haha...

That may be very true, but they didn't give the opportunity for an edit. Then again, how do you give the shock value of what an abortionist does without including an image?

[Murray]

Here's my take: Facebook is not out to take sides on this issue. In the instance given, Facebook apologized for removing a post of words that some people may have found offensive. There was nothing threatening or breaking of the law or the rules of facebook in her post. The picture, on the other hand, did violate the rules of facebook. Notably the rule that does not permit users to post violent, gory, or pornographic images that may be considered too graphic for children to see. Facebook does clearly say that certain images will not be allowed, while text posts are typically not moderated unless they are considered threatening or terroristic.
?

How is abortion gory? I mean it's just an un-formed ,un-living , un-thinking, bundle of cells right?