Facebook censors image of Santa kneeling before baby Jesus, calls it ‘violent content’

#41

PickyPicky . . . .

No. Let’s be clear about this.

Facebook did not censor the photo. They attached a warning to it.

I think your reply should be . . . .

No. Let’s be vaugue about this.

Facebook did not censor the photo. They attached a warning to it.

ThinkingSapien. I am surprised at you giving a heart sign to this post of PickyPicky.

Why?

Because on another post that involved PragerU being censored by a tech giant in the SAME WAY, you did not say . . .

. . .“Let’s be clear about this exnihilo. This is NOT censorship”

No!

In your response to exnihilo’s angst over their censorship . . . .

Exnihilo . . . .

Big social media shouldn’t be allowed to censor content.

You claimed . . .

This is also something being argued in the PragerU v Youtube case and has been argued in previous cases against Facebook and others. For the previous cases with ruling in which it was argued this argument has generally failed because of the right of the publishing company (the social media entity) to make editorial decisions.

You equated this “censorship” that exnihilo explicitly mentioned with “editorial decisions”.

That was a good excuse back then.

And the argument that “Well this isn’t REALLY censorship” (“Let’s be clear about this. Facebook did not censor the photo.”) is a good excuse now too PickyPicky.

But as I said earlier.

There is ALWAYS excuses made.

There is always an excuse.

0 Likes

#42

PickyPicky . . . .

Anyone with experience of these kinds of algorithm knows that such an error is not unusual.

I think that is a good excuse too PickyPicky.

PickyPicky . . . .

Lifesite appears to have made no attempt to discover from Facebook what actually happened.

LifeSiteNews is part of the reason this was corrected in my opinion.

Lifesite appears to have an excellent understanding for how these things work. But I also get the impression that exposing the truth of what happened was a major concern for FaceBook.

1 Like

#43

Did you, perchance, look at the site I linked to here

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=40906#more-40906

Here is exactly the same thing happening to a cartoon cat on Tumblr, discussed in a blog yesterday. Is this censorship of Christians, or is it evidence that such an error is not unusual?

And here, from ThinkingSapien, is more of the same:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TooSexyForTumblr&src=typd

Not an excuse, an explanation, and one which is rather more reasonable than Lifesite’s scandalmongering.

1 Like

#44

Lifesite appears to have made no attempt to discover from Facebook what actually happened.

2 Likes

#45

PickyPicky . . .

There is plenty of uncensored religious material on Facebook. Perhaps if the company is serious about censorship it could consider the pages of the Vatican, or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury. The latter is worth checking out: it shows the archbishop with the Patriarch of Jerusalem at a Westminster Abbey service celebrating the contribution of Christians in the Middle East. That’s a part of the world where Christians are indeed being persecuted — to the point of martyrdom — and where our thoughts could more usefully be turned than to the Facebook pages . . . .

The kind of persecution that you are highlighting here . . .
. . . . Grows out of the kind of IDEAS that I am highlighting here.

This is looking at ideas and their effects.
Yet you think things here are reducible to mere conspiracy.

our thoughts could more usefully be turned than to the Facebook pages of the more conspiracy-theory-minded of American Catholics

The late Pope John Paul II the Great warned about the “Totalitarianism” connection to a society that accepts for example “abortion” (Planned Parenthood has social media accounts for example).

Pope John Paul II the Great wrong
and PickyPicky right?

“Conspiracy-theory”? Indeed.

No thanks PickyPicky.

Others are free to internalize the ideas you are peddling, but I will not be.

0 Likes

#46

This is from St. Pope John Paul II, The Great. Evangelium Vitae section 20.

. . . This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government:
the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied
on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority.

This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part.

In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism.

The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. . . .

(Some minor formatting changes and bold mine)

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

0 Likes

#47

Absolutely irrelevant. And you won’t get me to support Facebook — there’s no place for it in my life, and I think the company untrustworthy. That doesn’t mean I’m going to sign up to the sort of baseless nonsense that Lifesite has put out.

1 Like

#48

G[quote=“Cathoholic, post:46, topic:523545”]
This is from St. Pope John Paul II, The Great. Evangelium Vitae section 20
[/quote]

What on Earth is the relevance of this? Lifesite posted a misleading article, just as in the “Apple declares war on Christianity” article it posted a pack of lies. Do you honestly think St John Paul would have supported that sort of conduct?

2 Likes

#49

In the case of my post,I hadn t posted a picture,which I added so Facebook could see,to begin with that it wasn t weapons,but animals( which they mentioned). And what the pop out or text read was that " there appeared to be…" ,not that there “was”,and there was this possibility to explain your post through a click.which I did basically translating my Spanish sentence into English,just in case it would speed up .
So…though it was clear to me that their concern was unfounded and my post was a real case of apples and oranges,and totally innocuous,to their credit,it was very quickly unblocked.
And if you ask though I was surprised,their concern for illegal use of the site,well,I appreciated it. Particularly,since it was solved easily and very quickly.
It was just a coincidence really that I had this situation on the day of this thread,but in a way,it kind of supports that it can really be not deliberately " against" anything too special about a post. Mine was obviously innocent to any person anywhere once understood.

1 Like

#50

You think Facebook’s support of the abortion agenda is “absolutely irrelevant”.

You are free to think such thoughts.

I on the other hand think it IS absolutely RELEVANT.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here PickyPicky.
Others will just have to make up their own minds in the discussion as well.

I am OK with people thinking I am wrong. No problem.

0 Likes

#51

Is Facebook’s hosting of Catholic pages support for the anti-abortion agenda ?

3 Likes

#52

PickyPicky . . .

What on Earth is the relevance of this?

Just like I said. Ideas.

.

.

PickyPicky . . .

There is plenty of uncensored religious material on Facebook. Perhaps if the company is serious about censorship it could consider the pages of the Vatican, or the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury. The latter is worth checking out: it shows the archbishop with the Patriarch of Jerusalem at a Westminster Abbey service celebrating the contribution of Christians in the Middle East. That’s a part of the world where Christians are indeed being persecuted — to the point of martyrdom — and where our thoughts could more usefully be turned than to the Facebook pages . . . .

The kind of persecution that you are highlighting here . . .
. . . . Grows out of the kind of IDEAS that I am highlighting here.

0 Likes

#53

I haven’t yet seen just what these ideas are.

0 Likes

#54

PickyPicky . . .

I haven’t yet seen just what these ideas are.

Jost as Pope John Paul II said.

Relativism. The sinister result of a relativism which defines some people as LESS THAN persons. And their enablers and cheerleaders like the tech giants. At least that is my opinion.

A “dictatorship” of relativism.

0 Likes

#55

Hoax

Or at least wildly misinformed.

I’ve seen this picture a lot on Facebook and still do.

I just opened my fb and was able to find it in less than 6 seconds.

If I want to, I can flag any post I see on fb, and it can get “censored” by a moderator. That doesn’t make facebook “anti Christian”

5 Likes

#56

PickyPicky . . .

Lifesite appears to have made no attempt to discover from Facebook what actually happened.

Facebook appears to have made no attempt to be transparent from Lifesite’s criticisms of what actually happens when their rhetoric and their internal emails that leak out are diametrically different.

0 Likes

#57

Defining some persons as less than persons is appalling. It is also nothing to do with whether Facebook is censoring Christians, or whether Lifesite tells lies.

0 Likes

#58

And I would not put it past some groups to engineer just such a censoring in order to inflame outrage.

1 Like

#59

Exactly. So yeah, groups or users can censor stuff…

1 Like

#60

PickyPicky . . . .

It is also nothing to do with whether Facebook is censoring Christians, or whether Lifesite tells lies.

.

TheLittleLady . . .

And I would not put it past some groups to engineer just such a censoring in order to inflame outrage.

.

Carmelite1983 . . .

So yeah, groups or users can censor stuff…

.

.

And just think.

A few posts ago I was being told there was no censorship.

No. Let’s be clear about this.

Facebook did not censor the photo.

Now the excuses have morphed into the above.

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.