Facebook Temporarily 'Bans' RT After Presumed Technical Failure

[Guest]

Facebook temporarily banned the RT media outlet from posting images, videos, and links to articles on the social network as the result of what appears to have been a technical malfunction.

Facebook Temporarily 'Bans' RT After Presumed Technical Failure : Read more

 

[therealduckofdeath]

Yeah, obviously an unfortunate error. Facebook banning their revenue-generating fascist trolls? That will never happen.

 

[caustin582]

I wish they would ban them permanently, along with any other news organizations from countries where the media is state-owned.

 

[Elysian890]

now everyone will miss posts about some random russian guys calling "fake news" other media, oh and don't forget the conspiracy theories and the UFOs

 

[SCREAM2NIGHT]

"I wish they would ban them permanently, along with any other news organizations from countries where the media is state-owned."

There goes the BBC, CBC, etc.

 

[damric]

I used to frequent RT for a different perspective but now there are too many neonazis spreading hate speech there.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

I wish they would ban them permanently, along with any other news organizations from countries where the media is state-owned.

Riiight. Since the mainstream media, privately owned by a handful of elitist, globalist, real life friends who belong to the same clubs and all promote the same agenda regardless whether left or right leaning, have proven to be so "honest" and "non-biased". A news network being "state owned" doesn't/shouldn't automatically disqualify it from being viewed. Any news source or network should be judged solely on their _journalistic merit_, whether its state owned or not has nothing to do with it.

Here in the US and in the nations in our sphere of influence, Operation Mockingbird already long ago ensured we wouldn't have access to a truly "free press". Operation Mockingbird, as it was called, was exposed in 1975 during the Church Committee investigation. Named for Senator Frank Church, D-ID, its findings were published the following year. Through the Church Committee investigation in 1975, it became clear the program was developed in the 1950s for the purpose of persuading American and foreign media, as well as to use the media as gate-keepers to prevent certain information from being published and reaching the masses. This information should alarm and disgust any free-thinking American. It should come as no surprise the NSA has grown so out of control, or that some in the US and elsewhere would just love to shut down any news sources that report with some measure of integrity instead of just towing the line by sticking to the narrative of the MSM.

If not for being able to access alternative news networks and sources (and caring enough to question the narrative we're given by the likes of CNN et al(Fox as well), we'd all be in the dark as to the other side of many stories. We'd all be subject to stories built on half-truths and outright lies. We'd all have the attitude that we should bury our heads in the sand just because a news source is "state owned"... We'd all have no clue about so many things the MSM refuse to report. RT, Zerohedge, and others have often proven to do their jobs in journalism where our media has utterly failed. Have covered stories and issues the MSM have absolutely refused to cover.

When one shuts out alternative sources of news, without even objectively researching them, they're no different than those 3 proverbial monkeys refusing to hear, see, or speak any evil. The metaphorical evil, in this case, being whatever some elitist control freaks who'd love nothing more than to dictate what we all can and cannot hear, see, and speak, would deem it to be.

 

[damric]

^ tl: dr

Typical RT conspiracy theorist rant.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

^ tl: dr

Typical RT conspiracy theorist rant.

Typical personal attack by someone who'd apparently be less informed about what's going on in the world. Just fyi, it isn't a conspiracy theory if whoever your using that same old "conspiracy" nonsense against only mentioned facts that can easily be confirmed by anyone who cared to do some honest research.

 

[damric]

Go watch your Alex Jones, and your RT, and make sure to post horrible things about Jews and colored people in the comment section, because that's what people do there. I can literally go to any page on RT and get you a screen shot of the comment section and that's what you will find.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Go watch your Alex Jones, and your RT, and make sure to post horrible things about Jews and colored people in the comment section, because that's what people do there. I can literally go to any page on RT and get you a screen shot of the comment section and that's what you will find.

I never said anything about Alex Jones, or commenting on RT's stories. If making false assumptions and personal attacks on others is your usual forte, I'd question why on earth such an exasperating, presumptuous individual as yourself believes you deserve the title "provost" at all.

It's the merit of the stories covered by any news source which make it worthy or unworthy of viewing, not what's said in the peanut gallery. I choose not to comment on RT btw, just to correct your false assumption. Their viewership is huge and growing, and those who do choose to comment represent but a fraction of that viewership. Also, comparing Alex Jones to RT or any credible news source, only exemplifies your apparent preference for resorting to personal attacks rather than reason when others disagree with you.

Spotify choosing not to censor their comment section on RT or elsewhere doesn't disqualify the merit of a given story covered. Because the viewer isn't "protected" from comments we may disagree with should have no bearing on our choice to view a story. Anyone who values free speech should know that much.

If you're so thin skinned and your delicate sensibilities are so easily offended by certain commentary, I'd have to wonder how you can stand the internet at all. Do you avoid YT vids worth checking out just because there are comments you dislike there as well? CNN does a great job of censoring their comment section, you can always limit yourself to networks like them if free speech offends you so much? Commenting, agreeing or disagreeing, or even reading the commentary at all, isn't a prerequisite of viewing a news piece last I checked...

 

[damric]

Thin skinned, hardly. Personal attacks? I have not used any. I only point out your RT fan base, to which you just admitted that you are well aware of. If you are jealous of my badges, maybe you can go earn some at RT instead of whining in the news section here. BTW, Alex Jones has been a guest on RT plenty, but I'm sure you already know that since you claim to be such a news connoisseur.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Thin skinned, hardly. Personal attacks? I have not used any. I only point out your RT fan base, to which you just admitted that you are well aware of. If you are jealous of my badges, maybe you can go earn some at RT instead of whining in the news section here. BTW, Alex Jones has been a guest on RT plenty, but I'm sure you already know that since you claim to be such a news connoisseur.

Personal attacks in reply to my initial comment are mostly all you're posts have been worth. I won't waste my time pointing out the ways. Personally I don't care for titles, even if they are accurate some of the time. But provost shouldn't be one given lightly, going by how you've behaved on this thread, imo it doesn't suit you, is all.

I had no idea he had a gig there, you did, so I'd guess you've likely been quite invested in ridiculing RT and anyone who'd dare stick up for them/other alternative news sources, for some time. Does that make you a "news connoisseur"? lol Doing a search, Jones hasn't appeared there since 2014, and no, I couldn't care less. People who think freely still exist and hopefully always will, some of them will want to know both sides of a story. People who cherish the constitution and the spirit in which it was drafted here in the US still exist and hopefully always will, as well. If I could offer a suggestion, I'd advise you not let it bother you so much.

 

[damric]

Thin skinned, hardly. Personal attacks? I have not used any. I only point out your RT fan base, to which you just admitted that you are well aware of. If you are jealous of my badges, maybe you can go earn some at RT instead of whining in the news section here. BTW, Alex Jones has been a guest on RT plenty, but I'm sure you already know that since you claim to be such a news connoisseur.

Personal attacks in reply to my initial comment are mostly all you're posts have been worth. I won't waste my time pointing out the ways. Personally I don't care for titles, even if they are accurate some of the time. But provost shouldn't be one given lightly, going by how you've behaved on this thread, imo it doesn't suit you, is all.

I had no idea he had a gig there, you did, so I'd guess you've likely been quite invested in ridiculing RT and anyone who'd dare stick up for them/other alternative news sources, for some time. Does that make you a "news connoisseur"? lol Doing a search, Jones hasn't appeared there since 2014, and no, I couldn't care less. People who think freely still exist and hopefully always will, some of them will want to know both sides of a story. People who cherish the constitution and the spirit in which it was drafted here in the US still exist and hopefully always will, as well. If I could offer a suggestion, I'd advise you not let it bother you so much.

Again, you started a rant about MY post, not the other way around. BTW there are only a handful of Provosts on Tom's Hardware. Titles here are earned, not given away. And since I obviously have viewed way more RT than you have, you can call me Sir, and go fuck off now.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Again, you started a rant about MY post, not the other way around. BTW there are only a handful of Provosts on Tom's Hardware. Titles here are earned, not given away. And since I obviously have viewed way more RT than you have, you can call me Sir, and go fuck off now.

Really?? Looking a few posts above, you started this bs, not I. Here's a reminder for you. "^ tl: dr Typical RT conspiracy theorist rant."

That's you attacking me for something never directed toward anything you wrote. Just to demean someone for facts written that you disliked, like some cheap troll/schill, which you may as well be far as I'm concerned. Not given away? You've proven they are, beyond a doubt. For someone who claims to hate the comments on RT you sure remind me of a typical PC dimwit "nazi" who can only troll because you're incapable of impartial or honest dialogue against whatever you no doubt deem as "hate speech". Sound about right Mr Cuck? That you believe a government has the right to dictate what "hate speech" is, or otherwise curtail First Amendment rights, says it all. Good day to you as well.

 

[damric]

Looks like Steve Bannon just got his panties in a wad.