Facebook and firearms

Cass

I see facebook updated their rules or simply made them more "known" and have included the discussion of firearms, firearm ranges, gun shows, etc. as topics that are now not allowed to be discussed.

https://www.facebook.com/policies/commerce/prohibited_content/weapons_ammunition_or_explosives

Would this spell the end of gun pages? Or just severely restrict it?

They also mention showing pics of guns, gun parts, and the "stealth" method lads used to use to try and sell stuff to be prohibited.

Was never a gun friendly place and Youtube has lead the charge in restricting discussion of firearms, but it looks like its getting to a point you won't be able to discuss them at all very soon.

gunny123

I know a lot of channels have moved to patreon. Never seen the point of bookface myself, and never joined it. But all these things, facebook, twatter, youtube, are anti-gun imho.

solarwinds

This will all eventually lead to the denormalising of guns in private ownership.
If facebook and youtube ban them then the easy influenced will see them as bad things and those that use them not being part of the norm. Its driving shooting underground and making it a taboo subject.
Pretty soon youll only be able to go to a dealer in the dead of the night and buy ammo for fear some snowflake might see you with something shooting related and post it on twitter that some lunatic with something nearly killed them.
Its absolute madness.

Grizzly 45

Until something takes over as the global town square from fakebook, it is still where the majority of mankind meets to argue, and communicate.

There is a big debate of "It's a private company, they can do what they want in rule Vs It's the global village square, they can't arbitrarily restrict free speech, even if it is disagreeable."
On Youtube, folks like the Gun Jesus are back on, or gun builders are coming back because they aren't getting finance off YT but via Paetreon. Like eBay which didn't allow gun parts for sale, but now does. All both have to realise is a loss of money and unhappy shareholders, do count in the real world.

Cass

Every and i mean every social media platform has at some point moved to a restricted or ruled based format.

Years ago the likes of FB, Youtube, etc. were essentially free for all. The pages set up on FB were supposed to bastions of freedom where anyone can say anything. However they soon started to introduce rules because of threats or pressure from FB to monitor the content of their pages. Eventually they had as many rules and restriction as the previous platforms they used to use and complain about.

Gatling

It's gotten really bad over the last 18 months there has litterally thousands of pages taken down and blocked ,from real steel , airsoft , paintball and military re-enactment all being targeted and removed

judestynes

Sure just one more step in the march towards total pussification.

riffmongous

The title says 'commerce policies', so is it just for businesses? If so I don't care, Ive never bought guns off Facebook or even seen anyone selling them there, and I have no interest in US based sites, not my cup of tea

BattleCorp

For what it's worth, I sent feedback to Facebook stating what an idiotic policy it was.

Preventing the promotion of lawful activities such as Olympic shooting etc.

I also mentioned how stupid their policy was in that it allows the promotion of safety training and licencing but doesn't allow the promotion of the ranges where this safety training most likely would take place.

Feisar

riffmongous wrote: »

The title says 'commerce policies', so is it just for businesses? If so I don't care, Ive never bought guns off Facebook or even seen anyone selling them there, and I have no interest in US based sites, not my cup of tea

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

judestynes

Feisar wrote: »

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well said that man.

Someone who actually gets it

riffmongous

Feisar wrote: »

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

'slippery slope fallacy' for 10 points?

Feisar

It's them small wee shifts in society. None of them that big a deal however next thing you know you they'll be coming for your humble .22

judestynes

Feisar wrote: »

It's them small wee shifts in society. None of them that big a deal however next thing you know you they'll be coming for your humble .22

No One's coming for your guns.. not yet anyway. What is happening though is a blanket negative image campaign.

BattleCorp

judestynes wrote: »

No One's coming for your guns.. not yet anyway. What is happening though is a blanket negative image campaign.

I disagree. It is happening. Much easier to remove guns from law abiding people once the general population view their lawful activities in a bad light.

The illegal shooting of someone in Limerick with a gun stolen from another jurisdiction was used to pretty much get rid of centrefire pistols here. As a sport here it's pretty much dying. Nobody new has been allowed to enter for the last 10 years.

riffmongous

Feisar wrote: »

It's them small wee shifts in society. None of them that big a deal however next thing you know you they'll be coming for your humble .22

In which society though? The US, ok sure, but that doesn't affect me at all, what they do is a world away and always has been.

gunny123

riffmongous wrote: »

'slippery slope fallacy' for 10 points?

It was no fallacy here, the PTB used divide and conquer to take firearms they did not like. Hence no new centrefire pistols licences available.

BattleCorp

riffmongous wrote: »

In which society though? The US, ok sure, but that doesn't affect me at all, what they do is a world away and always has been.

It mightn't affect you now but have another read of Feisar's post.

riffmongous

gunny123 wrote: »

It was no fallacy here, the PTB used divide and conquer to take firearms they did not like. Hence no new centrefire pistols licences available.

And what's that got to do with Facebook?

judestynes

BattleCorp wrote: »

I disagree. It is happening. Much easier to remove guns from law abiding people once the general population view their lawful activities in a bad light.

The illegal shooting of someone in Limerick with a gun stolen from another jurisdiction was used to pretty much get rid of centrefire pistols here. As a sport here it's pretty much dying. Nobody new has been allowed to enter for the last 10 years.

I'm surprised no one has challenged this on the grounds of age discrimination. When you think about it, thats exactly what it comes down to. A person can't pursue a sport or hobby that another person can simply because they came to the sport after a certain time.

BattleCorp

riffmongous wrote: »

And what's that got to do with Facebook?

Facebook is very powerful in the court of public opinion. The PTB are only too delighted that firearms usage is either being censored or shown in a bad light on Facebook and other media sources.

Once public opinion is against firearms owners, it makes their task of snipping away at the types of guns we are allowed much easier.

BattleCorp

judestynes wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has challenged this on the grounds of age discrimination. When you think about it, thats exactly what it comes down to. A person can't pursue a sport or hobby that another person can simply because they came to the sport after a certain time.

While I agree with your sentiments, it's not age discrimination.

It's not based on a person's age, it's based on whether they had a licence for the centrefire handgun in November 2008.

So if you were 18 or 98 in November 2008 and had your licence then, all that mattered is that you had the gun licenced.

Sparks

I will say, it's a bit of cognitive dissonance to see people decrying facebook for having rules... on here, where we were decried for having forum charters for years by everyone else.

That being said, this is not the worst thing about facebook and worrying about it seems a bit like worrying about an untied shoelace as you fall off the empire state building to me.

I mean, this is a platform that's facing charges of abetting and facilitating human rights abuses in the midst of an actual genocide in Myanmar, in the Phillipenes, in India; that's been the subject of academic study showing that it's a causal factor in the modern take on lynchings; and that's been cited as having been used for manipulating voting in the real world in several cases in the last few years through cambridge analytica and it's umbrella corporation and sibling shell companies.

There's no way it's going to be allowed to survive in its current form, it's too toxic and harmful to society as a whole.

riffmongous

BattleCorp wrote: »

Facebook is very powerful in the court of public opinion. The PTB are only too delighted that firearms usage is either being censored or shown in a bad light on Facebook and other media sources.

Once public opinion is against firearms owners, it makes their task of snipping away at the types of guns we are allowed much easier.

In Ireland or Europe? How many non firearms Irish people are looking at facebook pages showing and selling firearms?

BattleCorp

riffmongous wrote: »

In Ireland or Europe? How many non firearms Irish people are looking at facebook pages showing and selling firearms?

I would look at those types of pages if they were better advertised. Some gun dealers here in Ireland put up pics of their stock on FB. Strictly speaking, that goes against FB's terms and conditions.

Those terms and conditions relating to firearms don't just cover the sale of firearms. They cover usage too. And they don't allow promotion of gun ranges.

So what happens to Harbour House or MNSCI's Facebook page? Strictly speaking they go against the terms and conditions of FB's policy. See below.

5. Weapons, Ammunition or Explosives
Policy

Posts may not promote the sale or use of weapons, ammunition, or explosives.

Examples


Promoting safety training or licenses for legal weapons - Allowed
Firearms and firearm parts - Everything else listed, not allowed
Paintball guns
BB Guns
Fireworks
Pepper spray
Tasers
Gun ranges
Gun shows

judestynes

So far none of my uploads have been removed maybe because they predate the policy changes or the images relate to an educational purpose, images get uploaded to my personal page straight away but images to my group page get vetted then approved, so far anyway.

riffmongous

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would look at those types of pages if they were better advertised. Some gun dealers here in Ireland put up pics of their stock on FB. Strictly speaking, that goes against FB's terms and conditions.

Those terms and conditions relating to firearms don't just cover the sale of firearms. They cover usage too. And they don't allow promotion of gun ranges.

So what happens to Harbour House or MNSCI's Facebook page? Strictly speaking they go against the terms and conditions of FB's policy. See below.

They can rebrand their Facebook page as a safety training area and direct people to their website. I would say I'd find it ironic if irish shooting groups were complaining now when for years it was so hard to get any bloody information off them online.

Anyways that's besides the point, look, is it positive for us in Europe, obviously not, is it negative, maybe very slightly for some, should I care, no, it's a US issue for me. Now I would say instead, since public opinion is so important maybe more should be done to improve it here in our context rather than focusing on the US. If people opinion is to be affected, it's much better to keep the US out of sight

gunny123

riffmongous wrote: »

And what's that got to do with Facebook?

Nothing, but you were rebuking another persons post, and my post was in response to yours. By the way, are you a shooter ?

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

By the way, are you a shooter ?

Any hope we could play the ball?

riffmongous

gunny123 wrote: »

Nothing, but you were rebuking another persons post, and my post was in response to yours. By the way, are you a shooter ?

Indeed I am, if I don't post here too often it's because I find the imported right wing American guff you see here from time to time offputting

solarwinds

Its not about whether this is in America, Ireland or Europe or whether these organisations want to impose rules and regulations (however daft they are), which they are entitled to.
The problem is these sites wield a massive amount of power and influence as has been said previously. If these sites ban gun related info and marginalise it then the public perception will be that there is something wrong with that element of society. Next thing you know they are knocking on your door for your slingshot and your childs bow and arrow.