kinda seems that way...

http://www.facebook.com/AskDrBrown/videos/1319413004750965/?pnref=story

Becoming Big Brother's Right Hand on the Fast Track!

seems pretty odd, huh... almost like they want us to hate the wrong people...

Sure they are! Mark Zuckerburg donated big money to Obama!

and i'm guess they eat at the same table as well... a non pork diet

how can they be biased, they are free and open to all

So am I

watch the video, it's not about who they let use facebook, but about the content people can post on facebook...

The police like it.

oh,, these?

You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.



seems they are biased against bullying , intimidating, harassing, threatening, and other vile behaviors,,,


,,,and? that's a problem because?

obviously you didn't watch the video, so get back to me when you do

I don't watch videos,,, since my headphones broke

but I cant imagine its much more than some 'crybaby' who was upset about their being guidelines that are enforced,,lol

not even close... they set up two facebook pages, on pro palestine, and one pro Israel... only thing they changed on each page was the words Israel and palestine, telling people to do things to hurt the other side... the Israeli page was taken down, while the palestine is still up...

Two things facebook is for sure.....

Over rated, and a data mining site

http://conservativefiringline.com/breitbart-facebook-now-the-worlds-most-dangerous-censor/

An article posted to Breitbart.com on Tuesday by Allum Bokhari minced no words comparing Facebook to the former East German secret police, calling it the “world’s most dangerous censor.”

“A friend of mine whose parents grew up in East Germany once told me that the Stasi would have loved Facebook,” Bokhari wrote. “’Millions of people voluntarily offering up their personal lives, their addresses, their photos,’ she said. ‘The Stasi had to force people to do that!’”

Bokhari continued: “She didn’t have a Facebook account. But over a billion people around the world do — and that makes the social network a tempting target for authoritarian regimes, who either want to monitor or control the speech of their citizens. But who could have predicted that the most authoritarian of them all would, once again, be Germany?”

Bokhari observed that the level of censorship now being seen on Facebook — the world’s largest social media site — is “unprecedented.”

“The future is here: not the one envisaged by Gene Roddenberry, but by George Orwell,” Bokhari added.

This, of course, is nothing new to those of us who have documented Facebook’s slide into Orwellian tyranny for years. What is new, however, is that more media outlets are finally beginning to report the phenomenon.

An article posted on the same day at the UK Mirror said that Facebook’s latest initiative to stamp out speech it doesn’t like in Europe could have unintended, and undesirable, consequences:

If Zuckerberg wants to make sure we can’t see ISIS videos showing people being burned alive or beheaded, then there’s no question that the initiative is a good one.

But if the result is that Europeans can’t discuss the very real – and sometimes scary – changes taking place on the continent, then the plans are simply unacceptable.

Clearly, we should all be interested in creating a society without hate and xenophobia.

Yet silencing people will only send negative sentiments into the underground, where they will fester and rot into an even more disgusting form.

Moreover, Jasper Hamill said, Facebook’s actions are already taking their toll.

“Facebook is already have a sterilising effect on public discourse as people tend to only share content or sentiments which make them look good – behaviour known as “virtue signalling,” he said.

But as this writer and others have documented repeatedly, this censorship has been going on for quite some time – at least since 2012 and according to some, since 2010. And, as we have reported, not just over Islamic terrorism. Some have been slapped for simply saying “thank you,” and one user was told her profile picture, which was of a lilac tree, was “pornographic.”

Facebook even banned Fox News’ Todd Starnes for a short period over a post supporting the NRA, Paula Deen and Jesus Christ. Last year, Facebook told one user that a profile picture promoting traditional marriage violates their community standards and one page owner said his page was yanked after Facebook claimed his picture of the Marine Corps emblem also violated their nebulous standards.

In May 2014, Dave Gaubatz, author of “Muslim Mafia” and a specialist in counterterrorism, said he was told that Muslim groups are working with Facebook to remove accounts of those critical of Islam. Shortly after that report was released, Facebook responded by falsely flagging that article and others mentioning Islam as “unsafe.”

Recently, Faye Higbee noted that yours truly was repeatedly banned over forged posts — all of which dealt with Islam. Others have also been banned for the very same posts, made to look as though they created them.

There are many, many more stories like these documenting Facebook’s actions

While we hate to see reports of Gestapo-like censorship on a medium originally intended to foster free and open discussion, we are glad that media outlets like Breitbart and the Mirror are finally noticing what we’ve been documenting for years.

Welcome to the party.

http://conservativefiringline.com/facebook-announces-orwellian-initiative-to-purge-speech-it-doesnt-like-in-europe/

On Monday, Facebook announced a campaign to purge what it calls “hate speech” and “xenophobic rhetoric” from the entire continent of Europe. Naturally, COO Sheryl Sandberg didn’t exactly define what constitutes “hate speech” or “xenophobic rhetoric,” but given Facebook’s history with such things, it’s easy to speculate.

Mediaite reported:

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s COO, wasted no time leaning in and explaining that because hate speech “has no place in our society,” the site will be implementing its “Initiative for Civil Courage Online,” which will slowly but surely purge Europe of all xenophobic rhetoric. Facebook is doing this by allocating $1.09 million to support non-government organizations that are attempting to curb online threats and hate speech.

The platform already has rules that ban harassment and threats, but the Initiative for Civil Courage Online takes this opposition to the next level.

Sandberg, for those who may not remember, was the politically-correct maven who wanted to ban the word “bossy” from the English language.

Now, it seems she wants to ban all language from the European continent she doesn’t like.

Mediaite added:

n Germany, especially, hateful speech regarding the influx of refugees has been a problem that officials have spoken out against repeatedly. In November, prosecutors in Hamburg began investigating Facebook for not doing enough to prevent the dissemination of hate speech, according to Reuters. The Initiative comes on the heels of this investigation and a public urging from Chancellor Angela Merkel for the social media company to do more to prevent online harassment.

It seems we have our definition — “hate speech” now means any speech critical of any migrant in Europe. Wonderful. And how, exactly, does Sandberg intend to deal with this? Who knows. Maybe she’ll send the “offenders” to Room 101 for re-training in the nuances of NewSpeak.

Reuters observed:

Facebook’s ground rules forbid bullying, harassment and threatening language, but critics say it does not enforce them properly.

On Friday, the firm said it had hired a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann to monitor and delete racist posts on its platform in Germany.

But what, exactly, constitutes a “racist” post? And what about rape and threats issued by migrants? No doubt, Sandberg is perfectly okay with that, if Facebook’s history is any indication. As we recently reported, for example, Facebook banned one blogger for defending victims of migrant rape.

Exit question: How long before this tyranny comes to America? And how many will simply bend over and take it?

Don't worry Zucky,the Crocodile will still eat you in the end!

I don't understand the fuss. Especially from those on the right.

Facebook is a private enterprise company, offering a service, in exchange for advertising money.

It's not an arm of the government.

It's not a required element of everyone's lives.

It's a product. It's run by a small group of capitalist people, out to make money by catering to whatever they perceive the market to be.

Any reference to facebook "censoring" content, as though it has something to do with Freedom of Speech, or controlling political dialog, is absurd.

To be opposed to Facebooks' choices, and to want it to be forced to behave differently, means you want the government to step in and direct a luxury service, which if it disappeared tomorrow, wouldn't affect a damn thing.

By the way, the short answer to the thread title

"Is Facebook biased?"

is "Yes."

So what?