Facebook Ban Far Right Hate Group Britain First. But is this a good thing?
Dan S?dergren
Inspirational professional keynote speaker / trainer and author about the #FutureOfWork, #Technology and #AI Hire Dan as an inspirational #keynotespeaker / corporate trainer or as your private workshop provider.
Now let’s get first things first. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". And do #Facebook really have our good intention at heart? I was asked to go on Good Morning Scotland on the BBC Radio to share my views as their social media expert. So...
Let’s look at some numbers first…
Facebook is HUGE
Worldwide, there are over 2.13 billion monthly active Facebook users. So it's bigger than China HUGE. There are 1.15 billion mobile daily active users. Whilst the average time spent per Facebook visit is 20 minutes. That’s a LOT of eyeballs on screens. Mainly, on the smaller screen too. As mobile advertising revenue, something they realised the potential of first. According to Facebook, represented approximately 88 percent of advertising revenue. So fair play to Facebook. Mobile first is always a good marketing strategy.
But is Facebook a GOOD business?
Facebook has milked profits by stitching an online social fabric for interaction. That fabric consists of an ecosystem of products. From Instagram to WhatsApp to Facebook Messenger. Which boast substantial popularity and user numbers. With a quarter revenue of $8.03 billion on earnings per share of $1.04. The bulk of Facebook's revenue comes from digital advertisements. Which brought in $7.9 billion last quarter. Along with Alphabet Inc. (GOOG) subsidiary Google, they are the dominant duo in digital advertising.
However, unlike its rival, which enables advertisers to serve up ads based on keyword searches. Facebook's value proposition is targeted advertising.
Who can they target? Everyone! Quick Disclaimer. I teach Facebook advertising and social media marketing to companies. So I love this stuff. I also used to also own Facebook shares. As I understood how they made their money. And the value proposition. So I invested. Their value proposition is amazingly clever. They make money from super targeted advertising. Targeting all of US. The 2 billion people on the platform. With their advertising powered by algorithms and social psychological understanding. It’s the best way to do digital marketing when done correctly for the right demographic.
Each of us clicks on ads. Some more than others. In Europe, the average user was worth $4.72 in the last quarter of 2017 and in America this amount it a LOT higher. So they know that each user is important to them. If we leave and when we leave they have nothing. And people are leaving.
People leaving the pub before closing time.
Facebook is a bit like a pub but without the drinking. And with the drinking for some people. So the same rules apply. Without us Facebook doesn’t exist. It is purely user generated content. It’s a social experience. If you don’t sit down and chat. And buy a drink (click ads) then Facebook make nothing.
This need for users is the same for Twitter and YouTube in this respect. But the cultures are different. The user experience is different to. But underneath these social media business is a key facet. That they are not moral. Remember Facebook, as a company, has no reason to have a moral reasoning.
We should worry if it does so.
Hating is bad. But what might be worse...
Facebook was started by a 2nd generation immigrant. So are companies worth more than $3 trillion in America alone. A fact, these Britain First people would hate. However, not everyone hated their page. Or what they were saying. In fact, two million people had liked the group's Facebook page. So should Facebook take it down?
Facebook says the decision to remove the pages was made after Britain First had ignored a final warning. About the posting of material that broke its community standards. Facebook said it was an open platform for all ideas but that political views should be expressed without hate. Their statement was simple:
"People can express robust and controversial opinions without needing to denigrate others on the basis of who they are."
The group's accounts were also later suspended by Twitter (TWTR) as well. But...
My conclusion to all this might surprise people.
I think it’s dangerous that we ban people we don’t like from Facebook. Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that HATE is acceptable. But to quote Voltaire
“I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
As what happens if they are NOT on Facebook? Where do they go? Does stopping them on Facebook stop them from hating? I doubt it. It probably makes them hate more.
They started to believe they are the victims. They are the martyrs of all this. And that they don’t have a voice. And sadly this is how we cause extremism – we force social movements we don’t like underground. They go onto the dark web – they become radicalized.
The key thing here is that Facebook has every right to ban anyone it wants to. It owns Facebook. You can be banned for anything. Just like you could be barred for anything? The landlord doesn’t like you for whatever reason. You support a different football team. Etc
It also has no right to ban people. It isn’t fair and just. Just like the mad pub landlord that doesn’t like your tie and so says you can’t drink there.
BUT…. Facebook isn’t a pub. It's more important than that.
It’s a global entity that on a small scale can enable you to advertise your business. And become successful. But on a bigger scale is it so powerful that it can swing elections. It has 2 billion people on it. It’s only 15 years old and controls ? of the world. It sways public opinion. It can even get politicians elected. And it teaches governments how to do this with it’s targeted advertising.
So actually for us all – Facebook becoming moral is a scary prospect.
As a famous poem shows...
"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."
Ironic isn't it…
Remember Facebook banning one group might be the thin edge of the wedge.
Am I right or wrong?
Comment below.
Remembering that LinkedIn has it's own laws as well... So no swearing OK?
Commissioner for Skills Development at Essex County Council
6 年Unfortunately groups like this have a habit of normalising extremist views by masquerading them as "British Values", something which Facebook is often prone to encouraging. Whilst it is important that we maintain freedom of speech (whether we agree with what is being said or not) there needs to be some caution against sites such as this (and there will be others across the racial spectrum) which disguise their views. As has been said previously, banning sites like this won't eradicate them or the opinions people hold, it will simply drive it underground. However, on a personal level, I for one will be pleased to see its removal. Personally, I find that friends on Facebook who are keen on sites of this nature, have a habit of citing their views as fact without checking where the sources have come from.
Canva Verified Expert ?? Canva Template Creator ?? Email Marketer ?? YouTuber
6 年I hope they do the same for other 'extremist' groups such as the far left, Neo-nazi groups, Muslim extremists etc.
Inspirational professional keynote speaker / trainer and author about the #FutureOfWork, #Technology and #AI Hire Dan as an inspirational #keynotespeaker / corporate trainer or as your private workshop provider.
6 年Thanks for the comments below - both great points.
Head of Marketing & Service Design at Prospect Path
6 年Realistically, the only reason this group has even been allowed to remain online for so long is because of the race, and ethnicity of the owners. If we had an extreme group of people of colour promoting similar messages: it'd be shut down in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, Facebook is very much an echo-chamber for people's own opinions: we tend to be friends with people who aren't going to post things that are against their core values. So, banning them won't change people's views, but it gives less room to normalise the level of hatred these people spread. It'd be fine if we could just leave their posts as an 'opinion', but unfortunately, their opinions don't live in a vacuum, and their comments have real life consequences, and incite hatred to minority groups. No platforming people is a quite powerful form of protest. Hatred is not an opinion, saying you believe people of a certain religion shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets is not an opinion, pineapple is acceptable on pizza is an opinion (a wrong one).