Facebook has ruled that the mere mention of “excess deaths,” even from sources such as the BBC, is a “violation of community standards.”

submitted by [deleted] from (twitter.com)

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IkeConn 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Facebook is trying everything to become irrelevant.

[–]SeethingPeasant 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

A lot of people keep calling excess deaths, the 1.2 million jab deaths, and all the side effects disinfo. They keep saying things like "conspiritards" which makes me sad. Not because it hurts my feelings, but because they are so deeply programmed that they won't even read the articles, studies, or data to see if it's true. Especially since every single conspiracy theory from the last 3 years (and pretty much last 40 years) has been truth. It's all been proven true. We even have government officials and climate control elites talking about how beneficial chemtrails are. Like what more do you need to take the MSM butt plug out?

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Especially since every single conspiracy theory from the last 3 years (and pretty much last 40 years) has been truth

Hahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha

Ah

Hahahahahaha

It's all been proven true. We even have government officials and climate control elites talking about how beneficial chemtrails are.

Hahahahahaha

Pffff

Ahahahahahaha

I would love to call you a conspiritard and chat more about this. Maybe not this particular thread about Facebook though, so as not to derail. You're so demonstrably retardedly wrong, I am pissing myself laughing at this outrageous blowhardity.

Like, this particular conspiracy theory: that Facebook blocks the phrase "excess deaths", even for BBC.

Where does it say that in the tweet? Where do we learn that that phrase is blocked any not any other?

This tweet and the backing "conspiracy theory" about Facebook are totally groundless. Do you think it's proven right? Does a thumbnail image in the tweet with no context or information prove your theory that "excess deaths" is a blocked phrase on FB?

[–]FriedrichLudwig 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I checked your post history, holy shit dude get help.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What kind of help buddy. Thanks for looking out for me. Do you think I should seek help because I haven't been convinced by 9/11 theories. What kind of help does a person need for that

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Facebook still exists?

[–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That'll reverse Facebook's decline.

[–]rubberbiscuit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's funny that he shares this news on twitter

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The tweet author does not share what exactly his post says. He just wants you to think that he simply pasted a BBC link and that was it.

Why am I the only retard here who ever questions the dipshit tweets and articles posted.

Do you morons think he just posted a BBC link and that was it? Or it is...shocker...possible that he broke a FB policy? Why is his word the sole authority needed here? Why does he only show a tiny thumbnail and not the whole offending post?

[–]chickenz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What if someone were to sit down with a team and plan how to approach Facebook, not as a hacker, but instead as a purely repulsive user that makes people cringe, but that they don't actually do anything to violate Facebook rules.

Don't try to do it so that you are trying to interface with the entire Facebook userbase, but instead formulate a plan about how to approach one single user.

The goal should be to cause that user to become subconsciously ILL and take them to that place where emotionally they want to vomit.

You could draw up different approach methods that would be effective for a few different types of people.

Perhaps those user types would be (1)child, male and female, (2) teen, male and female (3)young adult, religious and nonreligious, etc, etc.

I am guessing that you could probably define less than ten user types and that would cover everyone across the board.

I am doing this off the top of my head.

A given approach should cause the target user to become "ILL" emotionally when they think about logging in.

Refine the user types, automate it using basic AI, and then tackle ten thousand people... Then tackle fifty thousand people..

The end result should be that eventually there will be a mass migration away from the site.

A good programmer could knock this out in a couple of weeks.

And just to sweeten the pot, post a few comments around on other social media portals describing your negative experience..

Now, would you want to short sell that site's stock?

That would be your decision to make.

Video: Bentley phantom (supercar Blondie)

https://youtu.be/1L6sVi8_ZqE