[antt]

>They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former.

Why white? The CCP is running concentration camps for hundreds of thousands of Muslims right now, yet I see no ban on the only party that can be called National Socialist today, just because the nation they are supporting is yellow.

[yawaramin]

Which banned party (on Facebook) are you talking about? You said, '... yet I see no ban on the only party that...'. Which banned party are you comparing it to?

[coldtea]

The CCP obviously (Chinese Communist Party, aka CPC), which he already mentioned.

Not sure if CCP has a FB page, but that far is obvious.

[yawaramin]

Is it though? I can't find anything that explicitly says that Facebook has banned the CCP. Could you provide any sources which say this? Also, the post I was replying to said:

> The CCP is running concentration camps for hundreds of thousands of Muslims right now, yet I see no ban on the only party that can be called National Socialist today, just because the nation they are supporting is yellow.

I don't see any way to infer this as saying that Facebook has banned the CCP–what am I missing here?

Also, if Facebook has indeed banned the CCP, well, turnabout is just fair play–after all, the CCP has banned Facebook from China.

[jsutton]

This discussion is about FB and, more broadly, speech on private platforms. Not the Chinese Communist Party or any governments.

[AsyncAwait]

Ignoring the obvious attempt to bring fascism as somehow not right-wing, which is all too common on the right today, FB/Twitter etc. make exceptions for governments/public figures, including Donald Trump and the DoD.

I don't think they should, but I also know that if they didn't, Trump and others would get banned and the cries from the fake free speech worriers, (who are quiet as heck on ie BDS), would be a lot louder.