Maybe we need to revive the Darwin Awards. The gene pool seems to be getting shallower.

I wasn't aware that the Darwin awards left, although those are for people who remove themselves from the genepool in an extremely stupid manner (such as pulling Coke machines on top of themselves or attaching JATOs to their cars), either by killing themselves or irreparably sterilizing themselves before they could reproduce.

They're allowed to say those horrid things. And you're allowed to speak in opposition. So go forth and do so rather than trying to get that other speech banned because if you succeed, then sooner or later that tendency to ban will turn around and bite you because _my_ old saying is "anything government can do for you it can do to you."

I laugh when I see the ad for ConceiveEasy on your blog.

Not seeing how the government factors in to this. My understanding is they are calling out advertisers on Twitter and trying to get them to stop selling ads on FB altogether, since FB will not pull the pages themselves. Isn't that the free market at work?

Advertisers decide whether it makes business sense to continue running ads on facebook or lose potential customers. If they do pull them, FB then decides if it's worth it to keep those pages up while losing some ad revenue, or taking them down and keeping $$.

Although I agree, I'd rather disgusting views out in the open making low-lives easier to identify.

I understand the premise of placing pressure on companies to put pressure in turn on FB to pull this kind of content.

Like LL said, it's an economic principle of public relations. Facebook is entirely within their rights to allow repugnant material to stay posted, as companies are within their rights to continue advertising with Facebook knowing this policy, and customers of those companies are within their rights to gripe about it so that those companies are informed of why they may lose revenue.

Facebook can allow or disallow whatever it wants - they are a private company. "Freedom of speech" is a guarantee against government restrictions.

Some of the stuff they are supposed to ban really is pretty extreme. On the other hand, give people an inch: some want to ban pics by pro-breastfeeding organizations, anatomical drawings of genitals, tasteless humor, and other harmless (or even laudable) content.

Whatever Facebook does, they will offend someone. Users who don't like it are free to go to some other social network. As long as the government stays out of the discussion, everything is fine...

"it just goes underground, where it can no longer be challenged."

Love it.

This is also true of sexism, racism, ageism, pretty much any "ism" you can think of.

I think it's very odd that anyone even considers which ads are on which pages.

The ads we see are usually customized based upon our browsing habits. It has nothing to do with the page we're looking at. I tend to get a lot of ads about exercise equipment and nutritional supplements.

Asian babes and table saws? I must be doing it wrong.

Well, obviously, MarkD, you fantasize about cutting up Asian babes with saws, you psycho!

The only campaign I've seen is one of eradicating FB's presumed double standard... photos of breastfeeding get taken down immediately, where as rape videos take weeks or months to stay up. That's the accusation I've heard, don't have actual data to refute it or back it up.

FB is a private company and they can support or ban any speech they want. Customers can give their feedback and opinion, and FB can do what it wants.