Facebook doesn't like Christian theology conferences.

[One Bad Pig]

Not sure I remember that.

He might be thinking of Paltalk.

[KingsGambit]

Christians need to dump Facebook entirely. I'm considering it again. There's certainly some good there, but, going to a platform that doesn't inhibit Christian free speech and doesn't sell your data to outside sources is something we should all consider.

I've thought about it, though I don't think I could at this point in time. I just moved across the country, where I literally know nobody, and social media is my only real means of communicating with anybody at this point in time. Millennials are slowly dumping Facebook en masse, so over time it should be easier to justify.

[tabibito]

He might be thinking of Paltalk.

Nope. "Webchat" it was. A few "webchats" now exist but none are related to the original. (early to mid 1990s).

[One Bad Pig]

Nope. "Webchat" it was. A few "webchats" now exist but none are related to the original. (early to mid 1990s).

Tweb wasn't around until 2003.

[KingsGambit]

Update:

A friend of mine tried to post an article into a theology-related Facebook group today, and received a message that nobody would be able to see the post because it violated Facebook's terms of service (it did not say what the violation was). The post was just a link to an article by mainstream evangelical scholar Walter Kaiser arguing that the Psalms point toward the New Testament vision of eternal life. I don't see how anybody would possibly find it offensive.

This guy likes to post to conservative blogs a lot (he has some views that are pretty out there; nothing racist or anything like that; he's in an interracial marriage) and some of us suspect that feeds into some algorithm that already seems not to like religious content. Either way, it's disturbing.

[rogue06]

Update:

A friend of mine tried to post an article into a theology-related Facebook group today, and received a message that nobody would be able to see the post because it violated Facebook's terms of service (it did not say what the violation was). The post was just a link to an article by mainstream evangelical scholar Walter Kaiser arguing that the Psalms point toward the New Testament vision of eternal life. I don't see how anybody would possibly find it offensive.

This guy likes to post to conservative blogs a lot (he has some views that are pretty out there; nothing racist or anything like that; he's in an interracial marriage) and some of us suspect that feeds into some algorithm that already seems not to like religious content. Either way, it's disturbing.

Accounts like this are increasing every day. When it concerns someone famous they are usually quick to apologize and unblock them but for the average person they tend to ignore it.

[Sparko]

I tried to post a link to a prolife article about abortion and it blocked it.

[NorrinRadd]

I tried to post a link to a prolife article about abortion and it blocked it.

If you get a chance, post the link here and I'll test-post it on Facebook.

[Mountain Man]

I've thought about it, though I don't think I could at this point in time. I just moved across the country, where I literally know nobody, and social media is my only real means of communicating with anybody at this point in time. Millennials are slowly dumping Facebook en masse, so over time it should be easier to justify.

My 15-year old turns his nose up at Facebook as something that only old people use.

[Sparko]

If you get a chance, post the link here and I'll test-post it on Facebook.

It was the article about the Planned Parenthood undercover videos ruled as not being edited. I recently tried again and it went through.

[KingsGambit]

My 15-year old turns his nose up at Facebook as something that only old people use.

Well, that surely includes me.

[One Bad Pig]

My 15-year old turns his nose up at Facebook as something that only old people use.

I remember complaints about Septembernet - so I qualify as old. Never had a Facecrack account, though.

[Sparko]

what do young kids use?

I hear twitter is kind of dying out too.

[Terraceth]

But if they are discriminating against some based on religion, doesn't that fall under the Civil Rights act? They are refusing service to someone based on religion, which private businesses can't do.

Does it? I thought the Civil Rights Act was about stuff like getting service in places like restaurants, hotels, and movie theaters. I don't think it applies to anything online.

There might be some other law that covers it, though.

[Sparko]

Does it? I thought the Civil Rights Act was about stuff like getting service in places like restaurants, hotels, and movie theaters. I don't think it applies to anything online.

There might be some other law that covers it, though.

Might be something for the supreme court to take up. There was no internet when the civil rights act was written up.