I hadn’t heard of this policy. It makes sense to me how people were so uninformed about what happened that night if Facebook was banning videos supporting Kyle and most of the media wasn’t being impartial. Anyone who spent time watching the videos wouldn’t be surprised by the verdict.
Considering Kyle killed people, at a very contentious and politically sensitive time, its understandable that the story was banned.
I've heard some very bad hot takes that basically amount to "he should have killed those people". Advocating for killing people is way less controversial than whatever "nuance" people want to assign to the case regarding legal standing of guns and various self defense laws.
Its not crazy to imagine someone thinking to just ban that whole discourse from a platform, even if takes some "genuine" and not-murderous conversations with it - simply to avoid people advocating death.
The story wasn't banned. His name was banned from searches, as one does for mass murderers. And statements of support for Rittenhouse were banned, as one does for mass murderers - but anything you wanted to say about "the events in Kenosha" which was against Rittenhouse were allowed.
Mass murderers aren’t banned in search, and he is not a mass murderer, being attacked by several people and defending himself does not make him a murderer.
I understand that. My point was that fb was treating him as a mass murderer even though he wasn't. And the names of mass murderers are frequently banned shortly after the event...I'm sure it is eventually lifted but that is how they operate.
Did Facebook ban statements of support for Darrell Brooks, of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre? Legit question, I don't know the answer but if they want to be consistent they should (I'm guessing they don't, and they did not).
