Why do you think it's called FaceBook? Because THEY wanted to see your FACES

Environment & Technology
1

Why do you think it's called FaceBook? Because they wanted to see your FACES and those of your family and "friends" to identify YOU and THEM for their facial recognition control software, that T.H.E.Y. will use against YOU to surveil you, control and round you up.

Or as Mark Steele explains, with social distancing T.H.E.Y. can target and kill you with their 5G, when it's turned up.

Get off FaceBook.

Read The Way Home http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.info

Mark Steele telling you about facebook.

Christ
Christs.net

6 Likes
2

zuckerberg
zuckerberg763×646 97.9 KB

1 Like
3

Thank-you @NancyDrewberry for sending this (and all your other posts and those of others here too). The post immediately reminded me of Miles Mathis when I saw it and all his genealogy work on the various "celebrities" that have frequented the world's stage for generations. He hadn't done the family tree with Mark/Jacob/whateverhisnameis as far as I could find, but he had re-asserted his usual point about being yet another actor playing a part in their grand diabolical charade: http://mileswmathis.com/zuck.pdf

Extra thanks also as I hadn't seen the above post from @GibMessenger which is of course rock solid advice as usual.

LLTK, LLTF.

2 Likes
4

Thank-you @adam. Your kind words and informative post/s are very much appreciated. They have helped enormously.

Miles Mathis is spot-on about Zuckie. I was involved in an anti-FB campaign many years ago and met others familiar with all the underhanded, immoral and downright evil practices of FB. The only way to get deleted from FB is to smash to pieces the android used to sign-in to FB. I could go on and on, but will say I was banned from FB many years ago and I wear that like a badge of honor! Whenever the opportunity arises, I speak-out about my encounters with FB.

Agreed about the thanks to others here especially to @GibMessenger for making it possible.

Good wishes for good (physical, mental, spiritual) health, prosperity and many joy-filled days.

Sometimes good wishes are worth repeating. :slightly_smiling_face: We need more of Go(o)d on Planet Earth.

2 Likes
5

You're welcome.

2 Likes
6

Woah

7

Facebook confronted with condemnation of its censorship of pro-life speech

By WND Staff
Published July 8, 2023
The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a brief with an oversight board for tech companies Facebook and Instagram that challenges their censorship of pro-life speech.

The fight is growing bigger and bigger in the U.S. these days just a year after the Supreme Court tossed out the fatally flawed Roe precedent from 50 years ago that created a "right" to abortion and inserted it into the Constitution.
The ACLJ said the fight right now is over the "fair and equal right to use public platforms for the communication of sanctity of life views."The digital corporate giants have been censoring such speech.

Now, the ACLJ said, it has delivered to Meta, the corporate ownership of Facebook and Instagram, its argument that the 300-some million users of the two computer software programs should be allowed to express their pro-life views.
The two companies, the ACLJ explained, "are an integral part of the new public square. In practice though, these powerful Silicon Valley platforms have had a troubled record when it comes to restricting pro-life messaging."

It is Meta's oversight board, made up of ex-judges and political leaders, journalists, legal experts, and academicians, that is reviewing three challenges to its pro-abortion ideology.

The ACLJ said it is urging the board to require Facebook and Instagram to recognize that "pro-life messaging must be protected."
They "suggest that abortion somehow rescues an infant from being unwanted, and therefore is a form of compassion. The Facebook post described 'Pro-Abortion logic' of the 'liberal left' as saying, in effect, that 'We don’t want you to be poor, starved or unwanted. So we’ll just kill you instead.'"

It was censored because it included "kill," even though the company rules allow its use in such situations as, "Terrorists deserve to be killed."

"Only after the pro-life Facebook user’s post was blocked and the user appealed to the Oversight Board, and two other blocked users who were pro-abortion also appealed, did Meta executives admit the error and restore all three posts. But by then, from a free speech standpoint, the damage had already been done," the ACLJ said.

"Our arguments to the Oversight Board laid out the legal principles that ought to guide Meta content reviewers in the future based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment as well as international law precedent."

The ACLJ said, "All we ask is an equal chance to make the pro-life case in the marketplace of ideas."

"We also pointed out exactly how that could be done."

It explained one of the censored comments was from a pro-lifer who cited the morally bankrupt and illogical claim from pro-abortion radicals.

1 Like