Group of Intellectuals and Academicians has written an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg after he mentioned BJP leader Kapil Mishra’s speech to outline Facebook's hate speech policy.
If Delhi school boys on Instagram privately plan to rape underage girls, then men from IT cells of political parties publicly threaten women on Twitter and Facebook.
Although the campaign page doesn’t mention any community, tweets, hashtags and a video of Kapil Mishra urging people to contribute clearly mention ‘Hindu victims’.
National Commission of Minorities member Atif Rasheed refers to Bernie Sanders’ speech to claim international angle while insisting that BJP leader Kapil Mishra made no hate speech.
Which humanitarian crisis should be prioritised, which words are ‘simple’ enough to avoid hurt feelings, or who is a ‘true Indian’, are not questions warranting court input.
New Delhi: During Operation Sindoor, the United States which had received intelligence suggesting that India had launched BrahMos cruise missiles to strike targets inside...
What utter nonsense! Zuckerberg referred to Mishra’s speech as an example of incendiary speech. How do the events prior to or following the speech change the fact that it was an incendiary speech?
The example mentioned by Zuckerberg was shown as an instance of what could be termed as provocative. There may or may not have been a direct link between the protests and the riots. What is the point that GIA is trying to make here? That Zuckerberg go and stop people from protesting? How was the instance that he put forward as an example wrong in itself? Is it ok for someone especially in a leadership position to make such a statement of taking law into their own hands?
Maybe the speech where a BJP leader mentions during the Delhi 2019 elections that if people don’t vote for BJP, “they” will come to your house and assault your women, and then Modiji won’t be able to save you, is a better example than the one MZ used? I wonder what the fact finders would find fault with there….Hmm…
George Orwell wrote 1984 with mainly communist regimes in mind, wherein the inconvenient history was erased from public memory . I never imagined that one day our country will find resonance with that…
Mark Zuckerberg is a LIBRANDU who can be easily mislead by lies and fabrications of facts by other LIBRANDUS. Members of Librandu club have one peculiar trait that they don’t feel the need to validate the information and data shared by other librandus. A fake research episode of Medical journal LANCET is the recent example of deceit and fakery by librandus researchers. Librandus don’t apply any standard for the one they intensely hate. Expecting any sensible judgement from librandus is like expecting SUN to stop burning. Though most librandus are fighting for their survival, few rich ones often vomit hate.
What utter nonsense! Zuckerberg referred to Mishra’s speech as an example of incendiary speech. How do the events prior to or following the speech change the fact that it was an incendiary speech?
The example mentioned by Zuckerberg was shown as an instance of what could be termed as provocative. There may or may not have been a direct link between the protests and the riots. What is the point that GIA is trying to make here? That Zuckerberg go and stop people from protesting? How was the instance that he put forward as an example wrong in itself? Is it ok for someone especially in a leadership position to make such a statement of taking law into their own hands?
Jai ho.
Maybe the speech where a BJP leader mentions during the Delhi 2019 elections that if people don’t vote for BJP, “they” will come to your house and assault your women, and then Modiji won’t be able to save you, is a better example than the one MZ used? I wonder what the fact finders would find fault with there….Hmm…
George Orwell wrote 1984 with mainly communist regimes in mind, wherein the inconvenient history was erased from public memory . I never imagined that one day our country will find resonance with that…
Mark Zuckerberg is a LIBRANDU who can be easily mislead by lies and fabrications of facts by other LIBRANDUS. Members of Librandu club have one peculiar trait that they don’t feel the need to validate the information and data shared by other librandus. A fake research episode of Medical journal LANCET is the recent example of deceit and fakery by librandus researchers. Librandus don’t apply any standard for the one they intensely hate. Expecting any sensible judgement from librandus is like expecting SUN to stop burning. Though most librandus are fighting for their survival, few rich ones often vomit hate.