Reason Roundup

Facebook Also Becoming a Sexuality-Free Zone: Reason Roundup

New rules ban erotic art, talk of shared sexual interests, kink groups, and anything that "encourages sexual encounters between adults."


Just a few days after Tumblr announced that it would ban all pornography, Facebook has pulled the proverbial hold my beer with its new "Sexual Solicitation" policy.

Facebook will now "restrict sexually explicit language"—because "some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content"—as well as talk about "partners who share sexual interests," art featuring people posed provocatively, "sexualized slang," and any "hints" or mentions of sexual "positions or fetish scenarios."

The company has long been known for bizarre content-moderation choices—at times downright puritanical, at others permissive, in a way that goes beyond the typical vagaries of monitoring and filtering massive amounts of content. (An August episode of Radiolab does a better job than anything else I've encountered at tracing why this is and how it plays out in practice.) The site has gotten flak for banning everything from photos posted by breastfeeding mothers to classical art to Stone Age sculpture in a willy-nilly manner.

But its updated Community Standards explicitly ban basically anything that hints at or mentions sexuality, including specifically ordering users not to post erotic art, engage in sexualized banter, use anything above PG language, advertise legal sex work, organize community events or private groups related to non-normative sexuality, or even engage in private talk with other users about hooking up.

The new Sexual Solicitation policy starts by stating that while Facebook wants to faciliate discussion "and draw attention to sexual violence and exploitation," it "draw[s] the line…when content facilitates, encourages, or coordinates sexual encounters between adults." Can we pause a moment to appreciate how weird it is that they lump those things together in the first place? Whatever the intent, it reads as if only content coding sex as exploitative, violent, and negative will be tolerated on the site, while even "encouraging" consensual adult sex is forbidden. It goes on to instruct users not to post:

Attempts to coordinate or recruit for adult sexual activities such as filmed sexual activities, pornographic activities and erotic dances or massages

Explicit sexual solicitation, which is defined as offering or asking for sex or sexual partners, sex chats or conversations and nude images

Implicit sexual solicitation, which is defined as mention of a sexual act along with at least one of the following suggestive elements:
> Vague suggestive statements such as "looking for a good time tonight"
> Sexualised slang
> Sexual hints such as mention of sexual roles, positions or fetish scenarios
> Content (hand-drawn, digital or real-world art) that may depict explicit sexual activity or suggestively posed person(s).

Offers or requests for other adult activities, such as commercial pornography or partners who share sexual fetish interests.

Content that engages in explicit sexual solicitation by, including but not limited to the following, offering or asking for:
> Sex or sexual partners
> Sex chat or conversations
> Nude images

Content that offers or asks for other adult activities such as:
> Commercial pornography
> Partners who share fetish or sexual interests

Sexually explicit language that adds details and goes beyond mere naming or mentioning of:
> A state of sexual arousal (wetness or erection)
> An act of sexual intercourse (sexual penetration, self-pleasuring or exercising fetish scenarios)

PC Mag writes:

To be clear, Facebook already had a ban on porn and sexual solicitation on the platform; it was previously stated under the "Sexual Exploitation of Adults" and "Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity" section of Facebook's content rules. However, the social network decided to flesh out the anti-sexual solicitation policy to help Facebook better address the content on the platform, a company spokesperson told PCMag.

"This change was prompted, in large part, by conversations with our content reviewers, who told us that the sexual exploitation policy did not adequately distinguish between exploitation (e.g. 'My ex was a slut. Look at the photos she sent me.') and solicitation (e.g. 'Looking for swingers. Friday at 8 PM, [name of bar]. Wear pink.')," the spokesperson said in an email.

The company didn't directly comment on concerns the new policy was too broad and might prohibit people from engaging in dirty talk on the site. But Facebook said it crafted the new rules with input from third-party organizations that specialize in women's and children's safety issues.


NEXT: Brickbat: That's Not a Man, Baby

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The site will now “restrict sexually explicit language” (because “some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content”), ban users from any talk about “partners who share sexual interests,” and prohibit any art featuring people posed provocatively, any “sexualized slang,” and any “hints” of mentions of sexual “positions or fetish scenarios.”

    I mean, your mother sees those posts!

    1. Hello.

      Gee, look who decided to show up.

      1. Finally Facebook is taking a step in the right direction. They should follow up by ensuring that any unwanted academic “parody” or “satire” is carefully expurgated from the site. Hopefully any “speech” that can damage the reputation of our faculty members here at NYU will eventually be banned altogether by government regulations, but Facebook still has an opportunity to do what has to be done before the authorities step in and enforce at least a measure of public propriety. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

    2. Vague suggestive statements such as “looking for a good time tonight”

      A lot of bands in the local music scene use phrases like that to advertise gigs.

      1. “Sandwich”?! Is that some kind of reference to non-normative sexual activity?!

        1. That’s considered non-normative these days?

          1. Sure. If someone might be offended by the possible meanings of your handle, if must not be allowed.

            1. Especially if the sandwich has meat in it.

              1. Do they serve that at Comet Ping Pong Pizza?

    3. Does this mean that I will no longer get friend solicitations from ladies one-third my age and two-thirds of their clothes missing?

    4. Ironically, your mom is responsible for like 99% of those posts on my feed

  2. Rudy Giuliani’s Paranoid Nonsense Tweet Is A Good Reminder That We Need Actual Cybersecurity Experts In Government

    and/or a government with less things to secure

    1. Techdirt sees no problem in calling for actual cybersecurity experts in government when the government obviously believes Rudy 9/11 is an actual cybersecurity expert. Just as they see no problem in calling for the government to regulate the internet because they don’t like the way Ajit Pai and the FCC are regulating the internet. They haven’t yet figured out that government doesn’t work the way they want it to, government works the way government wants it to.

      1. Naifs.

  3. A longtime staffer of Sen. Kamala Harris (D?Calif.) just quit after it was revealed that he settled a harassment and retaliation claim for $400,000 while working for Harris at the California Department of Justice.

    Geez, how much do they pay over there?

    1. The taxpayers picked up the tab I am sure.

  4. Last month, the FBI raided the home of an official whistleblower. What was he blowing the whistle on? “Reported potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” reports Richard Pollack at the Daily Caller. Well, well.

    The Daily Caller News Foundation, in a bombshell report, detailed how 16 FBI agents raided the home of Dennis Cain, a former employee of an FBI contractor, on Nov. 19. They rummaged through his home for six hours even though he told them that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz awarded him whistleblower status, according to Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras.…..ry-247492/

    Remember, the “Deep State” is just a paranoid myth.

    1. I actually saw one of the raids by the FBI involving the Thomas Drake leaks. One of the people whose homes were raided lived a half a mile down my street. Poor bastards actually followed the whistle-blower program the government set up. Hence why anyone says that Snowden shouldn’t have released the information the way he did is a ignorant of how the government punishes honorable behavior.

      1. The FBI and DOJ have been out of control for decades.

        1. That became abundantly clear during the Clinton administration although I’m sure it started before then. Not sure if they were more discreet or it was just the lack of 24/7 news before then.

          1. It had started before then but the Clinton Administration accelerated it and pretty much finished the job. The Clinons were crooks. Since the media sold out to get Clinton elected, they couldn’t tell the truth about all of the horrible things he and his cronies were doing or any of the corruption without being held responsible for selling him to the country. People forget but the media was just as much in the tank for Clinton in 92 and maybe even more so than it was for Obama in 2008. Clinton was the first Boomer President, which to the Boomers who ran the media was just as big of a deal as the first black President.

            1. He plays the SAX!

              But he sexually assaulted women!

              BUT HE PLAYS THE SAX!

            2. The FBI and federal law enforcement have been corrupt since day one if memory serves. They got better at hiding that for a while, but lately they’ve let the mask slip more than usual.

      2. He should not have released the information the way he did. He very nearly was caught to do not properly researching were he would be out of reach of the US government. Had he done more thorough checking on the law he could have avoided a lot of trouble.

    2. “The documents Cain possessed, which he gave to the special agent leading the search, show that federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity pertaining to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, according to a document TheDCNF reviewed.”

      Simply amazing

      1. In case anybody missed it (Reason did)

    3. That’s not good.

      Of course there’s a deep state.

      Where do you think Hollywood gets their ideas for all those deep state movies?

      1. We talk a lot about the US Deep State but I am curious about the Canadian Deep State.

        1. We call it the ‘inner cabal’.

          That is, a shadow cabal within a party that tells the PM what to do.

          1. Yes, but do they all ride horses?

          2. With PM Zoolander it’s easy to find exactly who our inner cabal is. You just follow the puppet strings.

          3. “That is, a shadow cabal within a party that tells the PM what to do.”

            In Trudeau’s case do they have to produce pop up books for his instructions?

      2. Deep media?

    4. Somebody should remind Dennis Cain that he lives in the land of the free and the home of the whatever.

    5. it was her turn…?…to be in charge of New East Germany!

    6. At least he didn’t have a tragic weightlifting accident, or get killed in a botched daylight mugging where they forgot to take his watch or his wallet.

  5. “some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content”

    Go fuck yourself Zuckerberg. Some audiences within your global community think you are a fucking douche bag.

    1. Those outside his global community know he’s a fucking douche bag.

    2. It is funny that he thinks the “global community” is some version of a woke college campus rather than the regressive, nasty place it mostly is. If the “global community” starts making the rules, a whole lot of Progressive sacred cows are going to the slaughter house.

      1. a whole lot of Progressive sacred cows are going to the slaughter house.

        Sacred steaks, medium rare.

    3. Him and Dorsey.

      Two illiterate punks who are intellectually in over their heads.

      The whole idea of FB was to pick up fucking girls. In a way, interestingly if we want to twist things up, it’s foundation is sexually predatory and runs contrary to #metoo.

      1. Most shot guys do is for picking up girls.

    4. If facebook is going to ban any kind of content it should be politics. Makes it unbearable.

      1. Yeah, but the government is interested in what you says about it, and what team you are on. You can bet the things facebook won’t ban are the things government want’s to judge you on.

  6. But Facebook said it crafted the new rules with input from third-party organizations that specialize in women’s and children’s safety issues.

    Who will no doubt wield their newfound power with restraint.

    1. Why does everything have to be about children’s safety lately?

      Newsflash: there are A LOT of things that are unsafe for children but perfectly fine for adults. Examples include: driving a car, cooking using a stove or oven, slicing vegetables, plugging in electrical devices, enjoying an alcoholic beverage, cutting the grass or operating a snow blower, etc. It’s not just sex! In fact, I’ll wager that any of those things could potentially cause a tyke much more permanent damage than seeing a naked chick.

      It’s on parents and other responsible adults who are supposed to be looking after children to make sure the young kids in their charge are not doing any of the above things. It is wholly inappropriate to decide to treat everyone like a child and proscribe all of those things, regardless of age, in the name of boosting the safety of a collective kids.

      People (adult ones) need to start saying, “STOP! I am not a child, so knock it the fuck off.”

      1. I frankly suspect that many of the people wailing “it’s for the children!” are themselves the children. We live in a world where grownups “can’t even” and need safe spaces with Play-doh (to eat, of course) and coloring books just because somebody had the temerity to disagree with them.

        1. And blankets, and videos of frolicking puppies.

      2. I agree wholeheartedly, but there are too many individuals who are chronological adults but emotional children who push for government to be their parents. And they assume that if they need governmental parenting, then so does everyone else.

      3. ‘The children’ isn’t something the people using that argument actually give a shit about, it’s a way to push policy via fear. Nothing more, and nothing less.

        It may be a honest concern among the populace, but politicians really couldn’t give less of a fuck about them beyond their useful status as a tool to pass policy.

    2. Is one of the third-party organizations that specialize in women’s and children’s issues Free-Range Kids and Lenore Skenazy?

    3. Children aren’t supposed to be on FB.

  7. A longtime staffer of Sen. Kamala Harris (D?Calif.) just quit after it was revealed that he settled a harassment and retaliation claim for $400,000 while working for Harris at the California Department of Justice.

    Not her fault. She’s still my first choice for President in 2020.

    1. #StillWithhHim

    2. Sure. If Kamala was a guy, and the scandal involved a female staffer, the pitchforks (and Harris) would be out by now.

      1. “Those staffers, they just let you grab ’em by the —–“

    3. The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 30, 2016, when Harris was still attorney general but preparing to be sworn in as California’s newly elected Democratic senator. It was settled less than five months later, in May 2017, by Xavier Becerra, who was appointed to replace her as attorney general.

      How could she have known about it? Nobody knew about it! Apparently nobody even knows how the newspaper found out about it just now. You’d think that might be an interesting question to have the paper address, what did they know and when did they know it, but you’d be wrong.

    4. Isn’t she an even bigger fan of civil asset forfeiture than Jeff Sessions?

    5. OBL, you do know that HIllary is running again right? You will be for whoever they command you to be for.

  8. Someone’s going to make a fortune with a social media platform which allows anything not ruled illegal, where content ratings depend entirely on the community, and people can choose to only see stuff from family and friends, or rated acceptable by other users of their choosing.

    IOW, it would all be opt-in (follow whom you want), and smart investors who kept it that way and left out all the internal nannies and told Congressional nannies to fuck off, would destroy facebook and other scolds pretty quick, methinks.

    1. Time to short Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.

      1. Based on the market, you’re a week late

        1. You think they’ve hit bottom?

    2. It would require corporate officers who do not share Silicon Valley’s groupthink and resist objections from their workers and perhaps provide their own web hosting.

    3. I think it is more likely that social media is a fad and is going to fade away and become less important as time goes on. The thing that is going to kill social media is the risks it creates to people’s careers and reputation. If posting on social media means losing your job and reputation if you somehow manage to get crossways with the SJW mob, people will just avoid the risk and stop using it.

      If there is a future to social media, it will be a future where people connect with their friends in very closed and private environments that employers and SJW trash are not allowed to look.

      1. I have a teenager. Social media isn’t going away anytime in our lifetime, just the form might change.

      2. No, it won’t go away. It’s way too useful of a tool for the NSA, CIA, and law enforcement to be allowed to die. They only allow Zucker to continue running it because they need that thin veneer of private ownership so that they can continue to mine it for things like facial recognition or potential dissidents without being held to account for running something no one would use if it was an official government platform. Although one day, I won’t be surprised when it’s nationalized and membership is mandatory.

        If you want to see the inevitable end point of how it will be used, take a look at places like China. That’s our current heading.

    4. You can only make a fortune with it if it’s centralized, which is at the root of the problem.

      Uncensorable social media platforms have to be distributed, and that means less profit for more providers.

    5. Assbook?

    6. I haven’t noticed any of the chans making any headway as far as market share. If anything, they have the opposite problem: the lunatic fringe congregates at the outer edges which effectively drives all the wine moms out. No moderation (or user defined) is just as bad as overly strict moderation. Unless you want to dig through gigabytes of furry-pedo rights-white nationalist fanfic. I mean more power to them, but it becomes just another ghetto eventually.

      Like how Sin City eventually cleaned up their act to become “family friendly”, Facebook and the like are now mature enough to court the irrelevancy of the family. That’s where the disposable income is.

      Girls who want to discuss how nice it would be to participate in a gangbang still have venues available to them. They are just going to be sharing space with oddities they never knew existed, and where even perverts fear to tread.

  9. The site will now “restrict sexually explicit language”

    It will basically be a pretext to remove anyone for any reason. Just get your gang to accuse them of ‘sexually explicit language’. While I think it’s terrible, I also think it’s good because I’ve been a victim of Facebook witch hunts, and when I protested, most people said, “Well you must have said something wrong.” This will hopefully force users to start speaking out. It will be funny to watch Facebook also suppress any discussion of the ensuing controversies.

    1. Remember when Alex Jones got the boot, and conservatives thought it was no big deal, because it would only be used against people who push school shooter conspiracy theories?

  10. “The site has gotten slack for banning everything …”

    Is “slack” the new “flak”? Just trying to catch up.

    1. Professional righters are got at oozing verts.

      1. Very cute. Mickey is demoted to Editor-in-Waiting 3rd Class(probation). Alan is promoted to Senior Lord of Junior Research Assistant Deputy Editors Rampant.

  11. “Fight against greenhouse gases stalls as emissions soar to new record”
    “Despite efforts by the Trump administration to roll back climate regulations, however, the country is expected to see declining greenhouse gases next year. Federal deregulation has been slow to take hold while market forces are likely to continue pushing out coal in favor of wind and solar energy.”

    Gases soar, temps not so much, and Trump’s efforts to roll back regs have no negative effects on continuing reductions in the US.
    This constitutes bad news.

    1. The Paris riots are bad news as well. For the first time the public is saying it will not tolerate being sent into poverty so elites can feel smug about solving “global warming”.

      1. And the elites are throwing quite a hissy fit about the lower classes not meekly obeying.

        1. I was shocked that some media outlets had to admit that Macron is about 50% less popular than Trump.

          Guardian- Macron polls lower than Trump’s

          These polls numbers with Lefty bias factored in.

        2. Yes they are. I saw an article a couple of days ago about how the Democrats are in love with O’Rourke. It occured to me that O’Rourke is nothing but an American Trudeau or Macron. All three are dumb as a post and empty suits put up by the elites. Even though they haven’t realized it, I think there days of puting up a moron who makes people feel good are coming to an end.

          1. Never underestimate the appeal of a pretty but empty head.

        3. Hmm, remind me what happened the last time the French did this?

          1. It ended up with Napoleon forcing peace between the urban Jacobins and the rural folks who did not want much to do with the wilder plans of the revolutionaries.

          2. The French do this every 10 years or so, don’t they?

      2. It’s a classic peasant’s revolt.

      3. Parisians will riot over an underbaked baguette. It’s fair enough to say that wealthy people and concerns should be taking the lead in paying for mitigation efforts, but if we do nothing it won’t be the elites who suffer first.

        1. The only people who have “suffered” from global warming are the victims of the socialist policies people like you think it justifies. Those people are rioting because their government is taxing them into poverty, which is exactly what you support doing to them.

          1. The more you idiots dig your heels in with this pathetic denial crap, the more “socialist” things are going to have to get. A simple capitalist carbon tax might have dealt with this if implemented smartly long enough ago.

            1. A simple capitalist carbon tax


            2. There’s never a good time to raise the energy costs for working people. And I very much doubt that this tax would have “dealt with” anything other than politicians’ addiction to pissing away other people’s money.

            3. Yeah, or maybe the entire issue will go away once technology catches up. (Think molten salt atomic power or even fusion energy.)

              The same thing happened when first petroleum products and then electricity came along and permanently ended the problem of hunting whales to near extinction for whale oil to light lamps.

              1. We’re already on track to fossil-fuel two-thirds of the animal species on earth to extinction. Depends on how you define success, I suppose.

                1. So that’s how we killed the dinosaurs…

        2. Not bad Tony. This is the closest thing you’ve said to a historical fact.

          One of the reasons Parisians revoted before the French Revolution was because of rising bread prices.

          Proud of you. /gentle punch on the chin.

          1. Exactly. And even with all that cake around.

        3. Chicken Little:
          “but if we do nothing it won’t be the elites who suffer first.”

          “New York and London will be uninhabitable in 20 years’; prediction made at least 30 years ago.

    2. Good news is bad because Trump.

      Bad news is good because Hillary,Bernie,Lizzie,Occasional-Cortex.

    3. You need to learn about the < a > tag.

      1. me too. Link to help?

    4. You know what’s a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2?


      Go figure.

  12. The Disneyfication of America continues.

    1. We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig
      In our mine the whole day through
      To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig
      Is what we like to do

      It ain’t no trick to get rich quick
      If you dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick
      In a mine! In a mine! In a mine! In a mine!
      Where a million diamonds shine!

      We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig
      From early morn till night
      We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig up
      Everything in sight

      We dig up diamonds by the score
      A thousand rubies, sometimes more
      Though we don’t know what we dig ’em for
      We dig dig dig a-dig dig

      Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
      Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
      [Chorus]: Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
      It’s home from work we go
      Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho
      [Chorus]: Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho

      1. Hi Ho! Hi Ho!
        It’s off to bed we go
        We paid our buck
        We want our ….
        Bye Ho! Bye Ho! Bye Ho! Bye Ho!

  13. “California would guarantee a bed for every homeless person under new bill”
    “SACRAMENTO ? Every homeless person in California would have a right to a bed year-round under a statewide “right to shelter” policy proposed by Sen. Scott Wiener.
    ” key details of the bill ? including how much the added shelters will cost, how they will be paid for and who will be responsible for ensuring enough beds are made available ? will not be worked out until at least next year.”

    Details, shmetails…..

    1. You need to learn about the < a > tag.

    2. UBI has to start somewhere, even disguised in a different form

    3. And underwear will be worn on the outside, so we can check.

    4. No need to pay for added shelters. Each California legislator should just be legally required to put up to any number of homeless people, up to a reasonable limit like three dozen individuals, in their own homes and offices. The legislators should also be legally required to make any of their disadvantaged house guests a sammmich, upon being asked, regardless of the time of day or night. (I.e., no fobbing off that responsibility on their undocumented housekeepers.)

      I’m not usually a proponent of more legislation, but that’s one law I would firmly get behind.

      1. I don’t know if I would want a sandwich prepared by one of those putzes.

  14. I’m very much anti-pornography, but I can’t help but wonder if Facebook’s censorship push is motivated by the social justice shibboleth that sex and gender are different. There’s definitely been an increase in attempts to undermine and trivialize male heterosexuality recently (see: changes to Miss Universe and proposed changes to the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show). This could be part of that trend. Redefine sex, regulate it into the ground, and antagonize any display of it that contradicts contemporary gender discourse.

    Also, use the word “gendered” as an adjective a lot. Gendered language and gendered violence must be stopped!

    And who the hell is this Molly Jong-Fast character, and why is she relevant? I miss the days when twits like Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing were irrelevant. Now, I can’t go more than a day without Yahoo! telling me how Chrissy Teigen is clapping back at Drumpf.

    Speaking of which, has anybody demanded that Sports Illustrated feature a transgender cover model for its Swimsuit Edition yet?

    1. They don’t believe so much sex and gender are different, than that sex is unimportant despite being an objective condition while gender is entirely subjective but the supreme consideration.

    2. I don’t know. Considering that one of FB’s new rules is against groups discussing “non-normative” sex, I’d say they are thumbing their noses specifically at LGBTQ users with that one.

      It’s not only about downing traditional sexual expression—they want everything sanitized and made toddler-friendly. Maybe Zuck isn’t getting any at home and his bride also came down on him really hard when she caught him looking at Redtube. Now he just wants to spread the misery.

      1. It depends on who gets to define “non-normative,” doesn’t it?

  15. “Facebook will now “restrict sexually explicit language”?because “some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content”

    The thing to keep in mind with Facebook is that their primary concerns are driven by the interests of their customers, and their customers are not average users. Facebook is ultimately an advertising platform, and Facebook’s customers are ultimately advertisers.

    Advertisers don’t want their ads inadvertently showing up on some racist video. They don’t want their ads to appear to be supporting gun sales in the aftermath of some nut going off on a mass shooting. Advertisers don’t want their brands associated with kink in their targeted audience’s mind. That’s why you don’t see a lot of this shit in the mainstream media–because advertisers don’t want to be associated with it.

    Incidentally, ABC, CBS, NBC programming is so vanilla for this reason. If you want to see the racy stuff, you have to go to a pay-TV channel, where it’s the subscribers who are paying the piper rather than advertisers.

    1. There’s a very libertarian lesson in all of this–which is that content creators are much better at censoring themselves to fit the moral quibbles of their viewers than any government ever could be. Facebook sucks like disco, broadcast television, mass-produced beer, and other mainstream offerings meant to appeal to the largest number of people suck. But Facebook shouldn’t be condemned for this.

      If anyone should be condemned, it’s Facebook users who are selling their souls and the souls of their friends and families to advertisers for a song.

      1. Is the song “Thank U, Next” by Ariana Grande?

  16. “California Democrats plan to extend Medicaid to illegal immigrants”

    I feel like this might hurt the economy… But I’ve been told it won’t by so many woke people here I don’t know anymore. I guess I’ll ignore my brain and go with my woke heart?

    1. “California Democrats plan to extend Medicaid to illegal immigrants””

      I’m trying to think of a better way for lawmakers to turn marginal fence sitters against illegal immigration. I’m coming up blank.

      1. I’ll admit, while tough, the discussion of welfare and immigration can be separate. But thanks to democrats, I don’t need to worry about that anymore.

        1. the discussion of welfare and immigration can be separate

          No, the two topics can absolutely not be separate.

          1. They can be separate, but what can’t be discussed separately are the labor and wage policies of the U.S. government that have been pushed by the left for the last 100 years that are explicit anti-immigration. They’re still pushing those anti-immigrant policies, only now they’re saying we need to let as many of them in as possible even while the labor of an illegal low-skill Mexican immigrant is in a category with high-school students.

            The left has designed a system where these people can come here, but can’t legally do anything other than have babies once they get here. And if they could come legally, and they become eligible for things like the minimum wage, suddenly their labor benefit evaporates.

            1. Bingo

          2. Sure they can. But to do it effectively in practice, you need a better handle on who is/isn’t a citizen and how to prove that. Our current slapdash system is so full of holes that illegal immigrants are reliably able to circumvent it. And employers are incentivized to ignore the holes because they receive all the reward for hiring illegal immigrants while shouldering none of the risk.

            So the topics can be separated. But in practice, we need better systems first as the current ones are shit.

    2. What do you mean by “hurt the economy”? And why is “the economy” > the health of human beings? Are you hoping that the undocumented people will not take the far less efficient route of showing up at emergency rooms, preferring to die nobly instead?

      1. “People. Will. Die.”

        It’s this sort of fear-mongering that makes people genuinely believe that “social justice warrior” is a compliment.

        1. Everybody will die eventually. Don’t want to fearmonger or anything.

          1. It’s curious how your commitment to government policies that minimize death doesn’t apply to abortion. At least 630,000 children a year die that way in the U.S. alone. Let’s ban it, overturn Roe, and devise supportive strategies that discourage women from pursuing illegal abortions.


            1. Eww who let the fundie in the room. It smells, get it out.

              1. Did I say a fucking word about religion? Did I?

                Seriously. Libertarians in the room: quick show of hands. Even if you’re pro-choice, where the hell did I say anything about religion? Where?

                I didn’t. But we all know Tony sees things that aren’t there.

                1. Ah yes it’s usually the secular who divert a conversation sideways into how embryos are actually “children” with no prompting whatsoever.

                  1. I’m an agnostic and I don’t really see any problem with legislating around abortion. In fact, it’s one of those things that should be legislated since it’s a baseline conflict of natural rights. I think Matthew’s point is that if your goal was to actually minimize death you wouldn’t therefore be pro-life as abortion is quite definitely terminating lives. Disproportionately black lives, to be specific, which makes it all the more curious.

                    1. *you wouldn’t would therefore be pro-life

                    2. There’s no such thing as natural rights. If we insist that embryos are people with rights, that means women lose some pretty basic rights. Government has to force them to give birth against their will. It also, presumably, has to figure out how to deal with the appalling holocaust that is the regular occurrence of miscarriage. Pro- forcing women to give birth against their will is the fixation of fundies who want to control women’s sexuality, not rational people.

                    3. There’s no such thing as natural rights.

                      If we insist that embryos are people with rights, that means women lose some pretty basic rights.

                      And Tony scores an own-goal, you massive retard.

                    4. He’s quite the idiot.

                    5. Smart people know that rights are things that people invent. Dumb people insist that rights exist somewhere “out there” in the cosmos. Or people who want to stop the conversation at “because God says so!”

                      Since here in reality we get to choose who gets what rights, I think it’s best to have a system of rights that actually makes life better for people.

                    6. “If embryos are people with rights, that means women lose some pretty basic rights”
                      So the right not to be inconvenienced trumps the right not to be murdered. Well, at least you’re starting to realize how incredibly evil pro-choice is.

                    7. What do you think the government should force you to do with your own body?

                  2. Well if there was ever a guy who was able to get a quick, accurate fix on a situation, it’s Tony.

            2. Anyone who thinks a 2-inch frog-like creature with the EEG of a dead person and human DNA is a person with rights is talking religion. Trying to get that creature to be a person is the action of a theocrat.

      2. You see Tony, things like healthcare cost money. Free things aren’t free for the taxpayer. You know, the people democrats demand pay for everything. Eventually, the taxpayer will say enough is enough. That will lead to major state deficits, and the federal government will have to bail California out. And like I said before, nothing is free.

        Did I mention nothing is free?

        Did I mention things cost money?

        Did I mention taxpayers pay for this stuff?

        1. So you do believe that people will base whether they get treated (say, at expensive ERs, which other people will have to pay for anyway) on their citizenship status? Are you saying you hope they do make this calculation and choose to simply die in order to save others money?

          We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world and it’s not because of “illegals,” it’s because of capitalism.

          1. It’s expensive because we are currently half assing socialist policies instead of running within a free market system.

            You know this, because you keep bringing up “people dying in the streets” as if to say “pay for my big government policies or you’re evil”

            Your health isn’t my fucking problem, what you steal from me and give to others is absolutely my problem.

            Choke on that your royal wokeness

            1. Okay, then your property rights aren’t my fucking problem. Sick and tired of paying for cops and courts to rectify other people’s problems with being thieved. Socialist asshat.

              1. Property rights, unlike free healthcare, is in the constitution. I know you hate that document but that’s the one we go by around here.

                1. So the constitution makes it not socialist? Or socialism is OK as long as it’s in the constitution?

                  1. The fact you think that socialists believe in any private property rights is a laugh riot.

                  2. The fact you think that socialists believe in any private property rights is a laugh riot.

                    1. I think you have that sinking feeling that these arguments are bullshit.

                      It’s okay to force me to give you my money as long as it’s in the constitution? Why? Is it magic?

                    2. I don’t want to force you to do anything except recognize some form of agreement is required. While imperfect, the constitution is the best anyone’s got. I adhere to it because it works better than anything anyone has ever tried.

                      Now tell me about how well socialism is doing historically?

                    3. If you’re talking about what I’m talking about, a normal, modern government with a strong public sector, it’s doing just fine. Way better than the monstrous horseshit you endorse.

                    4. I think you don’t understand how anything works. I find it hilarious that you advocate for slavery. You’d have been the asshole back in the mid-1800’s saying that field-hand labor was a right of every landowner. It’s really no different to say that a Doctor’s labor is the right of every citizen.

                    5. God you are incapable of basic thought. If public medicine makes doctors into slaves, then public firefighting makes firefighters into slaves, no?

                      Slaves don’t fucking get paid! Jesus Christ how do you people function in daily life?

                    6. Slaves got paid whatever their masters wanted allowed to make. Just like socialism. Because if the socialist government thinks you have no value they won’t pay you to do it.

                    7. *Wanted/ allowed them

                    8. Actually, you might educate yourself. Historically slaves have sometimes been paid, and engaged in work for profit, and even accumulated enough funds to purchase their own freedom.

                      Not everywhere, not all the time, but it has happened, including in the US South.

                      You can be a slave that can’t be sold as well. There have been places where slaves were held, but they could no longer be sold. Just because there was no longer a slave trade did not mean they were no longer slaves.

                      A slave could even receive more from the owner for his work than the market would provide, and still be a slave.

                      That said, I agree that the doctors will not be slaves, so long as they can quit, abandon medical practice and work in the free market. Of course, doctors will have a difficult time doing that, since all of the fields they could apply their training to will be government controlled as well. Nurses, Pharmacists, Physical Therapy, etc. But they will be free to get a job at Wal-Mart.

                      I wonder if the level of care you get will be better than the VA, or worse?

              2. Actually, the fact you want to take other people’s property in order to do things you think best IS the problem.

                Dumb Ass

                And Tony, you calling someone else a Socialist is pretty rich… even for you.

      3. Your socialism is super woke today

        1. Yeah, Tony, like all socialists, believes that people who work to provide health care are either like fairies who do not need money, or they should be like slaves who do not need money. Or maybe both.

          1. Who said they shouldn’t get paid?

            Do you think cops and judges are slaves? Teachers? You probably think teachers are overpaid!

            1. Under socialism, we’re all slaves, because the government decides what we make, not the free market.

              Do you actually read any of the articles? If that’s too much, watch a couple Stossel videos

            2. Because of the nonsensical refrain that nobody should profit from health care.

              The problem is Leftist rhetoric is a bunch of emotionally appealing talking points that have no logical coherence when looked at as a whole. It is self-contradictory word salad.

    3. They argue – like Nick did in a video – illegal immigrants pay taxes. Okay.

      So my question is, do illegals qualify for Medicaid or when they pay taxes do they automatically get it? My understanding was that Medicaid was for citizens who pay into a taxpayer pool to get it.

      Is California saying ‘well, they pay taxes so they deserve it’ or are they saying, ‘hey, come on and get it on other people’s dime and fuck Trump’?

      1. Excuse my idiocy, but when undocumented people file taxes, doesn’t that provide the government with a mechanism to track them down? Or is the government cool with that arrangement so long as it gets money?

        1. That’s the other part, I reckon, that poked a hole in Nick’s argument. You have to figure illegals know this and look to avoid paying taxes. I’m willing to bet they don’t pay as much as claimed.

          1. I guess the idea is that they are submitting false ID documents, paying payroll taxes, and have income taxes withheld. Then they don’t file income tax returns for refunds. I could see how mathematically that works, but not sure how long the fake payroll reporting would last before the electronic systems stop the employer. It could also be a case of the jobs being so low pay and short term that it’s not really relevant.

            Or pay people in cash and then the whole point is BS.

            1. They still pay sales and other indirect taxes if they don’t pay income tax.
              I don’t know if immigrants pay enough taxes to cover what they cost.

              I think the smart thing to do would be to just give undocumented workers some kind of tax ID so they don’t have to steal peoples SSN and just collect the taxes. Odds are they won’t file a return and will over pay. Then you get them to pay for services they use and you reduce the identity theft problem.

              1. “I don’t know if immigrants pay enough taxes to cover what they cost.”

                I’ll look at this later, but my first inclination is to say ‘no’.

                1. I think that a policy making it much easier for people to come temporarily to work would help a lot. Allows them to work legally and be taxed like everyone else (SLD about taxes). And makes it less likely that whole families will move here. That’s where the costs come from. Single people working their asses off aren’t the problem.

                2. And that answer IS no. Even if they file, they earn so little that the pay no income tax, and are able to get (with that birth-right citizen child) Medicaid, Food Stamps, and perhaps Section 8 housing. They are paying no property taxes, and are sending children to public school with free lunch, usually breakfast as well. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

              2. Exactly. It’s pretty damn near impossible to avoid paying any taxes. At the very least, you are going to be paying sales taxes and gas taxes. If you plan to have electricity or a phone, you’ll be paying taxes on those services as well.

              3. Sales taxes are state and local (not sure how relevant that would be to medicaid); I could see gas taxes and excise taxes being applicable to medicaid in a general pool of funds kind of way, but this is so indirect and ambiguous it would be hard to evaluate in any real quantitative way.

            2. It goes something like this: Illegal, low-skilled mexican labor comes across the border with their whole family. Mom is pregnant, and gives birth in the United States. That child is therefore now a citizen who is eligible for WIC, Medicaid, and pretty much every other welfare program in the United States since their effective income is zero, never mind how much they may work under the table illegally.

              Sure, they may pay plenty of taxes. That’s not the fucking point though, since if they have children it’s very unlikely that they contribute anywhere near as much as they receive. Recall that most of them are Catholic, and the Latin culture generally has a lot of kids not just one. I’m not making a value judgement on that, it’s just a fact.

              If you made them legal citizens, that doesn’t actually change anything since their labor is only valuable since they can undercut citizens on wages since the minimum wage (and, say, withholding) simply do not apply to them as illegal workers.

              Now, keep in mind citizens do this too and the illegal immigrants are completing directly with that group. Fortunately for those citizens, they are almost certainly already on enough welfare programs that they don’t need to compete, they just lose their under-the-table wages they were earning before.

              1. I do think that part of the problem is the tighter border controls. If it were easier to come to the US temporarily for work, and go back and forth over the border, I think fewer people would bring their families. If crossing the border is risky and expensive, then people will try to only do it once. Though that might have less of an effect now when a lot of the immigrants are coming from farther away and Mexico is all fucked up from drugwar (which is the fault of the US government, primarily). But still, those dollars go a lot further back home.

                1. They don’t come over temporarily for work and go back and forth. They come over “temporarily” and then stay illegally.

                  Haven’t you heard the Progs telling everyone the border wall will not work because most illegals were here on temporary Visas and did not return to their home country?

        2. Pretty much this ^

          I have friends of the alien variety who pay taxes every year, have bank accounts, buy/sell/register cars, and even one family is buying a home. They may some day get deported (who knows?) but in the meantime they are productive taxpaying people living peacefully – though not fully legally – in the US.

          They go through their lives every day with the prospect of deportation, but they pay taxes every year – in case there is ever a possibility that they can claim citizenship and they want good clean marks behind them.

          And those I know do not submit with false ID documents. They keep immaculate records, but their 1040 is filed with any taxed owed being in the form of a donation to the IRS.

          1. Interesting, considering that Trump is NOW getting beat up because one of his properties hired an illegal who used fraudulent papers. He met her briefly several times over 7 years when he stayed there and she cleaned his room. Apparently he spoke nicely to her and left her a big tip so he must have known she used fake papers.

            The media are not focusing on the fact that she entered the country illegally, lied to get the job and committed felonies when she used forged papers … but rather that Trump, who was in the facility a total of a few times over 7 years should have caught her. Because all CEOs examine the papers of individual employees they see in passing.

      2. Medicaid is for popeeple–no tax contribution is required. However, under law, including the ACA, Medicaid is for citizens and some legal residents.

        California is almost certainly saying “fuck Trump”. And maybe creating some obligations for when illegals get the vote in Cali.

        1. Ah. Thanks.

  17. Develop some (not so) subtly coded language like, “wanna come back to mine for coffee?”

    1. Baby, it’s cold outside!

      1. That song has already been outed as rapey

        1. Look, according to the new Prog Puritism (TM), any hint at any kind of sexual encounter or relation is rapey.

        2. I think that was the joke. It was a funny joke.

          1. It should be a joke, but unfortunately, the SJW have indeed decided that “Baby, it’s cold outside” is promoting rape.

            1. I thought it was just the guy encouraging her to stay, and her wanting to stay but lamenting that everyone would know. Her sister, her brother, the neighbors. Written in a different time obviously.

    2. Develop some (not so) subtly coded language like, “wanna come back to mine for coffee?”

      My first thought that they’re going to have to change the definition of “Netflix and chill” to watching Netflix while not doing anything.

      1. Among a lot of people I know that phrase has now come to mean just sitting at home watching Netflix, the joke being that they didn’t do anything and just stayed at home.

        “Hey Dave, what did y’all get up to last night?”

        “Just netfix and chill, man. I hit the hay around 10.”

        It is very funny. Not ha ha funny. Thanks for reading my cool story.

  18. Just what we need, a bunch of tech nerds setting standards about sexual appropriateness. Let me guess, tentacle porn is a-OK.

    1. Wait til they start shutting down tranny porn. The nerds vs. trannys war of 2019 will be amazing

      1. But not pretty.

      2. Alex Jones hardest hit.

    2. Ask Kurt Eichenwald.

    3. Surely the facebook would be outsourcing the sex policing work to selected “civil rights” organizations?

      Like they outsource the decreeing of “truth” to such stalwarts of non-partisan integrity like Politifact.

    4. What kind of nerd are you Tony? The living in Mom’s basement kind? Still in your childhood bedroom with your kiddie furniture type? Perhaps you are the been back in Mom’s sewing room for the last decade kind of nerd?

      Enquiring minds want to know!

  19. This song is dedicated to John:

    Enjoy this woke version of ‘It’s cold outside’.

    1. These idiots are the intellectual descendants of the fig leaf crowd.

      Also, not enough people of color or transgender people. Thumbs down.

    2. that’s pretty good

    3. It’s a mystery to me why millennials are so worried about abortion rights. If they’re all like this they sure as shit won’t need abortions. Or contraception. Or anything besides soy milk.

      1. It’s because a lot of them believe bullshit like the population bomb. Recall that Progressives since the beginning have believed that only the genetically superior should be allowed to breed.

        1. Somehow, on a worldwide basis, that is not how I think it is working out!

  20. Prescription heroin? Remember, I said you might not like the solution. I don’t like it, either ? and frankly, neither do the drug policy researchers who told me it may be necessary.

    If we all agree that we don’t like prescription heroin then the only solution is to make it over the counter.

    1. I’m pretty sure that it was originally more or less a prescription drug. It was developed during the Civil War to treat pain in battle casualties. They had previously used morphine, but that was thought to be too addictive. Believe it or not, they promoted heroin as a non-addictive alternative.

      1. oops

      2. It was first made in 1874. But you are right about it at first being promoted as less addictive than morphine.

      3. Yep, it was marketed by Bayer, and heroin was called the “wonder drug” at the time, not aspirin!

        1. I actually have a copy of a newspaper add Bayer ran for it somewhere! If I find it I will post a link.

          1. Here is more, and some for cocaine, morphine, and others


  21. Zuck seems to be scoring own goal after own goal lately. At the rate it’s going, Facebook will be defunct in a couple of years.

    Maybe he has been shorting his own stock and is looking to profit from sinking his business.

    1. Zuck needs to embrace the jerk persona he had going around the time The Social Network came out. Did you see him in front of Congress? He might as well have been prostrate.

  22. You know who else enforced an awful community code of conduct?

    1. Rand Paul’s neighbor?

    2. Lucy from Peanuts?

    3. Hippie commie communes?

    4. The Reverend Jim Jones?

    5. Tom?s de Torquemada?

    6. Zimmerman?

    7. Every HOA, ever?

    8. Colonel Klink?

  23. How many copies of Obama’s book did the Saudi’s buy, though?

    1. Not too many, they already had thousands of Clinton books in the warehouse.

  24. I wasn’t even aware that there was any remotely sexual content on Facebook. For me, viewing FB often has the opposite effect

    1. I suppose that depends on one’s physiological response to cute pets flaunting themselves vs cute humans doing that.

  25. Now, if everyone without a Facebook page started one and posted nothing but pictures of Zuckerburg with a dick in his mouth. I wonder how long it would take Facebook to take them all down?

  26. “Partners who sexual interests” like each other? Like a partner? Isn’t this discriminatory against anyone who is alive?

  27. Supreme Court case could strengthen Trump’s pardon power

    A Trump pardon of Manafort after his convictions on federal bank fraud and tax evasion charges, for example, could hinder New York state authorities from prosecuting Manafort for violating state laws in committing the same offense. Special counsel Robert Mueller has been sharing information gathered during his investigation with state prosecutors, including the Manhattan District Attorney.

    1. How the fuck would a federal pardon have any effect whatsoever on a State trial, one might ask.

      1. Federal Supremacy?

    2. thanks for this information…

  28. I hope they continue on this path…the sooner Facebook goes away the better

  29. Seems like those church lady’s of the GOP will finally get to outlaw porn and free speech.

    Well, except they apparently have taken the form of effeminate “progressive” the robber barons.


  30. Next on “Where this same road always goes”: Gays banned from Facebook for openly (or not so openly!) flaunting their sexuality that makes people uncomfortable.

    It’s the same way jews end up being responsible for every awful thing in the world. You can set out to protect minorities all you like but sooner or later when the majority decides that tolerance of the “wrong” people isn’t cool anymore the “wrong people” has a magical way of morphing into “minorities”.

    1. Well yes, of course the LGBT folks are all over getting Fakebook to dump the stuff they don’t like because it offends them or “makes them feel unsafe”. Clearly clueless that this is going to come back to bite them later.

  31. No sex on Facebook.
    No sex in the bathroom.
    No sex in the bedroom.
    No sex unless otherwise specified by our ruling elites which is only fair.
    After all, they’ve been fucking us for decades.

  32. Who in the bloody hell uses Facebook anymore?

    —-Sent from my MySpace account—-

  33. Never understood the dichotomy in our country “sex is taboo but guns are great” . Fuck all y’all both are great. Get the fuck out prudes.

  34. SJWs are puritanical cryptotheocrats
    Totalitarians *always* come after your sex life

  35. Facebook: Cat photos, grandkids, and SJW propaganda
    SJWs Poison Everything

  36. There are still plenty of port-sharing and erotica-sharing web sites including ones with social media features. Less business for Facebook, more for them.

  37. whatsapp 2019 new version certainly would be more profitable users. be used in a variety of smartphone operating systems like whatsapp 2019 apk for android

  38. Wonderful!

    When folks can’t talk about sex on Fakebook that should cut participation significantly!

  39. coordinates sexual encounters between adults

    Doesn’t Facebook have a dating app? /confused

    1. Maybe he got tired of everyone saying “Fuck Zuckerberg” all the time.

  40. This is absolutely a very influential post and ne that will create awareness about the topic that has gathered momentum in recent years. The post has all the attributes of becoming one of the most influential post that has been written in the decade. If you want to write similar impressive posts then you can consult best online writing site PenMyPaper for help.

    1. Describing anything on Reason as “a very influential post” is an automatic failure of the Turing test.

  41. Its mean now we don’t see any sexuality-related post on Facebook

  42. if you want to earn money at your home just click on this site,

  43. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.