Gun Sellers Use New Tactic to Deal on Facebook Marketplace

[MaverickNH]

WSJ News Exclusive | Gun Sellers Use New Tactic to Deal on Facebook Marketplace

Ads for stickers of gun-brand logos that are actually for gun sales are being used on a Facebook site, a year after Democratic lawmakers called for better policing of the site’s ban on firearm sales.

www.wsj.com

“A year after lawmakers called on Mark Zuckerberg to better police Facebook’s second-hand market, gun sales proliferate—this time, disguised as stickers.”

Why is WSJ so very concerned about Facebook’s policies on guns? Advertising guns for sale is not illegal - it’s just banned by company policy. What other Civil Rights are banned by Facebook policy?

The Democrats just want to casting an overly broad net over gun-related social media postings.

 

[csimmons89]

WSJ News Exclusive | Gun Sellers Use New Tactic to Deal on Facebook Marketplace

Ads for stickers of gun-brand logos that are actually for gun sales are being used on a Facebook site, a year after Democratic lawmakers called for better policing of the site’s ban on firearm sales.

www.wsj.com

“A year after lawmakers called on Mark Zuckerberg to better police Facebook’s second-hand market, gun sales proliferate—this time, disguised as stickers.”

Why is WSJ so very concerned about Facebook’s policies on guns? Advertising guns for sale is not illegal - it’s just banned by company policy. What other Civil Rights are banned by Facebook policy?

The Democrats just want to casting an overly broad net over gun-related social media postings.

That is completely genius though! lol - I wish I knew about this sticker game....

 

[swatgig]

What other Civil Rights are banned by Facebook policy?

Not sure if serious

 

[arsco]

remember a craigslist post for a 9mm paper hole punch. i got a giggle out of it

 

[Dennis in MA]

The WSJ isn't taking a stand in that article, just stating facts based on some initial research by other parties.

I'm sure drogas are sold there as well as stickers and baggies and such.

But f'real - who is going to FBMP to look for a gun???? $450 for a used Glock Fo-Tee in a "free" state???? Sum'pin rong.

 

[Thinking]

I hit the paywall so I can’t read the article. What’s it say? That people were advertising “stickers” on Facebook to sell, which were actually guns? Do they give examples of one?

 

[greencobra]

I hit the paywall so I can’t read the article.

same

 

[Gator9329]

I'm just lazy.. tell me

 

[jpm]

Why is WSJ so very concerned about Facebook’s policies on guns? Advertising guns for sale is not illegal - it’s just banned by company policy. What other Civil Rights are banned by Facebook policy?

Constitutional rights do not apply to private businesses and forums like this one or facebook. They aren't the Government.

 

[MaverickNH]

Oops - try this one WSJ News Exclusive | Gun Sellers Use New Tactic to Deal on Facebook Marketplace

 

[Dennis in MA]

While pricy, teh WSJ is possibly teh only online news source worth paying for.

I obviously have it for my business, but I read a ton more non-finance articles than finance articles. In Collitch 30 years ago they taught us to use the WSJ for stock and bond research. Even back then, it was far more than just that. The quality of the reporting is top notch. And the editorial staff knows INTIMATELY the difference between a news story and an editorial. (Something BloopBurp has not a clue on.)

 

[AHM]

While pricy, teh WSJ is possibly teh only online news source worth paying for.

I obviously have it for my business, but I read a ton more non-finance articles than finance articles. In Collitch 30 years ago they taught us to use the WSJ for stock and bond research. Even back then, it was far more than just that. The quality of the reporting is top notch. And the editorial staff knows INTIMATELY the difference between a news story and an editorial. (Something BloopBurp has not a clue on.)

Some time ago I read that the WSJ news division is decaying to the MSM norm.

An example from late April.
The blog readers piled on, and their comments
are at least as damning as the featured Federalist article.

Note well that the firewall between the two halves doesn't just mean that
newsroom moonbats can't pollute the editorial pages.
(Not that the newshounds aren't trying as hard as they can
to breach the firewall and put the editorial board under their thrall).

It also means that if (say) the conservative editorial board had
some common sense and journalistic ethics
which they would like to smack into the news reporters,
they can't do it, because firewall.

Conclusion: keep your wits about you.

 

[Dennis in MA]

ROFL!!! That's a funny link. A pile of people who believe that if the WSJ does not have a gun and a picture of a dead liberal on the front page, it must be a liberal rag. I'm betting ALL of hte people commenting have not even READ an issue.

I cancelled the WSJ over 10 years ago because I could see it wanted to be a New York Slimes wannabee. When I called to cancel, the lady asked why and I told her because of the increasing liberal bias. She whispered into the phone "I agree with you!"

And then she high-fived him over the phone and sent him a lock of Thomas Jefferson's hair.

My gosh. Is that guy 8 years old??? Best is when the Chive does a monthly compilation of BS made up fantasy posts like that. ("I was on the bus. Some guy offered to give me his seat. I told him that that was sexist and he should knock it off and besides, how dare he assume my gender! The whole bus cheered and the driver gave me a free monthly pass.")

Is the WSJ going to get everything right?? No. But are they going to call a spade a spade?? Yeah. They had a few nice things to say about Obama. A few. And they've had a good # of bad things to say about Trump - because he's plays a colossal tool on TV. (It's hard to unpack his style and his accomplishments. I think many of them are BECAUSE of his style. The WSJ seems to agree with that. China trade deal - only one man in America can make that work. But it's ugly as sin watching it take place.)

What they DON'T do is pull the old, "Well, I agree with this group on these issues, therefore I MUST agree with them on this other issue" reporting. Nope. They call it like they see it.

But most importantly. . . . . . . . THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EDITORIAL AND NEWS. Oh, and they welcome contrary opinions in their pages. Imagine BloopBurp doing something like that.

 

[AHM]

ROFL!!! That's a funny link. A pile of people who believe that if the WSJ does not have a gun and a picture of a dead liberal on the front page, it must be a liberal rag.

Could you repost the rest of that again,
with the parts talking about the News division in puce,
and the parts talking about the Editorial division in mauve?

Because it kind of reads like you're defending the News division against charges of liberal bias
by stating that the Editorial division does not preach in lockstep with oh, say, Ayn Rand.

And I'm a little hazy about how that's on point.

ETA:
I am assuming you're not puce-mauve color blind.
That would be tragic.

 

[AHM]

ROFL!!! That's a funny link. A pile of people who believe that if the WSJ does not have a gun and a picture of a dead liberal on the front page, it must be a liberal rag. I'm betting ALL of hte people commenting have not even READ an issue.

But seriously, it was some time ago when I'd run across the assertion that
the WSJ's firewall means that one should not blindly ascribe the editorial staff's politics
to the reporters and their stories.

And from time to time,
that caveat has helped me keep cognitive dissonance at bay -
reading some WSJ news story that seems to hew to the MSM party line,
I'm not all "Wat?", because I've been clued not to jump to conclusions
about the WSJ's ironclad conservatism.

I wanted some corroboration for that claim,
and the linked article fell in my lap pretty quickly.
With me using cover terms like "piled on",
it's obvious I don't think it's a perfect illustration.

But it's not like I don't think I couldn't find something better if I had to.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Damn that WSJ.
sorry about the paywall. They hate LCM‘s. Lol

Opinion | Our ‘Orphan’ Constitutional Right

The Roberts Court can’t duck the Second Amendment forever.

www.wsj.com

Oh wait. They agree with Thomas. Hmm.

 

[Wickedcoolname]

While pricy, teh WSJ is possibly teh only online news source worth paying for.

I obviously have it for my business, but I read a ton more non-finance articles than finance articles. In Collitch 30 years ago they taught us to use the WSJ for stock and bond research. Even back then, it was far more than just that. The quality of the reporting is top notch. And the editorial staff knows INTIMATELY the difference between a news story and an editorial. (Something BloopBurp has not a clue on.)

$12 for 12 weeks, print and online edition

 

[enbloc]

My luck I'd buy an $800 dollar Colt sticker, and... get a sticker...

 

[Boris]

Constitutional rights do not apply to private businesses and forums like this one or facebook. They aren't the Government.

Constitutional rights do not apply much at all anymore.

 

[tbk5]

I hit the paywall so I can’t read the article. What’s it say? That people were advertising “stickers” on Facebook to sell, which were actually guns? Do they give examples of one?

Try the browser extension called "Bypass Paywalls". Works on many sites.