Yeah, he said to 3.000.000 people on X that they censor him.
And he made apology here, in substack, to over 25.000 followers that 'he got it wrong'.
Not once he used social networks to apologize, a place where he spread this conspiracy theory of censorship, that he 'got wrong'. Nope, people still read his memes about motocyclist. Yup, that is outright attempt to manipulate masses. He made this apology hidden from majority, to himself, and barely anyone knows it exists.
Is there evidence of this hack and admin accounts? If so, then fine. If not, a healthy dose of suspicion is still warranted. Based on the new information you were provided, you have said "I got it wrong, everything's more or less ok at Facebook". Their PR experts may have been counting on that.
If you believe that explanation your apology was the right thing to do. High road. Well done.
I on the other hand choose to believe you were shut down by an algorithm that punishes feee speech, and that once someone realized your status in the real world they made up a reason post-haste. No apology required.
Thank you, Richard, for continuing to keep your (and our) moral standards high. More proof that morality can exist without unjustified false beliefs. See you in NJ in September. My 12 year old son will be in attendance as well.
For what it's worth, the account review and closure process is highly automated, and where it involves a real person, those are people who are in a contact center in India or something similar, and they have no process to give the account owner any kind of detailed explanation.
Erik Klausmeyer may be correct but one would think that Facebook has the resources to amend their policy in such cases to include notifying the account holder. Give me a break! Facebook should be apologizing to Dr. Richard Dawkins not the other way around.
And if what you say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, this says a lot about FBs customer service, and even more, it says a lot about the ability of the user to correct mistakes made by FB.
"...might it have some connection with my contemporaneous stand against genetically male boxers fighting women in the Olympics?"
Who are you to decide for anyone else who they are? How on earth do you think you get to attest to anyone else's genetics without a shred of evidence? What right do you have to discount the IOC's eligibility requirements? Lazy archaic patriarchal misogynistic white supremacy at it's finest.
Too bad you're not willing to say you "got it wrong" about Imane Khelif. I hope you are identified in the cyber-bullying lawsuit by French investigators.
I just read a great post by @erininthemorning, in which she wrote something that’s been at the back of my comments here: “While [some] may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.”
I think this can be dissolved quite simply. Erin is correct that the reality is more complex than whether someone has XY or XX chromosomes, but incorrect in the implication that sex is therefore *all that* much more complicated. Yes, there are other combinations of chromosomes than XY or XX, and there are some conditions where someone does not develop a male body despite having XY chromosomes, but sexes are defined universally among all anisogamous species according to which of exactly two types of gamete an individual (or part of an individual) has the function to produce ... and in humans that basically means whether someone is born with testes or ovaries. The vanishingly tiny minority of people born with neither testes nor ovaries, or with both, may complicate things a little, but those people are pretty much invariably not the people that the trans activist movement is trying to obfuscate biology on behalf of.
So you're basically saying we have extremes of XX females and XY males on both ends, and we have no idea what to do with XY females giving birth, XX males, or 46,XX/46,XY fertile true hermaphrodite, or other chromosome combinations and variations that nature can produce, so let's pretend they don't exist, and discriminate against, because who gives a fuck about science and nature, we have to keep the old beliefs of Adam and Eve alive and well, because it's hard to comprehend that nature can produce something non-binary, not fitting in our preconceived ideological categories.
No, that's not remotely what I'm saying, and I'm genuinely baffled as to how someone could get that interpretation from what I said, unless they were making a concerted effort to misinterpret me in the most uncharitable way possible.
I'm not saying we should *pretend that people with DSDs don't exist*, I'm saying that we shouldn't use the fact of their existence as an excuse to abolish events and spaces from which people who are clearly and unambigiously male are excluded (or indeed from which females are excluded; let the boys have an all-male club if they wish).
And what I'm also saying is that even people with DSDs are usually not difficult to peg as either male or female, so by default should be expected to use the same intimate spaces as the other members of their sex. The only people who present a genuine challenge to that, that I can think of off the top of my head, are, firstly, the people who are genuinely lacking in differentiated gonadal tissue of any kind (although I understand that when that happens, they develop a female-typical external phenotype, albeit that they need extrogenous hormones in order to experience puberty, so should for practical purposes be considered female), secondly, the people born with both male and female gonadal tissue, who are so vanishingly rare that they can probably just use whatever intimate spaces they prefer without it being a widespread problem, and thirdly, people with CAIS who are on a technical gonadal-tissue-based analysis male, but who develop in such a female-typical way in all other respects that it makes far more sense to treat them as females rather than males.
None of those conditions justify abolishing the existence of toilets, changing rooms, sports leagues, dating apps etc. that biologically normal males are excluded from.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 - oh Lord. This was priceless Angry Yogibear.
How dare anyone, anywhere, EVER, attest to someone's genetics (despite my 7 yo having a knack for picking it).
Determination is just not possible!
Obviously we had it completely wrong all these centuries; what we previously knew to be knowable is now relegated to the mists of time, now known only to the ancient Babylonian Mystery Schools.
As famous NASA derp Don Pettit once said "We used to have the technology, but we lost it".
Sometimes people lie about being female. It’s not proven in this case, but it’s also not so wildly implausible that you get to shout down someone else’s informed speculation. One might as well ask: who are you to decide that Khelif must be taken at his/her word?
As others mentioned, this is a great example of admitting that one is wrong and taking into account new information.
However, I still have questions. It is quite a coincidence that this hacker chose to delete your account shortly after you posted on a controversial topic. How did this hacker gain access? What was the hacker’s motivation? How did deleting accounts benefit the hacker? Were you targeted because of your beliefs or this post? I’m sure you won’t get those answers but this still seems very coincidental. You’re being very generous to accept their explanation without answers to those questions
The hacker didn’t delete the account. Somebody added a number of new admin accesses to the account.
This triggered warnings at Facebook. Facebook shut down the account.
I somehow doubt it would have been resolved as quickly if it had been an ordinary individual’s account. His people worked with Facebook staff to sort it out.
Facebook should have notified his staff, earlier, to avoid the kerfluffle.
That link barely scratches the surface of the science involved. Biologist Jerry Coyne gives a good summary of the possible range of DSDs that might be involved and what impact they would have on the question of determining sex, see https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/08/02/olympic-boxing-and-dsds/.
Bottom line: no matter how she was socialized or has thought of herself through her life, unfortunately, for the purposes of sporting competition Khelif is male, having gone through male puberty (physiologically speaking) and thus accruing all the physical advantages that provides. Richard Dawkins has no opinion that needs moderating on the question.
I read the blog post by Mr. Coyne, plus two articles by Greg Beacham in the AP. The bottom line is nobody has hard evidence as to genetic determinants or testosterone levels for Khelif.
Well, the tests have been done, but the data hasn't been publicly released. The determination of an XY chromosome seems conclusive, since that *was* publicly announced (in 2023) and not challenged by either of the boxers concerned.
That’s actually not always true (though I provisionally accept that it may well be true in Khelif’s case); one can have a defective SRY gene, or Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, both of which involve an individual with XY chromosomes whose does not go through male puberty.
“While anti-trans activists may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.” - from a great post on these issues by @erininthemorning
It really doesn’t matter at all though, does it? Because the IOC’s eligibility criteria doesn’t discuss any such complexities. F on the passport is enough. So whether or not both or either boxer went through male puberty, the IOC is comfortable with it. In boxing.
People get very het up about these things. There is obviously a lot of money to be made with the higher echelons of international sport. Particularly Boxing - a spectator sport no doubt since cro-magnons & neanderthals crawled out of ponds and started slugging each other because they felt grumpy, or over some perceived slight. A lot of people writing on the internet do so with headfuls of second, third, and fourth hand information.
If it looks like a perceived injustice or moral cause, for 50% or more of global humanity, the all the better, pile in and have a verbal scrap. Perhaps, in our 21st century ways, many of us are easily distracted by information we think is 100% scientifically factual. Perhaps, because the majority of us on Substack, quite possibly, do not now gather, hunt, or fight, for food and basic sustinance, we like to find other pursuits to engage our rage, cortisol & adrenalin, not withstanding. 👋🥊
Yes. The article is filled with a boatload of "fact checked" propaganda Mr. Khelf is a man. How he was raised has absolutely no relevance to his sex. He does not have "female reproductive structures." He has male reproductive structures which failed to develop normally because he has a genetic disorder. He can cry in his soup all he wants. But he has XY chromosomes and that fact alone makes him a man. His gold medal for brutally punching a woman in the face is a travesty against all women everywhere.
Nobody has solid proof of Khelif’s genetic determinants. The Russian IBA disqualified Khelif citing XY determinants but then contradicted themselves citing male level testosterone. Further the IBA is not trustworthy and was decertified by the IOC. The biologist Jerry Coyne also acknowledged that all is speculation regarding Khelif because the data the IBA cites is unavailable.
It’s not contradicting themselves to say that he has male level testosterone – males have male level testosterone. Duh
The IBA can’t release his results because it’s private medical data and he’s refusing to release it. Which is weird because if he did release it and it showed XX, it would exonerate him and shut up all of his critics.
Exactly. The only reason he would not want his "private" medical data released is because if it were released, the world would know he's a man. A real man.
Today, the "newspaper of record," the New York Times, published an article in which a drag queen discussed tips for "managing makeup and mustache sweat and being 'demure.'" This is the perverted Black Mirror we find ourselves living in today.
Mr. Khelif could clear up the mystery by having a truly neutral, nonwoke party conduct the test and release his chromosome data. Now just why oh why do you suppose he doesn't want to do that?
Frank Pentangeli:: "A kid comes up to me in a white jacket, gives me a Ritz cracker, and uh, chopped liver, he says, 'Canapes'. I said, uh, 'can of peas, my ass, that's a Ritz cracker and chopped liver!'
Credit to @erininthemorning for her succinct post, and especially this, which is the best reply I can give those here who disagree with my comments: “While [some] may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.”
That article is inaccurate. People with Swyer syndrome have no functional gonads at all and don't have elevated testosterone levels. They don't go through puberty of any kind.
This boxer has XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone, evidence of undescended testicles. There is also clear evidence of having gone through a high testosterone puberty. That only happens to females who are on anabolic steroids, which is ALSO grounds for disqualification. It also happens to males with XY-CAIS.
The boxer has female-type external genitals. Since genitals are not involved in this sport, the presence of female-type external genitals is frankly irrelevant.
"The organization does not use the gender eligibility tests [ie: a basic chromosome test] that the IBA utilize. Instead, the IOC went back to using passports to determine age and gender, which were the previous regulations used at prior Olympics".
Lol.
Using a passport was probably fine in years gone by, before all the current nonsense, and 2024 humanity's sudden confusion over basic biology, where a man can state he's a woman, or a woman can state she's a cat.
A corporation can't and won't apologize to anyone. It is an "Artificial entity" that can't/wont take any accountability but will rule as a AI's conscious(it doesnt have feelings). It will Disregard safety for others, take most, if not all natural resources and destroy environments all for money to give to real people that hide behind it. Corporations are spy weapons for the wealthy and unstoppable.
When one has made a mistake, or is actually at fault, it’s important to say so.
Facebook took down an account without warning the owner. Richard Dawkins seems to have been mistaken about their motives.
People seem to have forgotten the difference between acknowledging an honest mistake and apologizing for actually damaging someone. Richard Dawkins was doing the former. Facebook owes him the latter.
One can tell you are a true scientist, because you are willing to say "I got it wrong". Well done for setting such a good example. Stay well.
Yeah, he said to 3.000.000 people on X that they censor him.
And he made apology here, in substack, to over 25.000 followers that 'he got it wrong'.
Not once he used social networks to apologize, a place where he spread this conspiracy theory of censorship, that he 'got wrong'. Nope, people still read his memes about motocyclist. Yup, that is outright attempt to manipulate masses. He made this apology hidden from majority, to himself, and barely anyone knows it exists.
Is there evidence of this hack and admin accounts? If so, then fine. If not, a healthy dose of suspicion is still warranted. Based on the new information you were provided, you have said "I got it wrong, everything's more or less ok at Facebook". Their PR experts may have been counting on that.
I also felt that when reading this. For most of it, I thought it was sarcasm.
If you believe that explanation your apology was the right thing to do. High road. Well done.
I on the other hand choose to believe you were shut down by an algorithm that punishes feee speech, and that once someone realized your status in the real world they made up a reason post-haste. No apology required.
Carry on!
Shouldn’t it be FaceBook that apologizes to you? Publicly?
I guess it was too much to believe/hope that you were admitting your stance on trans individuals was wrong.
Trans individuals? Which ones? He had been talking about the XY *males* in the women’s boxing category at the Olympics. And he was right about them.
He has never had a problem with criticizing any religious teaching. Why should the faith of Gender Theory be exempt from criticism?
not a stance; an observation about reality and mammals.... maaaate
Can you elaborate? What has he got wrong?
Thank you, Richard, for continuing to keep your (and our) moral standards high. More proof that morality can exist without unjustified false beliefs. See you in NJ in September. My 12 year old son will be in attendance as well.
Sorry to be cynical, but do you believe this explanation?
Closing down accounts without explanation is tyrannical.
Sadly, you are apologizing for the less important thing.
For what it's worth, the account review and closure process is highly automated, and where it involves a real person, those are people who are in a contact center in India or something similar, and they have no process to give the account owner any kind of detailed explanation.
Erik Klausmeyer may be correct but one would think that Facebook has the resources to amend their policy in such cases to include notifying the account holder. Give me a break! Facebook should be apologizing to Dr. Richard Dawkins not the other way around.
And if what you say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, this says a lot about FBs customer service, and even more, it says a lot about the ability of the user to correct mistakes made by FB.
"...might it have some connection with my contemporaneous stand against genetically male boxers fighting women in the Olympics?"
Who are you to decide for anyone else who they are? How on earth do you think you get to attest to anyone else's genetics without a shred of evidence? What right do you have to discount the IOC's eligibility requirements? Lazy archaic patriarchal misogynistic white supremacy at it's finest.
Too bad you're not willing to say you "got it wrong" about Imane Khelif. I hope you are identified in the cyber-bullying lawsuit by French investigators.
Ad. hominem writing at its worst, Angry Yogi.
I just read a great post by @erininthemorning, in which she wrote something that’s been at the back of my comments here: “While [some] may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.”
I think this can be dissolved quite simply. Erin is correct that the reality is more complex than whether someone has XY or XX chromosomes, but incorrect in the implication that sex is therefore *all that* much more complicated. Yes, there are other combinations of chromosomes than XY or XX, and there are some conditions where someone does not develop a male body despite having XY chromosomes, but sexes are defined universally among all anisogamous species according to which of exactly two types of gamete an individual (or part of an individual) has the function to produce ... and in humans that basically means whether someone is born with testes or ovaries. The vanishingly tiny minority of people born with neither testes nor ovaries, or with both, may complicate things a little, but those people are pretty much invariably not the people that the trans activist movement is trying to obfuscate biology on behalf of.
So you're basically saying we have extremes of XX females and XY males on both ends, and we have no idea what to do with XY females giving birth, XX males, or 46,XX/46,XY fertile true hermaphrodite, or other chromosome combinations and variations that nature can produce, so let's pretend they don't exist, and discriminate against, because who gives a fuck about science and nature, we have to keep the old beliefs of Adam and Eve alive and well, because it's hard to comprehend that nature can produce something non-binary, not fitting in our preconceived ideological categories.
No, that's not remotely what I'm saying, and I'm genuinely baffled as to how someone could get that interpretation from what I said, unless they were making a concerted effort to misinterpret me in the most uncharitable way possible.
I'm not saying we should *pretend that people with DSDs don't exist*, I'm saying that we shouldn't use the fact of their existence as an excuse to abolish events and spaces from which people who are clearly and unambigiously male are excluded (or indeed from which females are excluded; let the boys have an all-male club if they wish).
And what I'm also saying is that even people with DSDs are usually not difficult to peg as either male or female, so by default should be expected to use the same intimate spaces as the other members of their sex. The only people who present a genuine challenge to that, that I can think of off the top of my head, are, firstly, the people who are genuinely lacking in differentiated gonadal tissue of any kind (although I understand that when that happens, they develop a female-typical external phenotype, albeit that they need extrogenous hormones in order to experience puberty, so should for practical purposes be considered female), secondly, the people born with both male and female gonadal tissue, who are so vanishingly rare that they can probably just use whatever intimate spaces they prefer without it being a widespread problem, and thirdly, people with CAIS who are on a technical gonadal-tissue-based analysis male, but who develop in such a female-typical way in all other respects that it makes far more sense to treat them as females rather than males.
None of those conditions justify abolishing the existence of toilets, changing rooms, sports leagues, dating apps etc. that biologically normal males are excluded from.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 - oh Lord. This was priceless Angry Yogibear.
How dare anyone, anywhere, EVER, attest to someone's genetics (despite my 7 yo having a knack for picking it).
Determination is just not possible!
Obviously we had it completely wrong all these centuries; what we previously knew to be knowable is now relegated to the mists of time, now known only to the ancient Babylonian Mystery Schools.
As famous NASA derp Don Pettit once said "We used to have the technology, but we lost it".
Sometimes people lie about being female. It’s not proven in this case, but it’s also not so wildly implausible that you get to shout down someone else’s informed speculation. One might as well ask: who are you to decide that Khelif must be taken at his/her word?
Onus is not on the victim of incompetent inept and/ or fractured service corp makin billions outta personal data imo humbly
As others mentioned, this is a great example of admitting that one is wrong and taking into account new information.
However, I still have questions. It is quite a coincidence that this hacker chose to delete your account shortly after you posted on a controversial topic. How did this hacker gain access? What was the hacker’s motivation? How did deleting accounts benefit the hacker? Were you targeted because of your beliefs or this post? I’m sure you won’t get those answers but this still seems very coincidental. You’re being very generous to accept their explanation without answers to those questions
The hacker didn’t delete the account. Somebody added a number of new admin accesses to the account.
This triggered warnings at Facebook. Facebook shut down the account.
I somehow doubt it would have been resolved as quickly if it had been an ordinary individual’s account. His people worked with Facebook staff to sort it out.
Facebook should have notified his staff, earlier, to avoid the kerfluffle.
LOL sure, Facebook.
It’s not like Facebook haven’t got form for closing down anyone who doesn’t adhere to the tranny cult so I wouldn’t feel too bad.
You might also read this and perhaps moderate your opinion on the boxer: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/olympics/news/imane-khelif-condition-explained-gender-fact-check/51994b8a2e23e7b423782f7a
That link barely scratches the surface of the science involved. Biologist Jerry Coyne gives a good summary of the possible range of DSDs that might be involved and what impact they would have on the question of determining sex, see https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/08/02/olympic-boxing-and-dsds/.
Bottom line: no matter how she was socialized or has thought of herself through her life, unfortunately, for the purposes of sporting competition Khelif is male, having gone through male puberty (physiologically speaking) and thus accruing all the physical advantages that provides. Richard Dawkins has no opinion that needs moderating on the question.
I read the blog post by Mr. Coyne, plus two articles by Greg Beacham in the AP. The bottom line is nobody has hard evidence as to genetic determinants or testosterone levels for Khelif.
Well, the tests have been done, but the data hasn't been publicly released. The determination of an XY chromosome seems conclusive, since that *was* publicly announced (in 2023) and not challenged by either of the boxers concerned.
"seems" is the keyword here. There are no published facts yet. Still a lot of people seem to take it for granted that she is XY. It is not.
I'm not sure what uncertainty you think there still is about the XY result. Do you think the IBA was simply lying when they reported it last year?
Jan if you have XY chromosomes, you go through a male flavored puberty.
You don't get options.
This is not multiple choice.
That’s actually not always true (though I provisionally accept that it may well be true in Khelif’s case); one can have a defective SRY gene, or Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, both of which involve an individual with XY chromosomes whose does not go through male puberty.
“While anti-trans activists may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.” - from a great post on these issues by @erininthemorning
It really doesn’t matter at all though, does it? Because the IOC’s eligibility criteria doesn’t discuss any such complexities. F on the passport is enough. So whether or not both or either boxer went through male puberty, the IOC is comfortable with it. In boxing.
People get very het up about these things. There is obviously a lot of money to be made with the higher echelons of international sport. Particularly Boxing - a spectator sport no doubt since cro-magnons & neanderthals crawled out of ponds and started slugging each other because they felt grumpy, or over some perceived slight. A lot of people writing on the internet do so with headfuls of second, third, and fourth hand information.
If it looks like a perceived injustice or moral cause, for 50% or more of global humanity, the all the better, pile in and have a verbal scrap. Perhaps, in our 21st century ways, many of us are easily distracted by information we think is 100% scientifically factual. Perhaps, because the majority of us on Substack, quite possibly, do not now gather, hunt, or fight, for food and basic sustinance, we like to find other pursuits to engage our rage, cortisol & adrenalin, not withstanding. 👋🥊
Thanks for the link. I’ll read it.
Yes. The article is filled with a boatload of "fact checked" propaganda Mr. Khelf is a man. How he was raised has absolutely no relevance to his sex. He does not have "female reproductive structures." He has male reproductive structures which failed to develop normally because he has a genetic disorder. He can cry in his soup all he wants. But he has XY chromosomes and that fact alone makes him a man. His gold medal for brutally punching a woman in the face is a travesty against all women everywhere.
Nobody has solid proof of Khelif’s genetic determinants. The Russian IBA disqualified Khelif citing XY determinants but then contradicted themselves citing male level testosterone. Further the IBA is not trustworthy and was decertified by the IOC. The biologist Jerry Coyne also acknowledged that all is speculation regarding Khelif because the data the IBA cites is unavailable.
It’s not contradicting themselves to say that he has male level testosterone – males have male level testosterone. Duh
The IBA can’t release his results because it’s private medical data and he’s refusing to release it. Which is weird because if he did release it and it showed XX, it would exonerate him and shut up all of his critics.
Exactly. The only reason he would not want his "private" medical data released is because if it were released, the world would know he's a man. A real man.
Today, the "newspaper of record," the New York Times, published an article in which a drag queen discussed tips for "managing makeup and mustache sweat and being 'demure.'" This is the perverted Black Mirror we find ourselves living in today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/style/demure-tiktok-mindful-cutesy.html
Mr. Khelif could clear up the mystery by having a truly neutral, nonwoke party conduct the test and release his chromosome data. Now just why oh why do you suppose he doesn't want to do that?
Frank Pentangeli:: "A kid comes up to me in a white jacket, gives me a Ritz cracker, and uh, chopped liver, he says, 'Canapes'. I said, uh, 'can of peas, my ass, that's a Ritz cracker and chopped liver!'
Credit to @erininthemorning for her succinct post, and especially this, which is the best reply I can give those here who disagree with my comments: “While [some] may argue that sex is as simple as “XY chromosomes,” the reality is far more complex, with countless variations in chromosomes and reproductive development often overlooked.”
That article is inaccurate. People with Swyer syndrome have no functional gonads at all and don't have elevated testosterone levels. They don't go through puberty of any kind.
This boxer has XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone, evidence of undescended testicles. There is also clear evidence of having gone through a high testosterone puberty. That only happens to females who are on anabolic steroids, which is ALSO grounds for disqualification. It also happens to males with XY-CAIS.
The boxer has female-type external genitals. Since genitals are not involved in this sport, the presence of female-type external genitals is frankly irrelevant.
"The organization does not use the gender eligibility tests [ie: a basic chromosome test] that the IBA utilize. Instead, the IOC went back to using passports to determine age and gender, which were the previous regulations used at prior Olympics".
Lol.
Using a passport was probably fine in years gone by, before all the current nonsense, and 2024 humanity's sudden confusion over basic biology, where a man can state he's a woman, or a woman can state she's a cat.
We've reached peak Idiocracy.
Read this link and the information is incorrect.
I do not think a corporation is an entity needing an apology.
A corporation can't and won't apologize to anyone. It is an "Artificial entity" that can't/wont take any accountability but will rule as a AI's conscious(it doesnt have feelings). It will Disregard safety for others, take most, if not all natural resources and destroy environments all for money to give to real people that hide behind it. Corporations are spy weapons for the wealthy and unstoppable.
When one has made a mistake, or is actually at fault, it’s important to say so.
Facebook took down an account without warning the owner. Richard Dawkins seems to have been mistaken about their motives.
People seem to have forgotten the difference between acknowledging an honest mistake and apologizing for actually damaging someone. Richard Dawkins was doing the former. Facebook owes him the latter.