Just waiting for someone to do a Mohammed picture submission site. A dangerous project if there ever was one.
- there's an historical archive here: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Untitled topic
21–30 of 60 posts
Re: undefined
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, positions like yours are exactly why these groups get created.
I am not saying that they are not important groups so you must be confused. I think they're important and speak a ton about what should be allowed - but Facebook isn't distributed, there are a group of people at Facebook that could be harmed physically and do not want to take such a risk. That may be an excellent point for why Facebook (and similar services) need to be distributed to protect the Internet's free speec…
The reason my Facebook picture is a cartoon stick figure of Mohammed today is precisely because I refuse to be cowed by threats from barbarians. Hiding behind anonymous distributed networks isn't much better than hiding behind censorship.
If free speech is only possible in anonymity, then you don't really have free speech.
Re: undefined
#23Facebook has a track-record of pulling racially / religiously offensive pages. They got rid of some Italian Neo-Nazi's a few years back, and some anti-semetic stuff late last year. Regardless of the stance on free speech, pictures of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims. Given their previous policy, I don't think this is any surprise or should get any analysis beyond the attention paid to prior examples . . .
It is very dangerous to equate "Everybody Draw Mohammed" with neo-nazi's and anti-semites. In the case of the neo-nazis, they consistently threaten to attack and kill innocent people. In the case of Islamic Fundamentalists, it is the ones who draw Mohammed who are being threatened. Facebook has every right to control the content on their site, and if this content were created out of irrational hatred, I would agree w…
But the context here is a group who are trying to manipulate their detractors by threat of force, and Facebook is allowing them to do it.
There are groups who will threaten violence against neo-nazis. That does not justify allowing neo-nazi stuff because there are still millions offended by it.
The same holds true here, IMO. Of course, I am very biased. But that also means that I am part of the OVERWHELMING group who feels offended but isn't threatening anyone.
Re: undefined
#24Thus providing validation of the entire point: To ensure free speech still applies to unpopular or offensive commentary. Facebook is enough of a utility / sticky service that banning free speech that is not clearly against TOS (and this is NOT a hate group!) is unethical.
Calling facebook a utility is silly. Utilities are services which require the building of infrastructure, with few or no alternatives, and often which are granted a government monopoly for building said infrastructure.
Facebook is a website to post some crap on. There are thousands of such sites, they weren't granted a monopoly, and they didn't build infrastructure.
I'm all for freedom of speech, and I think that the picture of Mohammad day is a celebration of that, and not wrong (do not liken making fun of crazy people to racism, it's not the same thing, and the draw Mohammad day event is specifically a protest against violent reprisals towards those who expressed their freedom of speech). However, Facebook is not a public forum, it's not government property, and it's not a utility. It is a privately owned website, and they can remove whatever they damn well please.
Re: undefined
#25Moderator should kill this now. It's only going to turn into a stupid religious argument.
Most articles are killed because users flag them, not because of a single admin doing things. You know, to head off the whole "Paul Graham's been cowed by Islamists" argument before it starts.
Way to think ahead.
I guess I should say everyone flag it then. But who am I to tell people what to do?
Re: undefined
#26I could have sworn it was put back up a bit later. This same thing was posted on Reddit a few hours ago and someone gave a direct link saying it was back up and the page creator said they had issues earlier but thanked Facebook for putting it back up.
Re: undefined
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not saying that they are not important groups so you must be confused. I think they're important and speak a ton about what should be allowed - but Facebook isn't distributed, there are a group of people at Facebook that could be harmed physically and do not want to take such a risk. That may be an excellent point for why Facebook (and similar services) need to be distributed to protect the Internet's free speec…
The reason my Facebook picture is a cartoon stick figure of Mohammed today is precisely because I refuse to be cowed by threats from barbarians. Hiding behind anonymous distributed networks isn't much better than hiding behind censorship. If free speech is only possible in anonymity, then you don't really have free speech.
[deleted]
Re: undefined
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, corporate censorship based on shareholder considerations is still ethically acceptable to some people . People who question those ethics may be in the minority, but lock-step lassez faire is hardly a universal truth.
You've injected a premise into this argument that the original commenter never asserted (that Facebook is acting in defense of shareholder value, and for no other reason). You've damaged your credibility.
It doesn't matter whether or not the original commentator asserted that reason or not, Facebook is a public corporation in the United States, it's not a private individual, it's not a private corporation, it's not Zuckerberg.
Public corporations in the United States are licensed for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value. This alone is not prima facie lassez faire, but the balancing regulatory framework for corporations is reasonably asserted as mostly lassez faire. (There really aren't any examples of 100% anything goes capitalism in the world.)
When Facebook makes a decision, it is to maximize business value, as in shareholder value. If a person makes a case for public corporation free will, I think it's pretty reasonable to respond with assumptions based on the actual nature of the entity we are talking about.
Which part is damaging to my credibility? Unpopular, perhaps, but lacking credibility?
Are you switching into attack mode, tptacek?
[Edit: Oops, I thought Facebook is public already. My bad, thanks philwelch for the catch, now that is damaging to my credibility ;-]
Re: undefined
#29Thus providing validation of the entire point: To ensure free speech still applies to unpopular or offensive commentary. Facebook is enough of a utility / sticky service that banning free speech that is not clearly against TOS (and this is NOT a hate group!) is unethical.
Calling facebook a utility is silly. Utilities are services which require the building of infrastructure, with few or no alternatives, and often which are granted a government monopoly for building said infrastructure. Facebook is a website to post some crap on. There are thousands of such sites, they weren't granted a monopoly, and they didn't build infrastructure. I'm all for freedom of speech, and I think that the…
I only affirmed that Facebook is utility-like, not an actual monopoly or utility; likewise, that their action is unethical, not illegal.
Re: undefined
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've injected a premise into this argument that the original commenter never asserted (that Facebook is acting in defense of shareholder value, and for no other reason). You've damaged your credibility.
It doesn't matter whether or not the original commentator asserted that reason or not, Facebook is a public corporation in the United States, it's not a private individual, it's not a private corporation, it's not Zuckerberg. Public corporations in the United States are licensed for the purpose of maximizing shareholder value. This alone is not prima facie lassez faire , but the balancing regulatory framework for cor…
"Facebook is a public corporation in the United States"
When did they IPO?