Totally unbiased? Correct, that's impossible. Unbiased enough to approximately block calls for violence from all sides? That's realistically possible.
Explicit calls to violence are already against the law. We have good laws that cover these situations already.
Sure, if you call for violence on FB, they can arrest you after the violence has already been triggered. That's good, if it keeps you from being able to do it again. It's better to keep it from happening the first time, though.
That Americans keep thinking private companies have to abide SCOTUS rulings astonishes me SCOTUS rulings shape lower courts abilities Like here for example, HN can remove dick picks no problem People are free to avoid those platforms if they don’t like the rules
Nobody said that these platforms are forced to follow the supreme Court. We instead are saying that it would be a bad idea for them not to do so. Facebook is free to make whatever mistakes it wants. That doesn't change the fact that it is a mistake.
You're absolutely correct. I am merely saying, for maximum coverage/attention spans, it would be prudent to go by the SCOTUS rulings, even for private entities. While that may initially turn -some- people away because of their... views, shall we say, eventually I think it will pay off in the long run and attract even more visitors than had they remained constrained by abridging the 1st Amendment on their platforms.
There are always loud fringe groups who, unable to persuade the majority to their line of thinking, instead focus their efforts on coercing leaders of institutions to force their line of thinking onto the majority. Tattle-tales in school turn into busy-bodies on HOA boards and professional protestors outside of Twitter HQ. There is no "victory" for these people, only goal posts that can be pushed ever further until t…
Yeah the people complaining about how tall your grass is outside your house are not the same as the people holding twitter to account for enabling fascism.
This is the most American comment section. Somehow the fact that Facebook might remove lies that lead to violence is objectionable on free speech grounds. That they remove pictures of nipples is somehow not a matter of great concern...
Working with local communities to come up with culture-fit solutions is exactly the right thing to do. Most of the problems people seem to have with Facebook is their past attempts to apply a single concept of decorum to a global population.
It's usually fine to let police handle threats, but they can quickly spiral in places on the brink of erupting, or in populations the police aren't always good about protecting.
Explicit calls to violence are already against the law. We have good laws that cover these situations already.
Sure, if you call for violence on FB, they can arrest you after the violence has already been triggered. That's good, if it keeps you from being able to do it again. It's better to keep it from happening the first time, though.
"after the violence has already been triggered"
no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
I hope none of you have to deal with the pain of a loved one going deep down the right-wing conspiracy rabbit hole. This isn't just people getting convinced Obama wasn't born in America. This is people going behind their spouses back to convert retirement savings into gold coins and survivalist paraphernalia. These are people who will cut off friends and family because they don't "understand what's really going on".
The only thing that can and ought to be realistically removed is illegal speech and SCOTUS has already defined what that is... Any other attempts, while well intentioned, will probably backfire. FB seems to take one step forward and two steps back each time they try to take some moral high ground when it comes to free speech... I like the fact they recently increased transparency behind who is paying for ads - whethe…
While I agree with your sentiment. The 1st amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law". Facebook is free to police whatever content they don't like without any repercussions in law. It is up to society "us" to police a company like facebook that is doing things we don't agree with.
exactly and I do not disagree. There is wisdom however in allowing the maximum latitude to everyone in their expression. It is my belief that the 1st amendment through its numerous evolutions, refinements and interpretations in the 200+ year history of American jurisprudence allows for more freedom of expression than what Mark Zuckerberg and his investors or Jack Dorsey and his investors can come up with....
I am certain they all disagree with me ;).
edit: the hardest thing when faced with offensive (personally to me, or someone else) content is to ignore it and let it die without a response in the case where it is legal. What was that saying? Do not feed the troll....?
There are always loud fringe groups who, unable to persuade the majority to their line of thinking, instead focus their efforts on coercing leaders of institutions to force their line of thinking onto the majority. Tattle-tales in school turn into busy-bodies on HOA boards and professional protestors outside of Twitter HQ. There is no "victory" for these people, only goal posts that can be pushed ever further until t…
Yeah the people complaining about how tall your grass is outside your house are not the same as the people holding twitter to account for enabling fascism.
I think "protesting in front of twitter HQ for enabling a political view I don't like" is a silly thing to do. If you don't like X (in this case fascism) I am sure there are better things you can do to stop it, like creating an alternative that those who like X would adhere to.