Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#2How will the media and society deal with these sorts of situations if decentralised alternatives to these social media sites take off? There won’t be any one place or person or company to blame, no? Did the media write about email being used negatively when it was taking off? (That’s an honest question, I’m too young and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything interesting).
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#3I don’t consider his position controversial at all...
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#4[flagged]
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#5[flagged]
Total control of information is the best way to differentiate ourselves from the Nazis?
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#6[flagged]
I honestly don't know why it's better to ban denial rather than trying to engage and educate. It's been very confusing to me. Could you please explain?
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#7How will the media and society deal with these sorts of situations if decentralised alternatives to these social media sites take off? There won’t be any one place or person or company to blame, no? Did the media write about email being used negatively when it was taking off? (That’s an honest question, I’m too young and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything interesting).
That's a good question.
Relatedly, assuming it's wrong for Facebook to host this content, where should the line be drawn when it comes to systems that are already decentralized? Is it wrong for email systems to transport emails with such content? Is it wrong for a browser to render such web pages? For a feed reader to allow subscriptions to such a feed? Does the answer change if a "centralized" component is involved (eg: webmail, a vpn or http proxy, or a web based feed reader)?
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#8[flagged]
I honestly don't know why it's better to ban denial rather than trying to engage and educate. It's been very confusing to me. Could you please explain?
Probably because it's "simply" easier (said). Let's take SandyHook (and the false information that is was all faked.)
It would be much easier to say "let's ban the dissemination of the idea that it was faked" than to say, let's go out there and show all those deniers and people who listen to them and show them the facts.
We know it's difficult to change the minds of people who hold steadfast views like these.
But the side-effect of something like this is pretty dire. You get what the PLA and the CCP exercise in China. There is the official, sanctioned version, which because it is shaped by body can take any shape the controllers want.
So instead of random people making up facts, you can have a center of power making up faked facts --and you can't dispute it, since they provide the official version of things.
Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#9Re: Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers
#10[flagged]
There is no good reason to make a law against free speech, however objectively dumb it may be. But enjoy your collapsing police state.