Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

Post by lmm » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:05 PM UTC

megous wrote: post #17

"When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." What about forced displacement? There are 10s of milions of forcibly displaced people around the world. It's not a small group compared to some other mentioned protected groups. If the basic idea is tha…

Post by IntOb23 » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

Post by 794CD01 » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

danijelb wrote: post #26

radiator wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hungary is a sovereign country. Why would a government have any obligations towards any medium, to allow it to operate within the country? Esp. when said medium has an agenda to influence public opinion? (In this case, by taking down videos expressing the opinion of the democratically elected government, and by only allowing videos criticising the opinion of the majority of the citizens). Governments can decide what…

You are absolutely right. Hungary is a sovereign country. If they don't like their citizens having access to a particular private platform/medium, they can block access to it. It's very simple. The same way it's done with everything else. If a country doesn't like a particular book, they ban imports into their territory. If they don't like their citizens having ability to catch a TV/radio transmission from a neighbor…

Post by Facemelters » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:55 PM UTC

IntOb23 wrote: post #54

Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

>Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. But the difference is that in this case it's "white" and Jewish American Democratic party partisans from Silicon Valley and California. If it were, say, "white" Christian conservative Republicans from the Southeast of the USA, that would be a problem. Bu…

Post by mistermann » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

danijelb wrote: post #10

Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.