701–710 of 1001 posts
In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Moving on…
> Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism. Can anyone elaborate on this? Speaking as one of them, I'd hazard to say that the majority of 'white people' in the United States are so far distant from their 'ethnic heritage' that we'd just define it as 'American'. Mexican-Americans celebrate t…
Holidays they imported from their European past. Saint Patrick's Day isn't originally a drinking holiday, it's a Christian religious holiday. My friend with Serbian ancestry celebrates 'Serbian Christmas' or Julian Orthodox Christmas.
Lots and lots of Christianity.
In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Moving on…
In principle, Facebook has never branded itself a bastion of free speech. In practice, we've seen a lot of examples across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter where things are blanket deplatformed under the guise of policies like these, and it's concerning. One thing is for certain - Facebook can't possibly do a worse job than YouTube has at policing content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.
No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does. The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings. Let me…
Because I'm not a white nationalist? Facebook already bans child pornography, pro-ISIS content, and doxxing. Does anyone seriously believe that Facebook is slippery sloping to banning all speech?
But let's say that Trump and Pence do indeed take over Facebook and make it so they ban all users that don't loudly praise Trump. If they do, honestly, so what? Facebook can't imprison you or legally remove your property. The worst they can do is ban you from their platform. Which, well, that sucks, but there's lots of sites on the Internet. In fact, you could go ahead and legally make a non-censorship Facebook.
...of course, sites like that already exist, in this world, not in the Trump/Pence Facebook world. And they're dominated by child pornography, white nationalism, and doxxing. No one at large uses them because they're horribly toxic and disgusting. Almost like some rules about content are actually helpful for sites on the Internet.
At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…
At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…
Neutral might not exist. > It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways. Of course Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways, and, indeed, all ways — there are many more ways for people to communicate, or stances to take, than “both”. Platforms like FB and Twitter hope to be the communications backbone of the world. The problem is, the world has opinions on what kinds of communi…
Essentially, you have no control so the only solution is to not participate or appeal to a higher authority. Both are terrible.
In a weird tangental side-thought: The Internet is to Western Capitalism what Glasnost/Perestroika was to the Soviet Union. The opening of information, while allowing many great things through, also removed the filters that kept harmful content on the margins. In the Soviet state, it was the authority of the State that dictated content. In the Western world, it's mostly those who own/control large media platforms. Since liberalization, each situation found The Authority under acerbic attack from these new wellsprings of content, both legitimate and illegitimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when Richard Spencer asks if we should maybe just send every black person to Africa and create an all-white America, he's being civil and nonviolent. Which is the problem.
When I say that we should send every non Indian person back to where they came from and create an all Indian North America I'm also being civil and nonviolent. Yet I don't see facebook banning that type of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neutral might not exist. > It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways. Of course Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways, and, indeed, all ways — there are many more ways for people to communicate, or stances to take, than “both”. Platforms like FB and Twitter hope to be the communications backbone of the world. The problem is, the world has opinions on what kinds of communi…
Here's another "way" that's ignored: Nearly all services give users little to no control over the content they see. They can't self-moderate or filter the content coming their way. Instead, users have to "Appeal To Authority" (whether Facebook or the Feds) in order to make changes. It's incredibly disempowering in both cases, and doesn't need to be this way. "Mods" on Reddit help. Page Owners on FB pages help. Howeve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In principle, Facebook has never branded itself a bastion of free speech. In practice, we've seen a lot of examples across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter where things are blanket deplatformed under the guise of policies like these, and it's concerning. One thing is for certain - Facebook can't possibly do a worse job than YouTube has at policing content.
If only Facebook focused its products on encrypted, private conversations, they wouldn't have to worry about / could claim to be incapable of policing content...