311–320 of 410 posts
Amazing to me that so many people in these comments believe Facebook is or can be apolitical. This is a very childish stance, and Zuck is not standing up for their right to remain out of politics: they're deeply political, and Facebook is just asserting which political viewpoints they subscribe to as an organization.
And I prefer platforms attempt the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…
This line of argument is really tiresome and comes up every single time in discussions like this. It's been done over and over and over again and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. What I am talking about is the culture of defending free speech. The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes…
I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…
Most people I know that work there still either: 1) Have little concern about the ethics. 2) Care about money. 3) Feel smart and important for working there (I'm smart, I made it). This won't change their view on those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.
> Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park That is a strawman. They are advocating that Six Flags should ban people who draw swastikas on the carts, even when those people are in office, or seek election.
> They are advocating that Six Flags should ban people who tell people around them "Hey if you try to burn or rob that snack stand, that security guard might shoot you!"
AFAIK this is more aligned with the presidents comments that everyone is in a hissy about. Would you consider that a bannable offense at Six Flags?
Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.
> Segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace also used the phrase during the 1968 campaign.
While you might like to believe that the phrase could mean anything, it certainly doesn't. And in the context of Trumps tweet, which specifically mentions the military, it certainly means that he was threatening to have the US military fire on US civilians.
Now consider that in the context of the US threatening action against China using "tough" tactics to subdue protests in Hong Kong and you'll see the tweet for what it is. The same kind of rhetoric and threat of violence against protesters that the US condemns elsewhere in the world.
People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…
> People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? This is a strange inversion. I would guess that most of the disgruntled FB employees want a transparent review system with rules that are applied consistently, with exactly zero intervention from Mark Zuckerberg.
Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.
The same guy who's every tweet is reported in every online publication within minutes? Are you sure you understand what freedom of speech means?
I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…
You might be right. But you might be wrong. And the way you're framing it, it's either a) someone agrees with you, and has already left FB (meaning you were right), or b) someone has stayed at FB, therefore ethics is unimportant to them.
Your dichotomy leaves no space for the idea that you might be wrong, or that the people who work at FB might not agree with you that it is unethical.
Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.
>In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during hearings about crime in the Florida city, invoking angry reactions from civil rights leaders, according to a news report at the time. > Segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace also used the phrase during the 1968 campaign. While you might like to believe that the phrase could mean anything ,…
Give me a break.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of argument is really tiresome and comes up every single time in discussions like this. It's been done over and over and over again and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. What I am talking about is the culture of defending free speech. The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes…
How do you categorize anti vaccine, flat earthers, and people who believe BillG wants to implant people with microchips? This is the paradox of tolerance. Some ideas are worth debating, some are not. We all have limited time and energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Edit: the irony of getting downvoted while trying to have a discussion about being able to express ideas...