Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#11

Post by holler »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

I agree with you but why only the President? This gets at the frequent HN topic of big tech censorship vs freedom of speech. Why should we forcibly remove any posts at all? Why should _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ get to tell me what's right and wrong as opposed to letting me make my own determination by reading it? When we remove censorship, we also invite others to critique and counter ideas that are deemed "incorrect".

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#12

Post by rojobuffalo »

avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

/s

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#13

Post by jaitsu »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

Of international importance, I would say.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#14

Post by bluedevil2k »

holler wrote: post #11
bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

I agree with you but why only the President? This gets at the frequent HN topic of big tech censorship vs freedom of speech. Why should we forcibly remove any posts at all? Why should _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ get to tell me what's right and wrong as opposed to letting me make my own determination by reading it? When we remove censorship, we also invite others to critique and counter ideas that are deemed "incorrect"…

Well, you kind of do get to make your own determination...you can choose not to use _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ if you want to.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#15

Post by scaryclam »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

If he posts from the official POTUS account, I'd support that. Anything from his personal account shouldn't be treated any differently at all.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#16

Post by [deleted] »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

[deleted]

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#17

Post by throwaway6274 »

Devil’s advocate thought experiment: suppose I was a CEO of a large social media company and my personal view is pro-life. Should I remove pro-choice posts (or censor them with violence labels), or should I allow discussion on the topic even though I personally disagree with it?

I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#18

Post by komali2 »

zepto wrote: post #10
bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

I couldn’t agree more. Regardless of how bad he is, it is absurd to Muzzle the president in this way.

Muzzle is a strong word to use to describe a man who can call a press conference that will be attended by every major national and international news organization at the drop of a hat, and, failing that, can send an SMS to every phone in the USA.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#19

Post by a_c_s »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

I think the idea that the office of the President confers with it the ability to flout norms, rules & laws is a dangerous one.

Monarchs are above the law: a president should be required to follow every law & every rule to the same degree as any other citizen.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#20

Post by holler »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #14
holler wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you but why only the President? This gets at the frequent HN topic of big tech censorship vs freedom of speech. Why should we forcibly remove any posts at all? Why should _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ get to tell me what's right and wrong as opposed to letting me make my own determination by reading it? When we remove censorship, we also invite others to critique and counter ideas that are deemed "incorrect"…

Well, you kind of do get to make your own determination...you can choose not to use _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ if you want to.

That has nothing to do with a user not seeing a post that a tech company felt needed to be censored.
Post reply on HN