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

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#21

Post by king_magic »

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…

So if a President yells “fire” in a crowded movie theater, we should all sit and sing kumbaya just because he’s the President?

No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well.

There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that.

No exceptions, no mercy: if a President oversteps, they should be forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#22

Post by malloreon »

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…

Make him post from @potus. His personal brand is not important.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#23

Post by tick_tock_tick »

rojobuffalo wrote: post #12
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

A lot of these leader are not too far off from this viewpoint they'd say it nicer and with more fluff but they'd come close to agreeing.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#24

Post by BobbyJo »

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.

Uh no. The problem today isn't free speech, it's that the limits on how you transmit and disseminate it, favors the tiny, loud, misleading, ignorant few who can generate the most 'engagement'. Like you for instance. You're hear calling free speech dangerous, and that is such an absurd and ridiculous point of view I feel the need to respond.

Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.

I sincerely hope that was all sarcasm.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#25

Post by VMisTheWay »

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…

Disagree here. Traditional Media MIGHT let a politician lie, with a mention of the incorrectness during the article/segment.

But a politician having unfettered access to provide propaganda is not allowing leadership, if anything it's getting closer to single party control.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#26

Post by stingrae »

throwaway6274 wrote: post #17

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 use…

The point isn't to push a personal cause or belief. The goal should be to keep a safe space where people aren't allowed to threaten others and incite violence.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#27

Post by saltedonion »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #5
paxys wrote: post #2

Strange times when Twitter can claim to be the morally better social network.

I don't want a moral social network I want one that I can share by beliefs and views no matter what they maybe.

Including promotion of the likes of child pornography no less

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#28

Post by 082349872349872 »

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.

for instance, one can use one's own app: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/with-r... “The most important, golden thing in politics is a cellphone number,” said Parscale, who ran Trump’s digital efforts in 2016 before leading the 2020 campaign. “When we receive cellphone numbers, it really allows us to identify them across the databases. Who are they, voting history, everything.”

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#29

Post by krastanov »

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…

Tweets were not deleted, you are using a strawman. Tweets were marked up with warning messages. It is perfectly sensible to mark as "factually wrong" a message that says "the sky is green" and as "inciting violence, but has to be kept for historic reasons" when the message is quoting a known oppressor and making threats.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#30

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

scaryclam wrote: post #15
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.

It will be, because of who he is. Anyone with large amounts of clout and following will not be subject to the same rules of the platform.
Post reply on HN