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

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#41

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

stingrae wrote: post #26
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.

But from the view of the pro-life CEO, abortion is violence against an innocent baby, thus any pro-choice post was advocating violence.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#42

Post by nrmitchi »

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.

I completely agree with the theory here, however he is, and has been, treating personal accounts as "official" accounts for a while.

Anything posted through those means should be maintained as a historical record.

I agree with how Twitter handled it; they made it clear that it was in violation, hid it by default, however kept it.

In my mind, I need to consider a situation as if the president tweets out something that _clearly_ violates ToS; such as something overtly racist, or a direct threat.

As a 100% fake example:

> "I am encouraging the Military to use live ammunition tonight in DC. Anyone out after curfew deserves to be shot on site!"

The fact that this was by the president is 100% important, and needs to be available to be seen by anyone that wants to see it. Anything less is a huge safety risk, and in my opinion, if a platforms removes that content it constitutes gaslighting the public.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#43

Post by amscanne »

stingrae wrote: post #26
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.

The pro-life viewpoint considers pro-choice views to be advocating violence in the most direct way possible ("murdering babies"). That's the fundamental problem: there is a huge subjective grey area.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#44

Post by Orou »

king_magic wrote: post #21
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 o…

> forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us

Yikes. I'm not sure that sort of rhetoric is really helping your argument.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#46

Post by vorpalhex »

a_c_s wrote: post #32
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…

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't protected, free speech. Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.

> Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't protected, free speech.

Yes it is [^1].

> Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.

An incitement to violence is a specific thing, and it must be both specific and reasonably actionable. "Kill the Xs" is not an incitement to violence.

[^1]: Podcast with transcript. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#47

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#48

Post by paxys »

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.

No social network (including offline ones) would be able to operate if they let everyone say whatever they wanted. There is an intense amount of moderation required, even here on HN, to remove low quality posts, abuse, threats, spam, porn, illegal content and lots more. So no, you don't really want one where anyone can share their beliefs no matter what. You just have your own opinion of what should/shouldn't be allowed, same as everyone else.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#49

Post by saeranv »

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…

To a certain degree I agree with you, although I think it should be practiced in conjunction with Twitter's strategy of flagging/hiding tweets. It seems like a good way to ensure the racist/violent/fake content can be moderated in some fashion.

I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#50

Post by nrmitchi »

krastanov wrote: post #29
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.

Early today Zuck was quoted as saying:

> If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning

I believe this may have been what OP was referring to

Post reply on HN