Strange times when Twitter can claim to be the morally better social network.
Lol we obviously have different morals because Facebook did the right thing.
Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
91–100 of 107 posts
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speak for yourself. I prefer others be allowed to illustrate their repugnance without meddlesome filters getting in the way. Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes. In short, you like being muzzled? H…
So you want to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or what - you want someone to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater provided they are powerful enough to get away with it? Free speech does not mean there cannot be limits on that speech. And as I've said a few times now, any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international…
>So you want to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or what - you want someone to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater provided they are powerful enough to get away with it?
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
I refuse to accept the proposition that it is acceptable to quash any form of dissent so long as there is a crisis going on, and you can come up with a catchy aphorism.
I do accept there is stuff you shouldn't say, but that's just it. It's a normative value. That is allowed, and people have vastly different ones. The key is to note the repugnant ones, recognize them for what they are, and don't make of yourself the same shining example of what not to be.
>As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
How magical a world is required to facilitate peaceful coexistence other than to by default doubt every single last thing you see on the Internet?
To be aware of the utility of manipulating and instigating people through the use of information warfare techniques? In the world of purportedly honest people, the Liar is king! So understand that around you are so many that endeavor to be Kings! It doesn't take much to question what gets forced upon you informationwise and to take responsibility for the actions you alone embark upon given the information you are shown. Take this personally to heart, and be willing to set the example for your community. When an equilibrium is achieved, you'll have done your part.
The only outcome of silencing something is to give it legitimacy. Let it echo. Let it ring from the rooftops. Let the Jester make a fool of himself and move on. It is in silence and what isn't said that our fears and anxieties hide, that we abandon our higher natures, and succumb to the bewitchment of our primal instincts.
A man can be reasoned with, and reckon his way out of line of Bullshit. An animal is led by the nosering of the passions and instincts of the moment into all manner of barbarism and atrocity.
Is this, this resortment to the treatment of your fellow man as some beast it? Do you truly think so little of your fellows that they need be muzzled? That they be forced to gnash their teeth that the feebleminded around you not fall victim to their spell? Are you so confident that you too are not under the influence of the same hysteria gripping them?
We can only be responsible for ourselves, and those that delegate to us the responsibility of their care. In the execution thereof that responsibility it is paramount to not behave in a reckless or deplorable a manner, and to return to them the responsibility of their own care when we see we are unfit to discharge that duty.
To inflict such harm as to censor or to deprive of liberty for the mere notion that someone whom delegated to us not responsibility for them, or for whom we did not saddle ourselves with responsibility for them through rite, sacrament, or conception is the most insidious and perfidious of acts to perpetrate on our fellow men.
We accept vigilance, and preserve the notion of inherent liberty because fundamentally, to not is to invite forth all the wickedness of our forefathers and forebearers in all the atrocity they too bore out in the struggle to create a fairer, brighter, better tomorrow.
Bring not silence to the stage of life. Rather let it ring with the sound and fury of your birthright. Should good men cry out over the din of the fools, there can be but peace in the end though the tempest itself of the time be a trial to bare.
I will not stand by and see yet more right carved out. I will not create more "thems". Today's fool is, was, will be later's, yesterday's, tomorrow's sage, and not one man has the right over any other man to determine what he shall or shalt not speak. We have all committed the sin of the fool or cretin at some point, just as we will again and again. The most dangerous among us being those that entertain with cocksurety they won't.
Speak your mind by all means; do with that spoken by others what you will; but don't you dare still another voice the longest day you ever live. Should you try,may the noise of those around you drown you out in their exclamationsof shame and impedance for your impetuousness.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted? The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying. Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even mor…
Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another. But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly.
I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform.
The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another. But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly. I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform. The solution…
So Twitter is now the only way to know that Trump is a bigot, racist and proto-dictator?
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly. I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform. The solution…
So Twitter is now the only way to know that Trump is a bigot, racist and proto-dictator?
This is not what the comment you are responding to is saying, please address those points.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President can announce he's going to bomb a country with cruise missles, should Twitter remove those posts? On the surface that's 1000x worse than yelling "fire" in a crowd or inciting violence like he has the past few days.
We can go back and forth with hypothetical situations all day long, but I think we all know there is a world of difference between a legitimate military operation and racist/xenophobic/hate speech.
Yeah, after one of those, hundreds and sometimes thousands of people die.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#97Devil’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.
That's a self contradictory statement.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 allo…
Any site is required by law to remove illegal content. Other than that, it's just to please the ad sponsors.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#99What is the reasoning behind taking down or flagging the comments (looking for responses, not rhetorical)? If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extre…
It has nothing to do with inciting violence and everything to do with silencing the opposition.
Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. Closing our eyes and ears to the presidents actions and statement doesn't make them go away, or meaningfully disincentivize him. If the president were to announce a racist policy or glorifies a violent military action, we should know.
This is not about censoring. Putting a warning beside a comment for BS is in fact very effective. Not only it humiliates the bastard, it also keeps a record of his ignorance for the world to see. There’s nothing special about the president. He’s elected by people. In this case it’s not even sure whom exactly since he lost the popular vote by a huge margin. But he’s a human and not above the law. The problem is the USA constitution that has no answers for the possibility of someone like Drumpf getting elected and then tools for congress to control him while in power. When it comes to decisions with big implications, border wall or brexit (in the UK) it can’t be left to a simple majority to decide.