81–90 of 434 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
If we're using the word "attack" to refer to a legal action, I think that is something that is very important for voters to be aware of.
So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
Free For All of Social Media censors won't last very long. It became mainstream to hate the internet and push for the end of platforms, effectively turning Twitter/Facebook/Google into publishers. By doing that they automatically loose the ability to claim to be platforms and become publishers. As a publisher it is much harder to guaranteed that things said in the platform won't end up in the arrest of your employees…
It is becoming easier and easier to argue that these platforms are actually publishers. They are all making more editorial decisions on what posts to show and hide, where to show what, and they all have rules about what content is allowed and what's not. Those sound like the activities of a publisher to me.
Once the general population of old people figures out that roving groups of young people are using "The Facebook" to coordinate their plans to set the cities on fire, social media is dead via regulation. So far that knowledge has escaped mainstream understanding. But it's only a matter of time.
So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
There's legal recourse for this (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, among the many other SCOTUS rulings curbing free speech in special cases). Social media companies are not the arbiter, the courts are.
> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.
It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately. The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.
That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radicalized tech employees is definitely a matter of real concern, but it's definitely a hard problem.
I've seen videos of looting (as opposed to protesting) which say out loud that they are being coordinated on social media. In particular, one looter's sister was murdered by another looter. She was crying on camera, "This ain't some Facebook shit" indicating she had been coordinated to show up on FB. Once the general population of old people figures out that roving groups of young people are using "The Facebook" to c…