It's not about users being outraged about what they can read. "Those other people are idiots and will kill us all without some rules" is a basic human conceit. These people calling for censorship on Facebook don't want to see that stuff, sure, but way more importantly they want FB to censor so that other people CAN'T read that stuff. They think that if they shout loud enough, they will get to decide what other, more…
> they want FB to censor so that other people CAN'T read that stuff I'm having a hard time believing that they want to stop with Facebook, either. I suspect this will move on to hosting providers next.
There was an effort by Anonymous people to negatively affect Cloudflare in some capacity called #OpISIS due to the fact that Cloudflare generally tries to be a content-neutral pipe, and was continuing to host websites used by the Islamic State.
I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…
See you have a healthy respect for the idea of free expression, as do I Unfortunately we are in the minority, the majority wants SOMEONE ELSE to choose what they can see, what is the "good speech" and what is the "bad speech" They want someone else to tell them what the "good things" are they should be supporting, and what the "bad things" are that they need to oppose In short, people no longer want to think critical…
I honestly don’t understand how this ignorant of a comment still gets on HN. What y’all are talking about is “The Internet” where all the trash and racist are free to make whatever content they want. What everyone else is talking about is private companies that publish trash based on recommendation engines, timeline visibility algorithms, sharing functions, and whole other bunch of programmed ways to “increase engagement.” If Facebook just wants to be the internet where you publish trash then I have to go find it on my own accord then manually share it to a list of other people, or where I can make a page with no special boosting to parrot that trash, then go right ahead. But that’s not what FB is doing, so don’t pretend that is.
I get a sense that he would be equally upset at Facebook if they had followed their content policy and censored the George Floyd video. The reality is that Facebook doesn't want to censor anything that is "newsworthy." The President's stance on the riots is certainly something that many people would be interested to know.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
I'm calling total BS. He should stay to change the system from within. Total waste of hard work to give up now. This is a knee jerk reaction and the poor lamb is going to live to regret it. I'm surprised they didn't have him out on his ass the same day and gave him a whole extra week to potentially sabotage the systems. Edit: OK fine. I agree it's totally an uphill struggle and in all fairness it's one we're all figh…
Clearly it's not working though? At some point you need to wake up and realize that efforts to "change the system from within" are futile.
Anybody working for Facebook is knowingly and willingly helping promote fascism. These people have some of the best job options out there, and they're actively choosing to work for a company that's actively harmful to society.
I respect his decision. But I for one do not want our president, no matter who she or he is to be censored. I want to know exactly what they are saying and when. That includes any government official for that matter because it directly affects my voting decisions and actions.
Corporations using their power to silence an elected government official is pretty much the corporate-fascist dystopia I thought we were all against.
This is all nonsense to me. Trump said if you loot, you get shot. Isn't this how our society works? If you steal you may end up getting shot. People are trying to react as if he said "if you walk down the street you'll get shot". Sensitive topic, I guess. * EDIT: The nonsense part is people calling Trump to be censored, like OP. I am not condoning violence but I do think looting may lead to it, it's not too far from…
In general, the death penalty does not apply to property crimes as such. In practice, the system executes convicted criminals almost exclusively for murder. And our Supreme Court has prohibited capital punishment even for appalling violent crimes, like adult rape.
Police use-of-force policies---however otherwise flawed---limit deadly force. State laws vary as to when and how private citizens may defend themselves with deadly force. Property crime outside the home without immediate risk to life or safety is not a license to kill.