111–120 of 823 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is slipperiest of slopes if I ever heard one.
Can you explain how that is a slippery slope?
Should Newton stop being explained beacause he is flawed? Or do we need a disclaimer in every single video about mechanics?
What about photons as small pieces of matter?
Ehat about the existence of God?
Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speec…
That is slipperiest of slopes if I ever heard one.
About time fb started taking this kind of misinformation serious. From the article I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact >>According to a recent survey of adults in the US aged 18-39, almost a quarter said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, that it had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure. Like how does something like this even happen in a first world country, as someone from outside th…
I hope that number is much lower than 25% but the past four years have showed me there's a much larger threat of bigotry and fascism in America than I could have ever imagined.
In a semi-related tangent, The Economist recently had an article about the unintentional destruction of evidence when deleting terrorist propaganda. The content should be removed from discourse, but I think there is value in making it a silent ban instead of deletion. Keep the post visible to only the poster, no one else can see or interact with the material once it's been flagged. It's effectively deleted, evidence…
Of course, there are some people who are given the extremist / terrorist label - e.g. Antifa - where the brand may not be warranted. Antifa is not a real organization though, just a name abused by the anti-antifacists (?) to try and make protesters the boogeyman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook has made a habit of pandering to conservatives. This is more likely a result of increased public scrutiny combined with internal employee revolt.
It’s also the least they could do, quite literally. Holocaust denialism is both extremely fringe ideologically, and extremely visible to rich westerners. It’s the easiest and lowest hanging fruit to show that they’re doing something. But I genuinely doubt that it signals a willingness to tackle either more difficult content like misinformation, nor tamp down on the coordinated behavior in less visible (to Americans)…
Here, let’s spin up a really hard one. “Given the historical discrimination against Catholics, Facebook should delete all posts that discriminate against Amy Coney Barrett on account of her religion.” Not such an easy PR win there, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In reality it's like Comcast. You could theoretically switch ISPs, but realistically and in practice it's a monopoly.
A monopoly on what? Spamming users with cat videos / baby videos and various other irrelevancies? I haven't used Facebook for many years and I can contact family and friends just fine. Granted I use WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, but WhatsApp doesn't suffer from censorship (to my knowledge).
These 3 are very similar in their values, operate under the same legislation. The latter is especially worrying for people not from the US, because foreigners' rights are completely unprotected.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” - From Noam Chomsky's (Chomsky's grandparents are holocaust survivors) on the foreword for "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" for the book of Frenc…
Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones?
Freedom of the press means being able to print what you want, not being able to compel the printer. Facebook doesn't have to be complicit in publishing speech it finds repugnant, and why should it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why this is downvoted. There are many people, particularly in Tukey, who deny the Armenian genocide (hell there's a even a podcast named after the people that did it). Tiananmen is also downplayed by CCP officials outside China and denied within China.
Probably because the comment is taken to mean that we shouldn't do anything about this case because we aren't doing enough on the other ones.