81–90 of 550 posts
Stuff like this is a natural consequence of Facebook cracking down on questionable content and acting as an arbiter of truth.
A partial list:
The displacement of European peoples. Holocaust revisionism. Boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
Honestly, I'd be happy to see all political groups - left or right - expunged from Facebook. Politics and social media clearly do not mix, as this year has demonstrated all too brutally well.
I've been part of several "general-purpose" internet communities that tried having a "no politics" rule. It never, ever works. You can almost make it work if your community is a) dedicated to a single topic, like Hacker News and b) has sufficient human moderation. So hobby forums and subreddits can maybe get away with it, but Facebook - no way.
On any political issue you can easily predict with 100% accuracy whether it will be net up or downvoted on here. And tech is inherently political these days so there’s no escaping it.
glad no one can be mad because they are a private company :)
The one thing that must not be censored is the internet itself. If someone wants to wants to throw up a pro Neo-Nazi site on their own server, that must be allowed to stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how the right has been feeling for a while. This is nothing new behaviour-wise for Facebook, the only difference is this gets more favourable media attention.
Please, don't draw a false equivalency between a major political party that does not play host to violent rhetoric, on the one hand, and groups that where plans (very real, actionable, and actioned-on plans!) to subvert the government are incubated, on the other. Put another way--let's not turn sedition into another us-vs-them political game. That's how democracy ends.
I defended Parler in another thread and I'll defend the SWP here, despite not particularly liking either group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When software goes wrong, the company that decided to create and operate that software for profit is responsible for whatever negative impact that software might have, regardless of whether these problems were foreseen. (And in the case of automated moderation, the software getting something wrong really should be considered foreseen consequence anyway. Facebook knew, or should have known, that these systems would ha…
Yes, "organizations should take responsibility for misclassifications generated by code that they own and operate." But also, "the computer was told to do the buggy thing" is misleading because it suggests mens rea.
We could certainly say a 'corporation intended' to do something if we found an email from the CEO commanding it, that much is trivial. But what if we think of a corporation as a 'slow AI' or 'China brain'? Might the corporation, viewed that way, have intent that transcends the individual thoughts and desires of the constituent employees? The system may be structured in a way that rewards low level employees for doing things the individual executives would never consider acceptable (for instance, 'lying to the executives'), and which the low level employees don't think is a good idea either. With all the humans personally opposed to some business practice, it might still occur due to the structure of the system. If we personify that system, we could perhaps say the system itself has a will of its own, with objectives alien to any of the humans involved.
A harsh example far worse than Facebook: the Functionalism-Intentionalism debate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism...) At the end of the day, does it really matter? Whether you subscribe to functionalism or intentionalism in that case, the horrible end result is the same and people need to be held accountable for it.
This shut down story is another tale in the impending international regulation, and maybe breaking up, of what is comically called 'big tech' ('big' does not begin to describe the sizes involved, the naivety is staggering). As newspaper barons before them, the internet has not policed itself adequately enough, according to the governments of the world, and now they will act in unity to take back some control. And the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that would be fine as an initial reason. Having had that back in Dec, you'd think they would put SWP on a safe list? Who knows, I guess. And that's the problem, not so much the taking down as the taking down with zero reason or discussion...
This is how the right has been feeling for a while. This is nothing new behaviour-wise for Facebook, the only difference is this gets more favourable media attention.
Are their some good examples of censorship from before the last 2 weeks I can cite?
It might help a more friendly discussion too, people are already down voting randomly it seems...
I remember when Joe Rogan went to Spotify and there was something of a backlash inside the company. I vaguely remember some of his episodes (discussing trans athletes rights) weren't hosted for a while.
This shut down story is another tale in the impending international regulation, and maybe breaking up, of what is comically called 'big tech' ('big' does not begin to describe the sizes involved, the naivety is staggering). As newspaper barons before them, the internet has not policed itself adequately enough, according to the governments of the world, and now they will act in unity to take back some control. And the…
I mean you already do. What do you call a signing up to an ISP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a stance. Maybe if you advocated for 'no politics on facebook', it would sound better. Social media has given voice to marginalized groups, and people seemingly fear that voice. It's something to take a look at, rather than sweep it under the rug with bans.
If by “marginalized” we mean “radicals”, then yes. If we mean “minorities”, then you’re probably just propagating the myths that minorities hold far-left-wing views. On the contrary, while minority views skew left-wing, only a minority of minorities hold far-left beliefs and there’s a lot more political diversity among minorities than there is between minority and majority groups. For example, “defund the police” is…
All of these were "radical" at their time. The only reason they're not anymore is because they have become mainstream. Maybe you should check your assumptions about how life is and read some history of how we got here.
"defund the police" is something that has been vocalized for decades, if not centuries. You should ask yourself what has lead up in your education to accept state monopoly on violence, especially when that violence is enacted unfairly against certain minorities. What makes you think that is "normal", but people wanting cops to be less of a massive force in society are "radical".