41–50 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doxxing that results in harassment is very often done via public information. What’s your point?
That the sharing of public information of public figures is in the public interest. Also, doxxing isn’t illegal, although harassment is.
It is against Facebook's rules.
I’m confused. Are Marxists not supposed to be rich or own property? What would an ideal Marxist do with their wealth, donate it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doxxing that results in harassment is very often done via public information. What’s your point?
No, doxxing is the release of private information. That's the universally understood meaning of the term, and the only useful one. If you want to redefine the term to pertain to public information, then the term is no longer useful. It's just "displaying public information" at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That the sharing of public information of public figures is in the public interest. Also, doxxing isn’t illegal, although harassment is.
> doxxing isn’t illegal It is against Facebook's rules.
Here is the New York Post's reply to to this ( https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th... ): > Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records. It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing T…
Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights. That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook a…
Meanwhile selling access to Facebook users whose personal information matches certain financial, geolocation and other personal criteria, is how Facebook makes money.
Facebook is allowed to identify a person's residential and financial information, and it is allowed to use this information to sell access to users to other organisations, but it's a violation of Facebook policy for users to share this information.
On Facebook, you now can't post the link to this New York Post article: https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse... FB will also prevent you from posting the Newsweek article which describes how the platform is blocking the New York Post article. Same link as in the title: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-prevents-sharing-new-york-...
And amazingly, there are Facebook employees on HN all the time who can't understand why people hate Facebook.
I recently spent time with a couple of relatives who only get news from Facebook. I suspect there are millions of other people who do the same. (Because it's free and if it's on the internet, it must be true!)
This illustrates that they only know about the things that Facebook wants them to know.
>A Facebook spokesperson told Newsweek, "This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy." The policy forbids articles that share details that could identify a person's financial and residential information, thus violating their privacy rights. That seems like a pretty flimsy excuse given that I see stories about individuals of public interest buying expensive property on Facebook a…
The identity of house buyers is a matter of public record. Not only is it searchable in multiple state databases (tax, real estate plats) but sale information including buyer and seller is typically published in the newspaper: https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/sc-cons-0903-hous... > The information about your home purchase and the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan are recorded among the land records…
That…has no bearing on whether sharing it violates Facebook policy on “privacy and personal information”. What would have a bearing would be citing the language of the policy and showing how the action was inconsistent with it, and I suspect that is not happening because the action is, in fact, consistent with the policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah. Every time someone posts an article covering that GPT HN fiasco it gets flagged and removed almost immediately.
The what?
Note that the link is to an article on HN, not flagged, and the comments pretty clearly debunk the article's claims. TLDR, author wrote some clickbait headlines and used gpt3 to fill in the articles, with an unspecified amount of editing, then some of them got onto the front page of HN and he wrote an article about that.
I’m confused. Are Marxists not supposed to be rich or own property? What would an ideal Marxist do with their wealth, donate it?
But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.