Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 166 posts

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#51

Post by kazinator »

If I ran a social network, I would respond only to these two inputs:

1. advertisers pulling out; or

2. armed men threatening to seize equipment.

People have the right to decide for themselves what is misinformation.

I don't like misinformation; I don't use Facebook or Twitter.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#52

Post by 2356234562537 »

bestouff wrote: post #14
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.

I don't think anywhere is actually absolutist. Even America has restrictions they just are primarily things like shouting fire in a theatre to use the common example. I wonder, aside from offending good taste though, what harm is actually caused by the American approach that the Europeans can say they don't have to deal with. Unlike comparing gun violence, where I can easily just point out there's fewer civilians shooting civilians in Europe, I can't say that I've seen Europe's more restrictive speech laws to have much of an impact on the peace of the people there. Usually when I see critics in any country arguing for censorship it's primarily because "the other team" was being persuasive in some shady manner and that gets presented as the end all be all reason for why the other group is compelling at all.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#54

Post by jiscariot »

bestouff wrote: post #14
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

I'm not sure this "freedom of speech" absolutism is such a good idea. A society needs to put limits on behavior of its individuals to be sane. I support that people can express whatever opinion they have, but not in any way they want.

When anyone says 'Yes, I believe in free speech, but …,' I stop listening. ~ Salman Rushdie.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#55

Post by malermeister »

sergiotapia wrote: post #40

Zuck should just ip-range block the entirety of europe. >"vigilant" about removing disinformation on his company's platforms during the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and ahead of upcoming elections. How can there be an objective truth in a conflict that's been happening for such a long time?

> Zuck should just ip-range block the entirety of europe.

He's welcome to self-impose sanctions on his company in one of the world's largest and richest markets.

Something tells me he won't do that though.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#56

Post by r00fus »

anonyfox wrote: post #48
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

I, for one, don’t want to see/read holocaust deniers, aggressive hate speech, or fascist propaganda. This stuff is not okay in any way. People being allowed to megaphone this FUD for cheap attention/clicks/manipulation always find idiots who actually believe this shit, and move the Overton window towards even more destructive speech being tolerated. While I do value free speech in general, there is a red line. Like,…

My concern is that any pro-Palestinian content gets axed (US/EU are very pro-Israel) Like the story about the HAMAS rapes/baby beheadings were completely uncorroborated - will any questioning of that be censored?

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#57

Post by 8bithero »

nerdo wrote: post #16

Facebook should just block Europe. 'For your safety from your government which can imprison you for participating in this popular global website, we have blocked you from viewing this page'.

From the 2022 data I could find about Facebook's financials, it seems pulling out of the EU would cost Facebook 25% of it's revenue... Good luck to anyone attempting to justify that decision to shareholders.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#58

Post by tbarbugli »

nerdo wrote: post #16

Facebook should just block Europe. 'For your safety from your government which can imprison you for participating in this popular global website, we have blocked you from viewing this page'.

Frustration aside that is not a viable option for a public company like Meta.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#59

Post by anonyfox »

nerdo wrote: post #16

Facebook should just block Europe. 'For your safety from your government which can imprison you for participating in this popular global website, we have blocked you from viewing this page'.

Over here, the only people still using facebook is the rock bottom of society, from anti-vaxxers over right-wingers to climate change deniers - surprisingly these groups have big overlaps.

Blocking FB would be an instant net-positive for our societies by eliminating an echo chamber and reduce FUD spread quite a bit.

Re: Europe gives Mark Zuckerberg 24 hours to respond about Israel-Hamas conflict

#60

Post by concordDance »

slg wrote: post #46
bwanab wrote: post #9

Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? I understand why they want to do it, but once a censorship regime is established it will be very difficult to dislodge. What happens when the next set of elections puts in somebody who uses that power for less than ideal purposes?

>Very few countries have freedom of speech enshrined quite as forcefully as it is in the United States. One really has to wonder where this is going to go? It leads to an oligarchy as the rich are able to use their money as speech to buy control of the government. Oh wait, you meant the US's free speech laws are a good thing. Maybe the Americans reading this should think about how their opinion on this issue might ha…

> People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad.

This is flawed logic. Consider:

There are reasons other countries have honor killings and not all of those reasons are bad.

Post reply on HN