11–20 of 23 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no need to be bigoted to be malicious, and indeed you can be bigoted without taking malicious action.
Given that malicious: intending or intended to do harm. bigoted: having prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others. I was only merely pointing out that reporting an atheist page is simply the result of intolerance and not of an intention to harm.
I suspect this is due to the algorithms handling reports - not an actual human action. Atheist Republic - a massive community for atheists and skeptics on FB - was also taken down after being report-bombed by malicious users, this despite the fact that it was not in serious violation of any FB rules.
That would explain another incident recently, where a blog post about leaving a certain political party in Sweden was blocked, while a FB group with the name "legalize rape" was deemed appropriate. Move fast and break things indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would explain another incident recently, where a blog post about leaving a certain political party in Sweden was blocked, while a FB group with the name "legalize rape" was deemed appropriate. Move fast and break things indeed.
I am not sure I understand the Facebook need to curate anyway. The phone company doesn't censor phone calls.
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. all need to curate so that their platforms stay family-safe, in order to please advertisers and the general public (imagine how bad it would be for e.g. Facebook if the general media started portraying them as supporting e.g. "terrorism").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I understand the Facebook need to curate anyway. The phone company doesn't censor phone calls.
The phone company doesn't place adverts on your calls, nor suggests products based on the subject of your calls, does it? Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. all need to curate so that their platforms stay family-safe, in order to please advertisers and the general public (imagine how bad it would be for e.g. Facebook if the general media started portraying them as supporting e.g. "terrorism").
Actually, mine does, if you have a certain mobile plan, people who call you get an ad for the plan when its ringing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no need to be bigoted to be malicious, and indeed you can be bigoted without taking malicious action.
Given that malicious: intending or intended to do harm. bigoted: having prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others. I was only merely pointing out that reporting an atheist page is simply the result of intolerance and not of an intention to harm.
I suspect this is due to the algorithms handling reports - not an actual human action. Atheist Republic - a massive community for atheists and skeptics on FB - was also taken down after being report-bombed by malicious users, this despite the fact that it was not in serious violation of any FB rules.
I understand your point, but I would add some qualifications:
1) Let's remember that algorithms are human actions. For example, if Facebook created an algorithm that deleted accounts based on user skin color in their photos, it would be a human action.
2) Facebook is a highly sophisticated software company, not someone who downloaded a library without realizing quite what it did. They are especially responsible for what their algorithms do. (To think of it another way, imagine how they would look if they claimed otherwise, 'we don't really understand what our software does'.) EDIT: It's also a consequence of priorities: If the algorithm's quality had a billion dollar impact on their bottom line, there would be no errors.
3) Facebook isn't just a private business. With so much power over the world's political and social communication, they have an obligation to ensure their members freedom of speech.
4) Transparency and remediation is necessary for #3 (and maybe Facebook already has it; I don't know). Such things always can be blamed on an algorithm or computer error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I understand the Facebook need to curate anyway. The phone company doesn't censor phone calls.
The phone company doesn't place adverts on your calls, nor suggests products based on the subject of your calls, does it? Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. all need to curate so that their platforms stay family-safe, in order to please advertisers and the general public (imagine how bad it would be for e.g. Facebook if the general media started portraying them as supporting e.g. "terrorism").
The general public has to accept there are some things they don't like and still have the right to be there, and stop acting like a spoiled brat. IMHO. Of course that wont happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would explain another incident recently, where a blog post about leaving a certain political party in Sweden was blocked, while a FB group with the name "legalize rape" was deemed appropriate. Move fast and break things indeed.
I am not sure I understand the Facebook need to curate anyway. The phone company doesn't censor phone calls.
Gate between Kobane and Suruc has been open for years in order to support Kurdish forces and also injured people have been brought to Turkish State Hospital. I think they simply lie because at the same time a terrorist Kurdish group PKK -declared as terrorist by UN for years- is attacking from another border and unofficially they have links with this group. You know, politics always suck.
I know, politics always suck. That is not an excuse to get rid of free speech though.