Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#101

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #87

avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

> Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented…

Your arguments apply just as well to voting; people express their views though voting without the benefit of peer review and those votes have an effect on the public as a whole. By your logic, perhaps secret voting is not a "positive development" and we need to "regulate it on every level" (your words) as well? I hope not.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#102

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

tqi wrote: post #71

What is the reasoning behind taking down or flagging the comments (looking for responses, not rhetorical)? If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extre…

> "It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse"

That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#103

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

stingrae wrote: post #58

amscanne wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-life viewpoint considers pro-choice views to be advocating violence in the most direct way possible ("murdering babies"). That's the fundamental problem: there is a huge subjective grey area.

ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases.

> "ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases."

Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#104

Post by hellisothers » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

(Note: I get the sarcasm) A lot of valid points here, I think the problem is in the size of the platform for the message. There was a lot of self reflection by Vox over the last year about “yes shining a light on bad ideas can disinfect them but there is a danger in amplifying the message”. Sure every idea should be able to be voiced but should every idea be amplified to billions of people without context?

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#105

Post by MaxBarraclough » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #46

a_c_s wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't protected, free speech. Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.

> Yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't protected, free speech. Yes it is [^1]. > Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with. An incitement to violence is a specific thing, and it must be both specific and reasonably actionable. "Kill the Xs" is not an incitement to violence. [^1]: Podcast with transcript. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...

That was a frustratingly meandering and low-density listen. Here's the substance of the episode, the rest can be discarded:

> Now that we have agreed that not all speech is protected, is this particular speech we are talking about protected? The answer is that first we start with a presumption that a law punishing speech for its content or message or subject matter violates the First Amendment.

> We look to see if the speech falls into a short list of well-defined historical exceptions to the First Amendment; obscenity, defamation, fraud, speech that’s integral to criminal conduct. And if the speech doesn’t fall into one of those narrow categories, the government cannot restrict it, unless it can pass that incredibly tough test called strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal.

> So how much does saying you can’t shout fire in a theater help you in doing that analysis? Not a bit. It’s empty words. Every time someone says it I get a little more misanthropic.

If you want more background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

So, as to whether it's illegal to shout Fire! in a crowded theater (which isn't on fire), I still don't know. The StackExchange folks lean toward it probably being illegal, especially if you end up causing a panic, depending on state. https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28853

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#106

Post by zepto » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #90

zepto wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. We are afforded a window into how he thinks outside of these channels that are managed by his aides. Muzzling that denies us insight into who he is.

> into who he is. Is more info like that really useful?

Obviously so.

There are republican and church leaders who are now condemning him since his “looting and shooting” tweet.

His tweeting continues to influence people’s perception of his character.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#107

Post by anewdirection » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #103

stingrae wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases.

> " ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases. " Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?

Yet my meat comes from sustainable near-wild farms that enhance the environ, not a factory farm. Should I have to listen to some loud vegan breathlessly proclaim all omnivores to be vile and lacking in ethics? Everything is a damned grey area.