Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, that's how RMS got canceled.
What does this sentence mean?
> What does this sentence mean?
It means precisely what happened to RMS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Call-outs_and...
Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
101–110 of 258 posts
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#102You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists and citizens.
> You know what’s next when they take constitutional rights from journalists and citizens.
Bolsonaro's supporters were caught calling for a military coup to allow Bolsonaro to become Brazil's dictator, as well as fabricating accusations and stories that targetted anyone who was inconvenient to Bolsonaro's political agenda.
You should check where you base your slippery slope fallacy because any journalist who did the same would be out of a job for plenty of good reasons.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#103I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent for that judge to block any account it sees fit under the threat of imprisoning a Facebook or Twitter employer. > Given the threat of criminal liability to a local employee, at this point we see no other alternative than complying with the decision by blocking the accounts globally, while we appeal to the Supreme Court.
> I sure hope they can reverse it in court. Otherwise this will be a precedent for that judge to block any account it sees fit
The ruling was based on track records of conducting libel campaigns targetting anyone who could jeopardize Bolsonaro's political goals, not to mention supporting military coups to allow him to become president for life and silence any critic.
And it seems you're missing the fact that the ruling specifically targets sock puppet accounts controlled by a couple of Bolsonaro Minions, such as the leader of Bolsonaro's party and one of Bolsonaro's main backer.
The judge didn't based his decision on whims.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#104I am glad that Brazil's court still remains independent. Looks like Bolsonaro, should borrow couple of tips from his friend Narendra Modi. Modi, dismantled the institutions in India systematically to guarantee his long lasting power. e.g. The only official from the election commission who didn't give a clean-chit to Modi for his election campaign violations during last election was greeted with Income Tax raids on hi…
This is why I come to Hacker News.
Absence of irrelevant political motivated posts with flimsy evidence.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#105Very glad I'm not Facebook. No matter what choices you make, millions (or billions) will hate you. Is decentralization the only solution, if it even is one?
I agree. You may not agree with Zuckerberg's position of not censoring content (beyond the obscene), but it's probably the smartest position for the business. As soon as you start saying "well, we'll censor stuff that isn't accurate", you've opened a Pandora's box of every single interest group hammering you on every single decision and in the end everyone thinks you're screwing them over.
Radiolab has a wonderfully deep episode on this topic: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/post-...
The main issue is the sheer volume of content. Four seconds – that's their estimate for how much time employees in Facebook's "censorship farm" centers have, on average, to make a decision about whether a reported post gets deleted or not. As a result, management decided to aim for the lowest bar: consistent enforcement of a limited set of rules. That's hard enough as is: is all blood gore? Are all references to race hate speech? Etc. etc.
So the censors simply have no capacity to fairly fact-check every single political post, and when in doubt, they err on the side of free speech. ML can help suppress certain viral posts, but not consistently so. I'm not a fan of Facebook by any means, but in this case they really are in a tough spot.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#106Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated. What should be prohibited to be said, if anything? Who draws the line?
> Censorship is so repugnant, yet so complicated.
The court ordered Facebook to ban sock puppet accounts controlled by people suck as the leader of Bolsonaro's party and a major backer that were used to spread libellous accusations targetting anyone or anything that might jeopardize Bolsonaro's political plans.
Prevention's someone from creating a false profile to persecuted you with fabricated accusations is hardly censorship. In fact libel and slander laws are not censorship.
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about spam? Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? There's always an exception. Some amount of moderation is always necessary, and naturally there will always be gray area cases.
> What about spam? Spam filtering isn't censorship because the recipient doesn't want to receive it. Censorship is removing access to material the recipient would otherwise choose to view. > Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse), so you c…
> All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse),
Do you find slander to not fit the bill? And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit?
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One complicating factor is that the United States guarantees rights that many countries do not And further it fills a large part of American identity and backstory, to the degree that they don’t seem to realise most rich countries with free citizens get on just fine without it
Just like China, gotcha.
...?
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. You may not agree with Zuckerberg's position of not censoring content (beyond the obscene), but it's probably the smartest position for the business. As soon as you start saying "well, we'll censor stuff that isn't accurate", you've opened a Pandora's box of every single interest group hammering you on every single decision and in the end everyone thinks you're screwing them over.
Facebook has access to the biggest and most ubiquitous information delivery platform IN THE WORLD today. To let them off the hook for the role they had in helping letting the idea of ABSOLUTE TRUTH degrade, as well as the role they COULD have in helping fix it, is not thinking big enough. Facebook could choose to be an active participant in the quest to reinforce the value of reality-orientated information exchange.…
Would you support this even if Facebook suppressed some ideas you believe in, or are you working under the assumption that Facebook will always agree with you about what's true?
Re: Brazil Bolsonaro: Facebook told to block accounts of president’s supporters
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court asked them to block the delivery of content inside of Brazil, for brazilians in Brazil's territory. It doesnt matter where the original account is stored. Those accounts are part of a large network of fake news spreading, with a lot of cash apparently originating from the country government itself.. The individuals themselves keep all the free speech rights.. they can go to newspapers, social media…
> The Supreme Court asked them to block the delivery of content inside of Brazil, for brazilians in Brazil's territory. If you read the article it’s saying the court is asking Facebook to block delivery of certain content globally, not only within Brazil. And they are threatening a local Facebook employee with criminal liability, which is the reason Facebook says it has complied with the order while appealing it.
The individuals in question, after being blocked on portuguese language, just changed their profiles as they were in english. It was just a matter of people that follow them changing their preferences making the court order ineffective. (Again their content were being delivered to Brazilian followers)
Than the court sent another order to block the content for Brazil of those specific profiles, in a way the content were not delivered to brazilian citizens.
This is exactly what the court order is saying..
Now if Facebook or Twitter cant act on geolocation, its a technical problem, that they need to solve, as its just a matter of blocking based on geolocation of the people who are seeing that content, the target, and not just the source.
I've read the court order, and it does not cover people from other nationalities, as if we follow whats being said on the court order, they are not the target.
Now if Facebook cant deliver this, they are just asking to loose the battle giving its pretty easy to destroy the narrative.
BTW, Brazil are more akin to Europe's convention to free speech, as to remediate things like "hate speech" learning from the past with the way fascist regimes spread out over Europe.
I dont know why Facebook feels entitled somehow to think the US way of seeing and working with free speech should be forced on others sovereign nations.