171–180 of 487 posts
The tenor, the awareness, the culture of questions that 70-year-old senators are turning to Zuckerberg at the congress would make you cheer for Facebook. Even if you previously hated it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet he only asked about conservative causes and people that were affected by Facebook policies. It gives the appearance that Facebook is only policing conservative content. I'm sure if one looked, you could find liberal causes and people that were policed as well.
Zuck had himself just said that people living in silicon valley are overwhelmingly left leaning. So when he says they have 20k back home policing content it would makes sense to assume those 20k people are included in the group Zuck summarizes as overwhelmingly left leaning. Worth asking about.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
"Hate speech" and "objective" don't belong in the same sentence. It is a subjective term open to interpretation, which is why it's dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
"Hate speech" and "objective" don't belong in the same sentence. It is a subjective term open to interpretation, which is why it's dangerous.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
Maybe not actively peddling hate speech but the left is certainly active in interfering with free speech.
As far as I know, people are still free to say what they want? Doesn't mean they don't get any consequences though. Or that other people are forced to give them an ear.
Take Laura Ingraham. She's free to make fun of the Parkland survivors and she did. She's also losing her advertisers as a consequence of being a poor excuse of a human being. Also I would never invite her to come talk to anything I would organize (if I was organizing stuff). Would I be infringing on her free speech then by not giving her a platform? Why would I be obligated to give her a platform?
Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?