21–30 of 114 posts
The Facebook video in question is linked in the very first sentence, but the yellow highlighting doesn't distinguish the link from the rest of the text. So here's the link for the curious (in Hungarian of course): https://www.facebook.com/lazarjanosfidesz/videos/19566176783...
I don’t speak Hungarians and so I have no idea why this video would be offensive. Can you try to explain?
The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…
> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…
Would be it more OK if it was about Venezuelan pro-government mafia?
The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…
> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…
Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.
If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lazar, who was a minister back then went out to Vienna and made a video that said the city is flooded with migrants, it isn't safe and Budapest is much better, safer and such. Oh, also he didn't feel safe in it too.
I see. I have a female friend in Vienna, she's said similar stuff to me. Things are getting bad there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Facebook have any content moderation obligations towards any government? It is their private platform, their rules. A community they built = their community standards. They can decide what content they allow on the platform. Governments imposing content rules upon private companies is a form of censorship. China is not a democracy. If a country doesn't like their citizens having free and unlimited access to…
Hungary is a sovereign country. Why would a government have any obligations towards any medium, to allow it to operate within the country? Esp. when said medium has an agenda to influence public opinion? (In this case, by taking down videos expressing the opinion of the democratically elected government, and by only allowing videos criticising the opinion of the majority of the citizens). Governments can decide what…
Facebook should not accept instructions from Hungarian government. Now it's "Please don't remove videos from our minister", tomorrow it will be "Please immediately delete any bad comments about our government. Oh, and that opposition candidate's page? Delete that too"
Facebook's community standards should not be universally accepted. Does anyone force Hungarian people to use Facebook and accept their community standards? No. But if they freely choose to use it, of course they are expected to accept the rules of the community they willingly chose to participate in.
I am not a Hungarian, and I don't care what the Hungarian government is doing within their own country. If they want they can censor newspapers, ban TV shows on local media, close the borders, not have foreigners in their country, whatever. But they shouldn't influence foreign media the same way that they cannot ban a TV show airing on some Croatian television because Hungarians near the border can catch it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. I have a female friend in Vienna, she's said similar stuff to me. Things are getting bad there.
Funny how it's just become the first european city to top the economist liveability index. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45174600
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Facebook have any content moderation obligations towards any government? It is their private platform, their rules. A community they built = their community standards. They can decide what content they allow on the platform. Governments imposing content rules upon private companies is a form of censorship. China is not a democracy. If a country doesn't like their citizens having free and unlimited access to…
>Why would Facebook have any content moderation obligations towards any government? This argument, if applied strictly, would allow any government to meddle in the affairs (say, influencing elections) of any other government simply by establishing ostensibly private companies that'd perform to their wishes, whether overtly or secretly. That being anti-democratic, there's clear need for limiting actions of private com…
The only problem is, since the internet is free and open, whether Facebook operates as a legal entity in a particular country or not, doesn't prevent internet users from that country to access the services. And Facebook doesn't have any obligations to ban IP ranges from that country. So, it's the country's responsibility to ban traffic to Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.
>If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.
>If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?
You need to recognize the level of organization you are proposing might be possible but is adamantly undermined by governments and businesses around the world, and nothing like it is found in the history books. Not even close, unless maybe you count Noah’s Ark.
Your expression here is generally only expressed by sheltered Americans, and there must be a reason almost nobody in the rest of the world would accept a such a short conception. It might be useful for someone stuck in this view to realize that.