31–40 of 88 posts
It's interesting that they have specific provisions for Zionism.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebo... What does it even mean? What are the red and green marks? What's even weirder to me is that they don't touch upon more examples. It's just so incredibly arbitrary that it can be used to easily cover up anything with zero consequences.
A tick means something can stay on the site; a cross means it should be deleted.
Do you have any legal citations about the right to be heard?
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
Listen. I used the phone since 40 years. With the phone I had conversations with people that could have, well, annoyed others to say the least. I've said super bad things with my phone. Was I moderated ? No. Was it a problem ? No. Moderating is just here to make sure that FaceBook can still operate. That's just a problem for FaceBook to protect its image. Let's imagine that there is no moderation. What will happen ?…
This also happens in sports. Someone says something in an interview, in a social network post, in a private conversation which gets published... and what happens? Depending on offense the team may, ignore, fine, suspend or fire the person in question, outside the legal framework. That is, someone may say something insensitive or can be accused (not yet proven) to have done something unbecoming... teams often feel pressure to act extrajudicially. It's just how it is where money and the public sphere of opinion intersect.
Do you have any legal citations about the right to be heard?
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
> There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. Is it? I always admired the much-scoffed YouTube as the free-est place to talk on the internet. Where a vegan gay liberal from NY can discuss on the same video with a neo-con Mongolian and a 15-year old hipster from Sweden, an Israeli Jew, an Arab, and a bla…
/r/AskReddit is one of the best places to have such free and open conversations and the best thing is that you get to set the topic for the conversation instead of some arbitrary video remotely related to what you want to talk about.
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
I hope the take-away that comes out of the leaked documents is this: community moderation is very, very hard . It's not just a simple cut-and-dry "free speech vs censorship" issue. There's an enormous amount of nuance involved to sustain a community that won't just devolve into a toxic waste dump that's poison for 99% of the people there. In my experience working with startups, many of them don't treat their content…
To rephrase a flagged comment: 4chan is a pretty good counterexample. It's not necessarily true that a community destroys itself if you have no moderation. This community would; 4chan hasn't. Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you asking for proof that a speaker has a right to force other people to listen to their argument?
I read it as requesting exactly the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To rephrase a flagged comment: 4chan is a pretty good counterexample. It's not necessarily true that a community destroys itself if you have no moderation. This community would; 4chan hasn't. Why?
4chan has moderation. Of course they draw the line in a very different place, but they definitely do moderate.
A naive explanation is that only awful people go there, and there are a large number of those types. But that'd be mistaken.
I don't know, but it seems like an interesting question.