301–310 of 1001 posts
Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not. This is a slippery slope and, quite frankly, it’s the people that lose.
When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
Ah yes, either Trump is a cult leader who is threatening the very core of our democracy, or the election was rigged and we're about to get a Chinese style Manchurian candidate in the White House. I'm so glad that the media vigorously looked into these allegations of corruption and fraud, instead of dismissing them for partisan reasons, because then we might have a split, between people who get their information from…
Trump directed a mob yesterday to storm our Capitol and it sounds like you're being sarcastic about him threatening our democracy. What does he need to do? Burn it down and hang the Vice President for not exceeding his ceremonial powers like his mob chanted?
The claims of the election should be dismissed by rational people, which is exactly what happened in legislatures and courts across the country led by people of every political position except those that want to tear down our democracy for a demagogue and lie to their constituents about reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So while the Capitol is very symbolic, there wasn’t looting, rioting or major vandalism on the part of the protesters (compare to the “Autonomous Zone” and police precinct burning in Seattle. Does that mean in the future demonstrations and protests that could potentially end up in violence like that be suppressed by Facebook and Twitter? Or can we expect partisanship and see them bless other protests that turn to vio…
Occupying the washington monument is symbolic. Invading the capitol building to stop the electoral count and intimidate congress into overturning the election results is not symbolic.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-arrest-128...
Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
The consequence of this however will be political division. If you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because they arent on the same platforms.
I find interesting that at least in spanish facebook does NOTHING to prevent fake news, calls to assassinate local leaders, fake elections fraud and other content to spread. Even those comments are always promoted as "the most relevant". FB is an amplifier of all this mess and is ruining democracies everywhere.
Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
There's no meaningful difference between Joe Biden's status yesterday and his status today. I get that pretending otherwise is a good way to frame FB in a negative light, fine, but it's also weirdly close to the deluded thinking of the people who attacked the Capitol building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you were advocating for the silencing of BLM leaders who were encouraging violence during recent months too...
Absolutely, where that occured, and unlike Trump, both Facebook and Twitter has no problem suspending and removing accounts of BLM advocates when they made calls for violence.
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?