301–310 of 488 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about links that call for violence / genocide? Should those be delivered to avoid setting a precedent?
Yes, I would say so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?
Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?
If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the flavor that leads to burning black churches and attempting to overthrow US democracy?
https://newsone.com/3235025/black-suspect-arrested-arson-st-... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-e... If you're going to make a partisan claim, at least be accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if your goal is to censor a viewpoint. They are one in the same whether it's a viewpoint made in public or private - the main point of censorship is to not allow you to communicate certain thoughts. It amazes me that some posts here (not yours, but like the one you're responding to) have already seeded the censorship ground. For them it seems the question isn't whether it's ok to censor opposing viewpoints, but w…
*ceded
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.
> Yes you do. No, I don’t. I’m not making the claim. Look, still not making a claim! Still not making an argument. It’s up to “Facebook is censoring me” to make the case that warrants a defense. And I’m not Facebook so I don’t have do defend that. I can just… have this conversation without censorship. And if I get moderated here in a way I hope I won’t be but don’t expect… I can go to my blog or Twitter or whatever.
Now, you are claiming it’s not censorship and have provided no basis for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's beside the point I was making, as I said; >You can argue whether or not moderation is necessary or not but it most definitely is censorship. Moderation is censorship, and censorship is evil. It may be a necessary evil (because liability if nothing else) but it needs to be seen and treated as evil. Meaning to be used as sparingly as possible.
What's your definition of evil?
Sure, people do bad things, but it’s not ”evil people” who do bad things — it’s just people, the same people who have the capacity to do good things also do bad things.
My hope that future internet will be decentralized
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've moderated a forum before. Some people on the Internet are just crazy . If you ban them, they will come after you—maybe even in person. Shadowbanning on forums (setting aside the FB case) is sometimes abused, but it serves a vital purpose: preserving the time and safety of volunteer moderators.
Don't they just get twice as annoyed when they realize that not only were they banned, but they were silently banned and wasted time writing posts that went straight to /dev/null? The only time shadowbanning seems like a good solution is outright commercial spam and link farming, where slowing them down is a win in itself.