Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#341

Post by claudiawerner »

xupybd wrote: post #339
doldge wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been. The ridiculous scare-mongering by some of the sibling comments on this post about this being "the start of the end for NZ" is not representative of: A) New Zealand B) Most countries outside of the US. (Because it's a continuation of existing policy; That not all speech is protected). As…

“If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been” I do know better. It should be an inalienable right. We probably will pass these hate speech laws. We will suffer for it. The founding fathers of the USA got this one right. Trying to engineer society is not a good idea. It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and wh…

>It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and what speech is not.

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#342

Post by mcv »

Thiez wrote: post #328
mcv wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't your national newspapers interested in this? It might not become an international scandal, but some newspaper attention will get noticed, and will likely get mentioned again and again in every political discussion about the impact Facebook has on our society. Also, report it to the police with all the evidence and screenshots you've got and just let them handle it. It might not bring down Facebook on its own,…

Depending on the jurisdiction taking screenshots might be a crime in itself. And I doubt that this would make a good news item, it's not like the newspapers can reprint the material in question or the url, so it's unlikely that anyone who likes Facebook would find the article convincing. A criminal conviction of a Facebook employee would make a good story, but that is much harder.

A screenshot of Facebook's message that it's not against their standards, I mean. That should be easily reprintable, unless it contains the original image.

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#343

Post by zapzupnz »

FakeComments wrote: post #154
zapzupnz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your vision for society is one in which private companies moderate civic discourse? > None of what you wrote is a response to what I said My post was that there are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter having the monopoly on public discourse, proved it by demonstrating alternative methods by which no one (or two) entities have any such monopoly. You spoke about a "vision for society". Typically when people talk abo…

You have a second vision that had nothing to do with what we were talking about before, which was changing the current system to one where entrenched private interests would be censors — the envisioned change I was responding to. Your non-sequitur other wishes have nothing to do with that being a hellish vision.

> You have a second vision that had nothing to do with what we were talking about before

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were the discussion warden. If we're not keeping strictly in step with the topic you've put up for discussion, we're to be derided, are we?

> Your non-sequitur

Goodness, your tone is nothing but rude. Your previous comment's lone "Okay." was much the same. Just because we're not all agog at your comment and have our own points of view to contribute…

Try adding a touch of flexibility to your interlocution.

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#344

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

LanceH wrote: post #87
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right, however, managers can simply say, "We believe long term wealth maximization is dependent on not being assholes and getting the company regulated out of existence," and that will be the end of any shareholder lawsuit on the subject. US case law gives wide leeway to managers to determine what is best for the business.

and 12 years later "that will be the end of any shareholder lawsuit on the subject".

99% of the time, that doesn't actually happen, and even when it does, it tends to amount to more of an annoyance than a serious threat. It's not like it takes the CEO's time personally to deal with an activist shareholder lawsuit. They hire a team to handle it, and things move on.

Managers are practical people. They don't optimize for rare activist shareholder cases.

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#345

Post by xupybd »

claudiawerner wrote: post #341
xupybd wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been” I do know better. It should be an inalienable right. We probably will pass these hate speech laws. We will suffer for it. The founding fathers of the USA got this one right. Trying to engineer society is not a good idea. It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and wh…

>It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and what speech is not. What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

Child pornography, is not speech. Should be banned.

Assault, is not speech. Should be banned.

Threats, you are correct threats and incitement to violence should be banned. This is the special case to freedom of speech it results in direct harm or coercion. Harm and coercion should be prevented.

Intellectual property is interesting. Yes the government should be able to enforce contracts. But this raises a good point.

You are correct however the blanked statement "It’s not the governments job to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not." is too simplistic and is incorrect.

There is a better overview that I could provide here: https://www.kialo.com/should-hate-speech-be-legally-protecte...

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#346

Post by claudiawerner »

xupybd wrote: post #345
claudiawerner wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and what speech is not. What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property? Child pornography, is not speech. Should be banned. Assault, is not speech. Should be banned. Threats, you are correct threats and incitement to violence should be banned. This is the special case to freedom of speech it results in direct harm or coercion. Harm and coercion should be prevented. Intellectual property is interes…

>You are correct however the blanked statement "It’s not the governments job to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not." is too simplistic and is incorrect.

Why isn't it? We already allow the government to decide many other things, such as what we are allowed to sell (i.e through food safety regulation). Is there any reason why speech is different from other actions that it should have special treatment and be untouchable?

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#347

Post by bigiain »

jackvalentine wrote: post #305
bigiain wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I partly agree. It'd also be nice if individuals were held responsible for death threats and rape threats they post on-line. Facebook are morally corrupt because they aid and abet morally corrupt individuals. Both Facebook and those individuals should be held to account for that.

Not saying you personally do this, but it seems every time Europe prosecutes someone for threats of violence on twitter there are the usual fools here shouting "it's just free speech!"

Yeah. Most people shouting "free speech" are fully aware that shouting "Fire! Fire!" in a cinema might be "free speech" but is certainly not free of consequences.

I'm pretty sure "the usual fools" turn out to be complete hypocrites when it's their girlfriend/sister/mother getting rape threats too...

And there's no "1st Amendment to the US constitution" right to "free speech" in most of the world. If your Nazi hate speech ends up in Germany, both you and Facebook will be held to account for that no matter how many Ayn Rand books you've read or how dedicated to ethics in video game journalism you are.

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#348

Post by xupybd »

claudiawerner wrote: post #346
xupybd wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property? Child pornography, is not speech. Should be banned. Assault, is not speech. Should be banned. Threats, you are correct threats and incitement to violence should be banned. This is the special case to freedom of speech it results in direct harm or coercion. Harm and coercion should be prevented. Intellectual property is interes…

>You are correct however the blanked statement "It’s not the governments job to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not." is too simplistic and is incorrect. Why isn't it? We already allow the government to decide many other things, such as what we are allowed to sell (i.e through food safety regulation). Is there any reason why speech is different from other actions that it should have special treatment an…

Speech is verbalisation of our beliefs. Once the state starts dictating what we can believe we lose much of our freedom and liberty. As such any restrictions on speech should be done with extreme care.

I'm pretty libertarian on many of my views. I think the government should have as little influence in peoples lives as possible. That's the only way, that I can see, you can have a society that allows for a truly diverse range of cultures and beliefs living as they desire under one government.

Where the government does need to step in is on interaction between people. Such as enforcing contracts and keeping actors in the markets honest. This doesn't infringe on personal liberty nearly as much as restrictions on speech.

But there are plenty of regulations I disagree with and think people should be left to make their own decisions freely.

Also I'm not sure you understood my concession above. You're question doesn't seem to follow?

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#349

Post by nilskidoo »

drcross wrote: post #205
nilskidoo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And "horrible fucked up shit" amounts to clicks. People don't stream Lawrence Welk for their modern entertainment needs. I say the company knows damn well what content it leaves untouched. It caters to enablers.

Well, to play devil's advocate to your point, it's barely Facebook's fault that the public has an appetite for such heinous material. People want to watch these things, why do we blame Facebook for that and not ourselves?

Whether the unwashed are hopeless or not, victim-shaming to protect a corporation is never a good look.

Re: Facebook are 'morally bankrupt liars' says New Zealand's privacy commissioner

#350

Post by Thiez »

mcv wrote: post #342
Thiez wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the jurisdiction taking screenshots might be a crime in itself. And I doubt that this would make a good news item, it's not like the newspapers can reprint the material in question or the url, so it's unlikely that anyone who likes Facebook would find the article convincing. A criminal conviction of a Facebook employee would make a good story, but that is much harder.

A screenshot of Facebook's message that it's not against their standards, I mean. That should be easily reprintable, unless it contains the original image.

What would that screenshot prove, without the original image next to it? All it proves was that something was reported, but Facebook disagreed. Could be something horrific, or it could be a picture of a tree. There is no shocking news story here.
Post reply on HN