51–60 of 823 posts
- From Noam Chomsky's (Chomsky's grandparents are holocaust survivors) on the foreword for "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" for the book of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.
Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speec…
Censoring opposition has not once yielded positive results in the history of the world. My personal conspiracy theory is that policies like these are subversively being used to push HD since no one could possibly be stupid enough to think this would help.
Hasn’t it? Do you have any examples, or should I just take your word for it?
Trump’s tax records were talked about for half of a decade before he released them (with far less to show within proportional to the hype).
The US government’s attempts to shed evidence of MKUltra in the wake of Watergate has resulted in it staying a household name ~50 years later.
> According to a recent survey of adults in the US aged 18-39, almost a quarter said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, that it had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure. Wow!
The unchecked power Zuck and co have has global implications for every tiny decision they make. Who gave them this power? What makes them the best people to be making these decisions? Can we always trust them to get it right?
Facebook is a private entity. Facebook’s shareholders have given Mark Zuckerberg and his management team the power to manage the company as they see fit. If users disagree with the terms and conditions of using the site, they don’t have to use it.
The unchecked power Zuck and co have has global implications for every tiny decision they make. Who gave them this power? What makes them the best people to be making these decisions? Can we always trust them to get it right?
Facebook is a private entity. Facebook’s shareholders have given Mark Zuckerberg and his management team the power to manage the company as they see fit. If users disagree with the terms and conditions of using the site, they don’t have to use it.
The unchecked power Zuck and co have has global implications for every tiny decision they make. Who gave them this power? What makes them the best people to be making these decisions? Can we always trust them to get it right?
Wish this would apply as well to the Armenian genocide denial content and other genocides in general. Cause, you know, there have been many more other genocides throughout the history but apparently there is only one that fits the Western/Eurocentric view
If the Armenian genocide would have the same amount of "advertising" as holocaust does it would be on the same level of "notoriety".
The media complex creates a very disproportionate cult around certain events: the holomodor claimed 2x lives as the holocaust and yet it's hardly ever mentioned.
Everyone knows of holocaust but most will go "huh?" when you ask them about holomodor.
Funny how history can spinned to make certain events world famous and others to dissapear.
when say 3 years from now, you can't criticize FB for their known co-operation with the surveillance programs of the government without having your content automatically detected and removed, you might have a different view.
This is only because of FB's refusal to let you more easily control what is seen on your feed. You controlling the feed settings would remove FBs power over eyeballs.