61–70 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you seriously imagine a world where behavior and speech are restricted to that which does not cause people to get angry and potentially violent? Can you both imagine that world and also want to live in that world?
To the extent that it's possible, yes. Just look at Canada's hate speech laws if you want a real world example.
The only thing that can and ought to be realistically removed is illegal speech and SCOTUS has already defined what that is... Any other attempts, while well intentioned, will probably backfire. FB seems to take one step forward and two steps back each time they try to take some moral high ground when it comes to free speech... I like the fact they recently increased transparency behind who is paying for ads - whethe…
No, Facebook obviously realistically can remove anything it wants. The idea that a private (and international) information distribution segment only ought to remove content that is specifically illegal under US law, and has no right or legitimate interest in removing any other content from it's platform, is somewhat bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"after the violence has already been triggered" no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is i…
In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing.
There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is i…
What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one.
Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are always loud fringe groups who, unable to persuade the majority to their line of thinking, instead focus their efforts on coercing leaders of institutions to force their line of thinking onto the majority. Tattle-tales in school turn into busy-bodies on HOA boards and professional protestors outside of Twitter HQ. There is no "victory" for these people, only goal posts that can be pushed ever further until t…
Yeah the people complaining about how tall your grass is outside your house are not the same as the people holding twitter to account for enabling fascism.
This is the most American comment section. Somehow the fact that Facebook might remove lies that lead to violence is objectionable on free speech grounds. That they remove pictures of nipples is somehow not a matter of great concern...
If I have to choose one of your suggestions to put time and effort behind having properly defined by governance, I'm going to go with Facebook's authority in determining a "potential for violence" threshold.
Censorship is wrong, it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion.
> Censorship is wrong Censorship of one's own platform is a central element of free speech. > it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion. That's true, but doesn't support the preceding claim.
ISPs can make the same argument against Net Neutrality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I h…
To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I h…
The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.
This is the most American comment section. Somehow the fact that Facebook might remove lies that lead to violence is objectionable on free speech grounds. That they remove pictures of nipples is somehow not a matter of great concern...
You're saying that you hold these two circumstances to be of equal importance in regards to freedom of speech? If I have to choose one of your suggestions to put time and effort behind having properly defined by governance, I'm going to go with Facebook's authority in determining a "potential for violence" threshold.
It's not ok to try to create a platform where people don't incite violence by lying. It is ok to create a platform where people can't express anything of a sexual nature.
It's cultural of course. After all in the US it is ok to have games where you shoot prostitutes but not where you sleep with one.