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

Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#81

Post by s1artibartfast »

king_magic wrote: post #61
s1artibartfast wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. Closing our eyes and ears to the presidents actions and statement doesn't make them go away, or meaningfully disincentivize him. If the president were to announce a racist policy or glorifies a violent military action, we should know.

> Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event .

I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted?

The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying.

Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#82

Post by salawat »

king_magic wrote: post #21
bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

So if a President yells “fire” in a crowded movie theater, we should all sit and sing kumbaya just because he’s the President? No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well. There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that. No exceptions, no mercy: if a President o…

Speak for yourself. I prefer others be allowed to illustrate their repugnance without meddlesome filters getting in the way.

Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes.

In short, you like being muzzled? Have at. I will not stand for anyone having the same done against their will. No matter the level of repugnance, obscenity, or inconvenience to myself.

What would the world do without those oh so valuable examples of what not to be?

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#83

Post by king_magic »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #81
king_magic wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event .

I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted? The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying. Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even mor…

Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another.

But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#84

Post by king_magic »

salawat wrote: post #82
king_magic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a President yells “fire” in a crowded movie theater, we should all sit and sing kumbaya just because he’s the President? No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well. There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that. No exceptions, no mercy: if a President o…

Speak for yourself. I prefer others be allowed to illustrate their repugnance without meddlesome filters getting in the way. Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes. In short, you like being muzzled? H…

So you want to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or what - you want someone to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater provided they are powerful enough to get away with it?

Free speech does not mean there cannot be limits on that speech.

And as I've said a few times now, any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event. So I don't buy the "matter of public record keeping" argument. There will be plenty of ways to know that the President yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, with the information put in proper context.

The alternative is a world where the flames of Rwandan-style genocides (where local & government sponsored radio messages were used to incite massacres) can be stoked on Twitter. We're already seeing a "light" version of that in a microcosm with Trump fanning flames of unrest on social media.

As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#85

Post by nocturnial »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #74
nocturnial wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if I came on too strong. But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently? Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?

We'll have to cordially disagree then - I think world leaders should be treated differently, and you do not. No right or wrong opinions possible on that.

I think you are too focused on the world leader thing. I never said they shouldn't be treated differently in the general sense you are alluding to. We're still talking about a valid reason why facebook should or shouldn't treat the president of the us differently?

Your reason: "He's a president" isn't sufficient.

Societies work according to the rule of law. If the law doesn't make an exception if a customer to your business is a world leader, then why should you automatically assume businesses should make an exception for a president, or whatever world leader?

If your position is that businesses should make exceptions for your president then convince your congress to make this into a law. Currently this isn't a law in your country, let alone in mine.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#86

Post by nocturnial »

nrmitchi wrote: post #42
scaryclam wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he posts from the official POTUS account, I'd support that. Anything from his personal account shouldn't be treated any differently at all.

I completely agree with the theory here, however he is, and has been, treating personal accounts as "official" accounts for a while. Anything posted through those means should be maintained as a historical record. I agree with how Twitter handled it; they made it clear that it was in violation, hid it by default, however kept it. In my mind, I need to consider a situation as if the president tweets out something that…

If you want to maintain a historical record, shouldn't those tweets or whatever be archived using the presidential records act at the source?

This way a private company doesn't decide or is responsible what gets archived/deleted/censored/annotated but it always gets archived using what worked for every document produced by a president for decades.

I think you have a point of it being archived but I think you're wrong about who should archive it. At the moment the president tweets official policy (maybe debatable, but let's assume it is), so those tweets should fall under the presidential records act and be archived by the white house staff. Then it doesn't matter if they are later deleted by whatever social media company, or even if are censored or have a fact check attached to them. The original message is stored and kept. (well, at least in theory)

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#87

Post by ardy42 »

avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

> Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level.

I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.

The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#88

Post by ch4s3 »

king_magic wrote: post #21
bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

So if a President yells “fire” in a crowded movie theater, we should all sit and sing kumbaya just because he’s the President? No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well. There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that. No exceptions, no mercy: if a President o…

There is no basis in American jurisprudence for a restriction on “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” The quote is from the majority opinion in Shneck va US, which was overturned and the same Chief Justice wrote both opinions.

Speech not protected by the 1st amendment includes: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.

Note that incitement is VERY narrowly defined.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#89

Post by robocat »

avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

HN guidelines are to not be snarky. Personally, sarcasm rarely adds to a conversation. Dang explains it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21187460

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#90

Post by komali2 »

zepto wrote: post #80
komali2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muzzle is a strong word to use to describe a man who can call a press conference that will be attended by every major national and international news organization at the drop of a hat, and, failing that, can send an SMS to every phone in the USA.

Not really. We are afforded a window into how he thinks outside of these channels that are managed by his aides. Muzzling that denies us insight into who he is.

> into who he is.

Is more info like that really useful?

Post reply on HN