Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Cambridge Analytica], [Facebook], and Data Security.

13132333436

Posts

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Veevee wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And Facebook is just dropping the pretense on being in bed with white supremacists:
    Facebook’s controversial factchecking program is partnering with the Daily Caller, a rightwing website that has pushed misinformation and is known for pro-Trump content.

    The social network said Wednesday it had added CheckYourFact.com, which is part of the Daily Caller, as one of its US media partners in an initiative that has faced growing backlash from journalists and internal problems. The collaboration was first reported by Axios.

    There is no way you can work with Tucker Carlson's empire and say that you are opposed to white supremacy.

    This exactly what you are asking for when you argue that social media shouldn't care about freedom of speech and should police speech more agressively so this really shouldn't be a surprise.

    I don't see where saying "hey, perhaps social media should not be enabling white supremacists" means "social media should jump in bed with white supremacists".

    So you just want your ideology to be the one in control of censoring social media?

    AngelHedgie's ideology is "I want everyone to know the truth", so yeah, I would want his ideology to be the one to control what is true or not. An ideology based upon hate of The Other can never ever be an impartial arbiter of truth.

    There is no such thing as an impartial arbiter of truth.

    Yes, we've heard all the arguments for free speech absolutism. It's just that, after seeing the damage that free speech absolutism causes, they ring hollow. It turns out that when you say that there are no restrictions, what winds up happening is that hate crowds out other voices, forcing them out through fear and intimidation.

    The alternative is that Facebook gets to decide what is real. Which is going to translate to what is in the interests of it's owners.

    I mean.... that's basically what's happening now with Facebook and these other media sites...

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    XaquinNyysjanMoridin889shrykeMartini_Philosophermrondeaudestroyah87JaysonFour38thDoeZilla360NeveronMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenYoutubeMrVyngaardnever die
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Veevee wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    And Facebook is just dropping the pretense on being in bed with white supremacists:
    Facebook’s controversial factchecking program is partnering with the Daily Caller, a rightwing website that has pushed misinformation and is known for pro-Trump content.

    The social network said Wednesday it had added CheckYourFact.com, which is part of the Daily Caller, as one of its US media partners in an initiative that has faced growing backlash from journalists and internal problems. The collaboration was first reported by Axios.

    There is no way you can work with Tucker Carlson's empire and say that you are opposed to white supremacy.

    This exactly what you are asking for when you argue that social media shouldn't care about freedom of speech and should police speech more agressively so this really shouldn't be a surprise.

    I don't see where saying "hey, perhaps social media should not be enabling white supremacists" means "social media should jump in bed with white supremacists".

    So you just want your ideology to be the one in control of censoring social media?

    AngelHedgie's ideology is "I want everyone to know the truth", so yeah, I would want his ideology to be the one to control what is true or not. An ideology based upon hate of The Other can never ever be an impartial arbiter of truth.

    There is no such thing as an impartial arbiter of truth.

    Yes, we've heard all the arguments for free speech absolutism. It's just that, after seeing the damage that free speech absolutism causes, they ring hollow. It turns out that when you say that there are no restrictions, what winds up happening is that hate crowds out other voices, forcing them out through fear and intimidation.

    The alternative is that Facebook gets to decide what is real. Which is going to translate to what is in the interests of it's owners.

    Usually it will be the interests of the establishment in its host country. So in Germany, holocaust denial will be verboten, and in China, the Tianamen Square massacre will be unable to be mentioned.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    SleepshrykemrondeauZilla360MrVyngaard
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Bring back personal websites!

  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Bring back personal websites!

    Bring back Geocities!

    Drovek
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    JaysonFourMan in the MistsYoutube
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    We literally just had Facebook refuse to take down outright slander.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    MrVyngaardKayne Red Robe
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    We literally just had Facebook refuse to take down outright slander.

    Because they are not required to do so, or if law requires it, it is not forced in any real way.

    kime
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    We literally just had Facebook refuse to take down outright slander.

    Because they are not required to do so, or if law requires it, it is not forced in any real way.

    Which is the whole problem - as I pointed out originally, the reason for this is because of Section 230's blanket indemnification.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    This would conflict with the First Amendment.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    This would conflict with the First Amendment.

    Defamation is not protected speech, so...

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    YoutubeKayne Red Robe
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    This would conflict with the First Amendment.

    Defamation is not protected speech, so...

    I think it is, because usually American celebrities try to sue in the UK courts if someone tries to defame their character.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    This would conflict with the First Amendment.

    Defamation is not protected speech, so...

    I think it is, because usually American celebrities try to sue in the UK courts if someone tries to defame their character.

    It's harder to sustain a defamation charge in the US than in the UK, but no, defamation is not protected here.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    kimeschussSpoitRchanenMrVyngaardFencingsaxMoridin889Man in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenYoutube
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    Which means the government gets to decide what is fake news. Tiananmen square? Fake news. Mueller investigation? Fake news. Russia invading the Ukraine? Fake news.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    In the case of what was originally called fake news, fake news consisted of hoaxes that the original writers invented. That is different from merely bad journalism like death panels or breathlessly reporting nonsense from a bad source.

    ForarJaysonFourFencingsaxMan in the MistsYoutube
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Facebook will always determine what's real until we develop our own democratic social network in which everybody maintains their own online presence and social network

    Or if there are laws passed that prohibit social media platforms from disseminating fake news as though ti was legitimate.

    This would conflict with the First Amendment.

    Defamation is not protected speech, so...

    I think it is, because usually American celebrities try to sue in the UK courts if someone tries to defame their character.

    It's harder to sustain a defamation charge in the US than in the UK, but no, defamation is not protected here.

    It's nearly impossible, because you have to show they knew it was false when they said it to get damages.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Youtube apparently took the video down because they said the video violates their policies. So it's not like there isn't a different way to Facebook and Twitter in this case.

  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power. Not nipping these kinds of things in the bud and making them illegal got us to where we are today: a literal nazi orange manchild in the White House and a bunch of anti-semitism and hatred everywhere. A literal anti-semite is one of the top channels in the world on YouTube. And the corporations in charge of said social media companies are more in love with their profits and their shareholders and stock prices than what they should be doing ethically.

    We tried free-speech absolutism. The Germans made this kind of shit illegal. Tell me, which country has the massive resurgence of anti-semitism and white supremacy and which doesn't?

    steam_sig.png
    Descendant XZilla360Man in the MistsYoutubeMartini_Philosopher
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power. Not nipping these kinds of things in the bud and making them illegal got us to where we are today: a literal nazi orange manchild in the White House and a bunch of anti-semitism and hatred everywhere. A literal anti-semite is one of the top channels in the world on YouTube. And the corporations in charge of said social media companies are more in love with their profits and their shareholders and stock prices than what they should be doing ethically.

    We tried free-speech absolutism. The Germans made this kind of shit illegal. Tell me, which country has the massive resurgence of anti-semitism and white supremacy and which doesn't?

    At this point both! AFD ahoy!

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    ShivahnCelestialBadgerSpoitXaquinIncenjucarNeveronRichyKayne Red RobeTynnanMartini_Philosopher
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    Moridin889DarkPrimusQanamil38thDoeiTunesIsEvilZonugalshrykeSleepJaysonFourFencingsaxAistanHacksawschussMayabirdMan in the MistsSolarYoutubeKayne Red RobeMartini_Philosophernever dieHeffling
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    Hey I have a good feeling about this Mysterious unaccountable cabal!

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    In the days when Facebook etc all were doing basically no moderation they clearly were not deciding.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    In the days when Facebook etc all were doing basically no moderation they clearly were not deciding.

    Except that they were - they were deciding to back the status quo, to back those with power.

    This is the other reason that free speech absolutism doesn't work - it tries to argue that it's neutral, but it isn't.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Moridin889kimeDarkPrimus38thDoeZonugalJaysonFourFencingsaxHacksawschussMayabirdMan in the MistsSolarYoutubemageormikeEtiowsaMartini_PhilosopherMrVyngaardnever dieHeffling
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    In the days when Facebook etc all were doing basically no moderation they clearly were not deciding.

    Except that they were - they were deciding to back the status quo, to back those with power.

    This is the other reason that free speech absolutism doesn't work - it tries to argue that it's neutral, but it isn't.

    And now they can back those in power even harder without having to answer calls about freedom of speech. This is an improvement how?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited May 24
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    In the days when Facebook etc all were doing basically no moderation they clearly were not deciding.

    Except that they were - they were deciding to back the status quo, to back those with power.

    This is the other reason that free speech absolutism doesn't work - it tries to argue that it's neutral, but it isn't.

    And now they can back those in power even harder without having to answer calls about freedom of speech. This is an improvement how?
    Yes, Facebook promoting hate speech is not an improvement over Facebook promoting hate speech. We know.

    That's why hate speech laws are useful: they don't allow hate speech. That's kinda the point.

    PS:
    And I'm going to add the usual "hate speech laws are not radical. Point to places were they lead to the horrors you are expecting from hate speech laws that are not already authoritarian nightmares."

    mrondeau on
    Descendant XJaysonFourMoridin889CaedwyrMartini_Philosopher
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    We tried free-speech absolutism; the experiment was a massive failure because humans can't be trusted with that kind of power.

    But you will trust an unaccountable cabal of people to decide what is and is not acceptable speech?

    You mean like what already happens now where corporations decide?

    In the days when Facebook etc all were doing basically no moderation they clearly were not deciding.

    Actually, they were.
    It was moderation based on volume of complaints.
    And this was then quickly weaponised by organised bands of harassers.

    So we tried 'no' moderation, and it was expressly harmful.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    kimejmcdonaldiTunesIsEvilSpoitMan in the MistsMoridin889JaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenYoutubeMartini_PhilosopherMrVyngaardnever die
  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    The whole problem was they wanted to maximize profits by keeping as many people out of the process as possible, so they were using programs to handle it, and once people found how to game them, that's when this whole thing really went to hell.

    Effective moderation requires actual people to be effective without being turned into another tool of abuse.

    steam_sig.png
    MrVyngaardMan in the MistsZilla360
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And Pelosi is calling out Facebook on their gooseshit:
    The Speaker of the House publicly castigated Facebook on Wednesday for both enabling Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its refusal to take down a video of the congresswoman that was edited to make it appear she was drunk.

    Pelosi didn't even come close to pulling her punches, arguing in an interview with KQED that the Mark Zuckerberg-helmed behemoth wasn't just an innocent victim of a foreign campaign to spread disinformation — rather, it happily played along.

    "I think they have proven that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election," Pelosi said, according to Scott Shafer, a senior editor at KQED. "They're lying to the public."

    She also pointed out that if the video was about Zuckerberg, the response would be very different:


    "They are lying to the public, I wonder what they would do if Mark Zuckerberg was portrayed -- slowed down, appeared drunk - I don't even drink ... but if it was one of their own, would it be their policy, or is it just a woman?"

    Marisa Lagos is a reporter for KQED.

    And in other Facebook thumbing its nose at governments news, Zuckerberg and Sandberg tell Canada to go fuck itself:
    Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg did not attend a hearing in Ottawa on Tuesday, despite receiving summonses from the Canadian parliament.

    The decision could result in the executives being held in contempt of parliament, the senior Canadian politician who sent the summons told CNN. The last time a member of the public was held in contempt by the parliament was 1913, according to the legislature's records.
    Facebook instead sent two representatives from its public policy team to the hearing, which was tied to a gathering of an international committee examining Silicon Valley's impact on privacy and democracy.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ThawmusDarkPrimusZonugalshrykeGennenalyse RuebenBlackDragon480Man in the MistsMartini_Philosophernever dieHeffling
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    edited May 29
    Descendant X on
    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular

    You know, when someone makes the argument that demanding that defamatory material be removed is censorship in earnest, you have to wonder how they lost the plot so badly.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Descendant XFencingsaxQanamilBullheadMartini_PhilosopherKruiteMrVyngaardKamar
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    edited May 29
    It is from the National Post so I’m expecting that Terence Corcoran, the homunculus who write the article, regularly had to wipe the rabid spittle from his monitor as he was writing it.

    Descendant X on
    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
    BlackDragon480
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I'm sure Facebook will make the determination between defamation and satire in a fair and objective manner.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm sure Facebook will make the determination between defamation and satire in a fair and objective manner.

    So tell me - should Facebook not remove blatantly defamatory material? Because that is actually what is going on at the moment - they are refusing to remove a clearly faked video of Pelosi that was posted with the intent to defame her.

    Also, if your satire reads as defamation, then it's shitty satire.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    QanamilMan in the MistsZilla360
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm sure Facebook will make the determination between defamation and satire in a fair and objective manner.

    So tell me - should Facebook not remove blatantly defamatory material? Because that is actually what is going on at the moment - they are refusing to remove a clearly faked video of Pelosi that was posted with the intent to defame her.

    Also, if your satire reads as defamation, then it's shitty satire.

    I think your sarcastometer may need calibration AH

    kimeZilla360ForarLostNinja
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm sure Facebook will make the determination between defamation and satire in a fair and objective manner.

    So tell me - should Facebook not remove blatantly defamatory material? Because that is actually what is going on at the moment - they are refusing to remove a clearly faked video of Pelosi that was posted with the intent to defame her.

    Also, if your satire reads as defamation, then it's shitty satire.

    I think your sarcastometer may need calibration AH

    Nah.
    If HamHam didn't mean to get free-speech-absolutionist this time, he should have clarified.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Played straight or sarcastic it’s still a good point. This is Facebook we’re talking about, their history of judgement calls isn’t great.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Played straight or sarcastic it’s still a good point. This is Facebook we’re talking about, their history of judgement calls isn’t great.

    Therefore we should not ask them to even try and just accept free speech absolutism that pretty much always favors fascists and liars?

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Played straight or sarcastic it’s still a good point. This is Facebook we’re talking about, their history of judgement calls isn’t great.

    Therefore we should not ask them to even try and just accept free speech absolutism that pretty much always favors fascists and liars?

    Pretty sure that’s exactly what I said you goose.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Played straight or sarcastic it’s still a good point. This is Facebook we’re talking about, their history of judgement calls isn’t great.

    Therefore we should not ask them to even try and just accept free speech absolutism that pretty much always favors fascists and liars?

    Pretty sure that’s exactly what I said you goose.
    Well, i'm going to disagree.
    Just accepting the status quo is not the answer.

Sign In or Register to comment.