I voted yes, but with a couple of caveats
- banned/suspended pages should have the ability (Facebook is a private company, so I'll not use the word "right") to appeal their banning with a relatively quick decision
- rules/restrictions should be set up and reviewed by multiple people to make sure the political/social/ethical views of one individual does not dominate what gets suspended or banned
- before a page is banned or suspended the action should be reviewed by multiple people to make sure the political/social/ethical views of one individual does not dominate what gets suspended or banned
But Facebook is a private company, so caveat emptor.
I voted yes, and I'm sure they are, but it doesn't really solve the problem of the US being susceptible to disinformation campaigns and PSYOPS. You're still going to have the 'Talk Show Hosts' at Fox News and CNN/MSNBC among others doing their thing.
This doesn't get solved until the American populace takes responsibility for vetting the information they get fed and spread around, and since that's where the vast majority of 'fake news' is coming from on Facebook itself, good luck to them.
Zuckerberg is getting heavily criticized for saying they won't remove posts denying the Holocaust.
“I’m Jewish,” the Facebook chief executive said to Recode’s Kara Swisher in a response to a question about Sandy Hook trutherism, “and there’s a set of people who deny the Holocaust happened. I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but … it’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent.”
People have rightly pointed out that the intent of Holocaust denial is pretty clear and it's rooted in a deeply dangerous ideology.
But I also see the point of: where does Facebook draw the line?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is under fire for saying unemployment is low because people take two jobs. This is clearly a factual error born of economic ignorance. But if her supporters think she's right, should they be prevented from sharing memes built around that ideology? Who does judge their intent?
While Holocaust denial is clearly false and dangerous, who makes all those other judgments calls other issues not as obvious? And should we as a society be able to beat back such clearly factually wrong claims keeping its adherents on the fringe?
We have some simple rules on The Batavian: no personal attacks, no racism, but it's easier to enforce because we are small in scope. Still, there are people who hate me and accuse me of being a censor simply because I won't let them attack other people. Zuckerberg is dealing with all of this on a much larger scale with much greater societal impacts. I don't envy him in that role.
I'm also reminded of Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance.
"... if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them ... "
It's not an easy issue.
If Enlightenment values are to persist to ensure the peace and prosperity of future generations, then really, we all need to be much smarter and better educated and informed so that intolerant and authoritarian ideas don't take root and metastasize.
I voted no - I agree with Tom & Jeffrey - I wish I was as eloquent- I was going to say "I people are dumb enough to believe everything they read........."
Can't miss an opportunity to roll out the holocaust. Like a rolling pin over the head.
To learn who rules over you simply find who can't be criticised. (Voltaire)
I voted yes, but with a
I voted yes, but with a couple of caveats
- banned/suspended pages should have the ability (Facebook is a private company, so I'll not use the word "right") to appeal their banning with a relatively quick decision
- rules/restrictions should be set up and reviewed by multiple people to make sure the political/social/ethical views of one individual does not dominate what gets suspended or banned
- before a page is banned or suspended the action should be reviewed by multiple people to make sure the political/social/ethical views of one individual does not dominate what gets suspended or banned
But Facebook is a private company, so caveat emptor.
Well said and a raised thumb
Well said and a raised thumb up, Tim.
I voted yes, and I'm sure
I voted yes, and I'm sure they are, but it doesn't really solve the problem of the US being susceptible to disinformation campaigns and PSYOPS. You're still going to have the 'Talk Show Hosts' at Fox News and CNN/MSNBC among others doing their thing.
This doesn't get solved until the American populace takes responsibility for vetting the information they get fed and spread around, and since that's where the vast majority of 'fake news' is coming from on Facebook itself, good luck to them.
I totally agree with you,
I agree with you in many ways, Jeffery.
Zuckerberg is getting heavily criticized for saying they won't remove posts denying the Holocaust.
“I’m Jewish,” the Facebook chief executive said to Recode’s Kara Swisher in a response to a question about Sandy Hook trutherism, “and there’s a set of people who deny the Holocaust happened. I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but … it’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent.”
People have rightly pointed out that the intent of Holocaust denial is pretty clear and it's rooted in a deeply dangerous ideology.
But I also see the point of: where does Facebook draw the line?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is under fire for saying unemployment is low because people take two jobs. This is clearly a factual error born of economic ignorance. But if her supporters think she's right, should they be prevented from sharing memes built around that ideology? Who does judge their intent?
While Holocaust denial is clearly false and dangerous, who makes all those other judgments calls other issues not as obvious? And should we as a society be able to beat back such clearly factually wrong claims keeping its adherents on the fringe?
We have some simple rules on The Batavian: no personal attacks, no racism, but it's easier to enforce because we are small in scope. Still, there are people who hate me and accuse me of being a censor simply because I won't let them attack other people. Zuckerberg is dealing with all of this on a much larger scale with much greater societal impacts. I don't envy him in that role.
I'm also reminded of Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
"... if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them ... "
It's not an easy issue.
If Enlightenment values are to persist to ensure the peace and prosperity of future generations, then really, we all need to be much smarter and better educated and informed so that intolerant and authoritarian ideas don't take root and metastasize.
I voted no - I agree with Tom
I voted no - I agree with Tom & Jeffrey - I wish I was as eloquent- I was going to say "I people are dumb enough to believe everything they read........."
Can't miss an opportunity to
Can't miss an opportunity to roll out the holocaust. Like a rolling pin over the head.
To learn who rules over you simply find who can't be criticised. (Voltaire)