3 ms·

Because the point of the article is to shame Facebook. I'm making a different point.

by howeyc 10y ago

Miner49er 10y ago
This is how it works. Sure FB has a right to remove stuff, but if their users don't like it, they're going to potentially lose users and money. This article is a user telling FB that they don't like what they're doing.
mickronome 10y ago
So what is your point then ? What you wrote lend itself to several interpretations, most rehashed to death already. What then is this point that is so grand ? How can we come to know the secret, I'm curious! Unless it's -"Don't use Facebook", because we already know we can do that, and unfortunately it doesn't appear to actually solve the problem except under unreasonable assumptions, and then the next thing will likely have the same problems anyway until we as a society decide. Decide under what rules corporations must act when they become big enough that their (currently legal) censorship has as great effect as almost any states censorship would have. A censorship that for the most part is illegal in quite a few countries. It will probably always be more lucrative to censor and invade users privacy, until we either create some rules and possibly laws, or get the entire society to display an emergent behaviour that strongly punishes that kind of behaviour. Both of these need good writers that explain and inspire those that will either spearhead creating those rules, or educate the public to create a social norm strong enough. Snark however will get us nowhere, fast.
- howeyc 10y ago
  Censorship is their right. They are under no obligation to hold views that align with SJWs. Free expression cannot be had on Facebook. If you want that, Facebook is not the forum. That people feeled entitled to free expression on a closed ecosystem controlled by one company is ludicrous. The question should be, where should people move to discuss things openly, not "how can we make Facebook think like us". Not least of which, because who "we" are is not consistent, and more fluid and ever changing. Essentially, looking to Facebook is royally missing the real issue. Central rule of the exchange of ideas.
  - exodust 10y ago
    Agreed. You've nailed it actually. I'm not sure why your comment would be voted down. I think people believe Facebook.com is an open platform without rules, regulations, moderation and the certain influence of advertisers and stakeholders. One way to cause investors to frown is by disappointing the wholesome family-friendly, advertisement clicking userbase. Nudity is traditionally the domain of the unwholesome. Sad but true.

Because the point of the article is to shame Facebook. I'm making a different point.

by howeyc 10y ago

Because the point of the article is to shame Facebook. I'm making a different point.

This is how it works. Sure FB has a right to remove stuff, but if their users don't like it, they're going to potentially lose users and money. This article is a user telling FB that they don't like what they're doing.

mickronome 10y ago

So what is your point then ? What you wrote lend itself to several interpretations, most rehashed to death already. What then is this point that is so grand ? How can we come to know the secret, I'm curious! Unless it's -"Don't use Facebook", because we already know we can do that, and unfortunately it doesn't appear to actually solve the problem except under unreasonable assumptions, and then the next thing will likely have the same problems anyway until we as a society decide. Decide under what rules corporations must act when they become big enough that their (currently legal) censorship has as great effect as almost any states censorship would have. A censorship that for the most part is illegal in quite a few countries. It will probably always be more lucrative to censor and invade users privacy, until we either create some rules and possibly laws, or get the entire society to display an emergent behaviour that strongly punishes that kind of behaviour. Both of these need good writers that explain and inspire those that will either spearhead creating those rules, or educate the public to create a social norm strong enough. Snark however will get us nowhere, fast.

howeyc 10y ago
Censorship is their right. They are under no obligation to hold views that align with SJWs. Free expression cannot be had on Facebook. If you want that, Facebook is not the forum. That people feeled entitled to free expression on a closed ecosystem controlled by one company is ludicrous. The question should be, where should people move to discuss things openly, not "how can we make Facebook think like us". Not least of which, because who "we" are is not consistent, and more fluid and ever changing. Essentially, looking to Facebook is royally missing the real issue. Central rule of the exchange of ideas.
- exodust 10y ago
  Agreed. You've nailed it actually. I'm not sure why your comment would be voted down. I think people believe Facebook.com is an open platform without rules, regulations, moderation and the certain influence of advertisers and stakeholders. One way to cause investors to frown is by disappointing the wholesome family-friendly, advertisement clicking userbase. Nudity is traditionally the domain of the unwholesome. Sad but true.