3 ms·

So basically he's saying "I broke the terms of agreement and you removed my content. Now I'm sad." I don't know why some journalists seem to believe that terms

So basically he's saying "I broke the terms of agreement and you removed my content. Now I'm sad." I don't know why some journalists seem to believe that terms and/or laws don't apply to them. I know there are a lot of gray areas, but you still don't have the right to do anything you please and yell at the world for not being handled differently from whatever law/agreement you know you are breaking.

raarts 10y ago
No. He is saying the agreement is either stupid or stupidly executed and this proves it.
ashurov 10y ago
No, to use your terms, he addresses that the current terms of agreement are incorrect and don't fit the media role the medium (Facebook) has and should be addressed. Facebook is a huge news outlet, or at least used by many people in that way, and therefore should consider a more fitting approach to such (news) articles.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cloudjacker 10y ago
> you still don't have the right to do anything you please and yell at the world for not being handled differently from whatever law/agreement you know you are breaking. actually, you do have the right to face the consequences and complain about them and try to be influential enough to change the consequences which is exactly what is going on here. Facebook cannot distinguish between pornography and nudity, while United State federal and state law can distinguish, even when children are involved, despite what hollywood might have you confused about.
kazinator 10y ago
Even though businesses are privately owned, when they provide public spaces, they do not absolutely get to make up their own rules on grounds of private proprietorship. Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US?
- prostoalex 10y ago
  > Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US? I would imagine it would be. I don't really frequent any racially-charged Web sites, but if KKK or Aryan Nations or you-name-it run a forum of some sort, those are likely the rules they go by.

raarts 10y ago

No. He is saying the agreement is either stupid or stupidly executed and this proves it.

ashurov 10y ago

No, to use your terms, he addresses that the current terms of agreement are incorrect and don't fit the media role the medium (Facebook) has and should be addressed. Facebook is a huge news outlet, or at least used by many people in that way, and therefore should consider a more fitting approach to such (news) articles.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

cloudjacker 10y ago

> you still don't have the right to do anything you please and yell at the world for not being handled differently from whatever law/agreement you know you are breaking. actually, you do have the right to face the consequences and complain about them and try to be influential enough to change the consequences which is exactly what is going on here. Facebook cannot distinguish between pornography and nudity, while United State federal and state law can distinguish, even when children are involved, despite what hollywood might have you confused about.

kazinator 10y ago

Even though businesses are privately owned, when they provide public spaces, they do not absolutely get to make up their own rules on grounds of private proprietorship. Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US?

prostoalex 10y ago
> Suppose Facebook's agreement said "blacks are not allowed in this site and will be removed". Would that even be legal in the US? I would imagine it would be. I don't really frequent any racially-charged Web sites, but if KKK or Aryan Nations or you-name-it run a forum of some sort, those are likely the rules they go by.