5 ms·

If even one person at Facebook was threatened with violence for not taking down the pages, I think that it would be irresponsible and dumb to not meet those dem

If even one person at Facebook was threatened with violence for not taking down the pages, I think that it would be irresponsible and dumb to not meet those demands given the track record of SOME parts of the Muslim religion. The fact is I would be offended if Facebook didn't do this and I was an employee of Facebook.

endtime 16y ago
FYI, positions like yours are exactly why these groups get created.
- invisible 16y ago
  I am not saying that they are not important groups so you must be confused. I think they're important and speak a ton about what should be allowed - but Facebook isn't distributed, there are a group of people at Facebook that could be harmed physically and do not want to take such a risk. That may be an excellent point for why Facebook (and similar services) need to be distributed to protect the Internet's free speech prerogative. It may be important to have free speech, but it also can be stupid to risk harm to innocent programmers, businessmen, and the like. Maybe as a whole if they decide they want to promote such a thing - fine, but they are not going against free speech if they don't want to take the risk of promoting that topic.
  - endtime 16y ago
    The reason my Facebook picture is a cartoon stick figure of Mohammed today is precisely because I refuse to be cowed by threats from barbarians. Hiding behind anonymous distributed networks isn't much better than hiding behind censorship. If free speech is only possible in anonymity, then you don't really have free speech.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - invisible 16y ago
      I think you missed the point again. Sure - you choose to be responsible for your words. That does not mean the staff at Facebook need to be responsible as well. They are not the ones making the posts - anonymous or not! That is why I'm saying: If you are on a distributed system where no select group of individuals are responsible for the system, you will have more free speech.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Yes. It's best to give in to bullies. To subjugate our freedoms and compromise our principles to whomever has the sharpest knife to our throat. Yes, surely that is the way to make all our lives better. How could it possibly go wrong?
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Um, who exactly has a knife to your throat? Are you really so paranoid as to believe that your life is in danger?

endtime 16y ago

FYI, positions like yours are exactly why these groups get created.

invisible 16y ago
I am not saying that they are not important groups so you must be confused. I think they're important and speak a ton about what should be allowed - but Facebook isn't distributed, there are a group of people at Facebook that could be harmed physically and do not want to take such a risk. That may be an excellent point for why Facebook (and similar services) need to be distributed to protect the Internet's free speech prerogative. It may be important to have free speech, but it also can be stupid to risk harm to innocent programmers, businessmen, and the like. Maybe as a whole if they decide they want to promote such a thing - fine, but they are not going against free speech if they don't want to take the risk of promoting that topic.
- endtime 16y ago
  The reason my Facebook picture is a cartoon stick figure of Mohammed today is precisely because I refuse to be cowed by threats from barbarians. Hiding behind anonymous distributed networks isn't much better than hiding behind censorship. If free speech is only possible in anonymity, then you don't really have free speech.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - invisible 16y ago
    I think you missed the point again. Sure - you choose to be responsible for your words. That does not mean the staff at Facebook need to be responsible as well. They are not the ones making the posts - anonymous or not! That is why I'm saying: If you are on a distributed system where no select group of individuals are responsible for the system, you will have more free speech.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Yes. It's best to give in to bullies. To subjugate our freedoms and compromise our principles to whomever has the sharpest knife to our throat. Yes, surely that is the way to make all our lives better. How could it possibly go wrong?

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Um, who exactly has a knife to your throat? Are you really so paranoid as to believe that your life is in danger?