4 ms·
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 Facebo
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.