3 ms·
While there's certainly reasonable concerns around the risk of these people accessing Facebook, by the admission of the company itself it's a new type of influe
by aaron-lebo 10y ago
While there's certainly reasonable concerns around the risk of these people accessing Facebook, by the admission of the company itself it's a new type of influential global community. By banning sex offenders outright they're being othered in a way which is a significant impediment to being reintegrated into society.
What do you mean? Facebook's business speak about being a new global community means what? People aren't being "othered" because they can't have Facebook accounts. The ability to have a Facebook does not have anything to do with getting back into society - lots of people do it (abstain from Facebook) voluntarily. On the other hand, the access a predator would have to children is a very real danger and is presumably dangerous to someone who has problems with that.
That aside, at least in the US, you can end up a sex offender for life for things as innocuous as stopping on the side of a long stretch of highway to empty your bladder. There's also no unified worldwide or national database of sex offenders to check against, nor are their uniform standards between states and nations on what qualifies. This means it's both difficult for Facebook to enforce this rule at all and practically impossible to do so in a way which would only apply to people convicted of offenses we can agree qualify (molestation, rape, sexual assault).
Do you have any stats for this? This gets thrown up from time to time, but how many people are sex offenders cause they took a piss on the side of the highway?
This means it's both difficult for Facebook to enforce this rule at all and practically impossible to do so in a way which would only apply to people convicted of offenses we can agree qualify (molestation, rape, sexual assault).
This information is readily available. Presumably Facebook can run the same check the BBC did. If they've been unfairly convicted that's not Facebook's issue, it is the courts, but Facebook does a have a very simple qualifier in most places.
Sorry if I come off as a little aggressive...it is just that in many of these cases there are real victims here and it isn't the sex offenders, it is the innocent children (or other) whose lives they have destroyed. There are cases were people are accused unfairly, but most cases are not that way (it is a major charge that is taken seriously). Sometimes people do things which are destructive to others, and there's only so much empathy when rights are restricted as a result.
Just don't personally feel that sorry for a sex offender who can't get on Facebook. If they've been wrongly convicted, they've got bigger problems, if not, then it's a privilege not a right.
- megous 10y agoHow about policing actual current behavior and not some historical act that the person was already punished for. You don't need to care for former sex offenders. But you might care for reducing recidivism. Driving people off the biggest surveillance platform in the world may actually hinder the ability to catch them doing it again.
- ue_ 10y ago>Just don't personally feel that sorry for a sex offender who can't get on Facebook. How do you feel about other criminals who have been convicted of a crime, then let out? Sure, Facebook isn't really the issue here, but why are they facing impediment to being included in society? Are murderers OK to do it? How about people who steal things? Facebook's policy is clear; the question is whether it's a just policy, especially with their aim of building a 'global community' and the almost necessity of having a social life that has some online component nowadays in order to lead a happy life. Facebook on its own is no big issue, but if other providers follow suit, I can't help but think it is unjust or at lesat unfair.
- aaron-lebo 10y agoI think it's very debatable whether people having online lives is beneficial to them or society. People lived for tens of thousands of years without the Internet and were happy doing so. I don't see why it is unfair that someone who has taken someone's innocence (and perhaps their ability to have a happy life) has certain privileges taken away.
- ue_ 10y ago>someone who has taken someone's innocence (and perhaps their ability to have a happy life) has certain privileges taken away. They should have already been served the 'punishment' or retribution within prison, and hopefully have been reformed. Why do you still want to punish them? Do you not think the punishment is adequate? One of the aims of the prison system is rehabilitation into society. You're actively trying to stop that out of revenge?