3 ms·

I am not greatly concerned with Facebook's privacy policy. People voluntarily give up their personal information in order to use this free service. I am more c

I am not greatly concerned with Facebook's privacy policy. People voluntarily give up their personal information in order to use this free service. I am more concerned about his identification of "fake news" and "hate speech" as issues without any clarification. These are both subjective descriptions with the potential for damaging abuse, which we are already seeing with the banning of Diamonds and Silk from Facebook. In my opinion, Facebook, Google, and other social media platforms should be required to be content neutral and its users given first amendment protection (with its concomitant limits). This would require federal legislation.

tripplethrendo 9y ago
I get a chill down my spine any time someone uses the phrase "hate speech". Who gets to decide what qualifies? The first amendment must be protected at all costs.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  There's no good stopping point. Britain recently convicted a comedian for putting up a youtube video where he trained a dog to raise his paw (like a Nazi salute) when he said "gas the Jews". Poor taste? Yes. Crime? Shouldn't be one.
- 80386 9y ago
  Whoever's exploiting the network effects decides what qualifies, and the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. It's heartening that OStatus (GNU Social, Mastodon, Pleroma, etc.) are getting some uptake, but existing federated networks are even more poorly equipped to compete with Facebook than with Twitter and Tumblr. The nice thing about Facebook is its privacy settings -- I can, say, post about going to Pride and make sure no one in my family sees it. The problem is, Facebook could set up its rules so that campaign messaging for candidates they dislike just happens to violate them, and campaign messaging for candidates they like just happens not to. There's a lot of potential for abuse of power here. It seems like a lot of people aren't worried about that, because they figure the targets of the current uses of this power really need to be suppressed. But there's no reason this power can't be directed elsewhere. I bet there are people who thought it was OK to fire us for being gay who are now pretty mad that people can be fired for donating to Prop 8.

tripplethrendo 9y ago

I get a chill down my spine any time someone uses the phrase "hate speech". Who gets to decide what qualifies? The first amendment must be protected at all costs.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
There's no good stopping point. Britain recently convicted a comedian for putting up a youtube video where he trained a dog to raise his paw (like a Nazi salute) when he said "gas the Jews". Poor taste? Yes. Crime? Shouldn't be one.
80386 9y ago
Whoever's exploiting the network effects decides what qualifies, and the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. It's heartening that OStatus (GNU Social, Mastodon, Pleroma, etc.) are getting some uptake, but existing federated networks are even more poorly equipped to compete with Facebook than with Twitter and Tumblr. The nice thing about Facebook is its privacy settings -- I can, say, post about going to Pride and make sure no one in my family sees it. The problem is, Facebook could set up its rules so that campaign messaging for candidates they dislike just happens to violate them, and campaign messaging for candidates they like just happens not to. There's a lot of potential for abuse of power here. It seems like a lot of people aren't worried about that, because they figure the targets of the current uses of this power really need to be suppressed. But there's no reason this power can't be directed elsewhere. I bet there are people who thought it was OK to fire us for being gay who are now pretty mad that people can be fired for donating to Prop 8.