4 ms·

"after the violence has already been triggered" no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.
- stale2002 8y ago
  What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
    - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
      The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.

stale2002 8y ago
What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
  - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
    The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.