3 ms·
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 remov
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoThe 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.