3 ms·

What Zuck said was: > The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’r

What Zuck said was: > The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform. > There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate. The outraged respondents are correct that there is no debate with holocaust deniers or Sandy Hook deniers. Zuck agrees. But where there is debate is over what content should or should not be removed. Facebook can't be the authority entrusted with banning all uncertain, incorrect, or unkind speech from their platform, but they also can't be enablers of lynch mobs. There are many categories of speech between those extremes. The debate is on where you've drawn the line, and he is saying that weak conspiracy theories are not something Facebook wants to take responsibility for quashing.

JacobJans 8y ago
Actually, he was saying blatant lies are not going to be removed from Facebook. His reason, that you can't tell "intent" is rather bizarre, in my opinion. Instead of removing blatantly false posts, their plan is to exercise control over their news-feed distribution -- choosing how often these posts are being seen. The assumption is they'll do the right thing, and not distribute posts they know are blatantly false, such as denials of the Sandy Hook shooting. However, that is a choice they can make. They could, in fact, choose to optimize distribution of false information based on their political needs. Who's to say they haven't done this already?
gremlinsinc 8y ago
I agree, there's a difference between saying something 'happened or didn't' and being a complete idiot. Verses being a Fascist and saying 'I'm glad hitler did x to x group of people' or 'I know it didn't happen, but I wish it had, cause they deserve it.' .. There was a vice video where some crazy fascist redneck mom was saying she wished the Holocaust had happened and I'm like WTF who would say something so callous... and claim to follow Christ of all people. Hypocrisy knows no bounds here in America. He needs to walk a fine line, or alienate anyone over on the right side of the line. I'm a progressive, but still believe in democracy of the platform, and that it can be used for good. If they're on FB, maybe - eventually, some will stop being so hypocritical or dumb and wise up.

JacobJans 8y ago

Actually, he was saying blatant lies are not going to be removed from Facebook. His reason, that you can't tell "intent" is rather bizarre, in my opinion. Instead of removing blatantly false posts, their plan is to exercise control over their news-feed distribution -- choosing how often these posts are being seen. The assumption is they'll do the right thing, and not distribute posts they know are blatantly false, such as denials of the Sandy Hook shooting. However, that is a choice they can make. They could, in fact, choose to optimize distribution of false information based on their political needs. Who's to say they haven't done this already?

gremlinsinc 8y ago

I agree, there's a difference between saying something 'happened or didn't' and being a complete idiot. Verses being a Fascist and saying 'I'm glad hitler did x to x group of people' or 'I know it didn't happen, but I wish it had, cause they deserve it.' .. There was a vice video where some crazy fascist redneck mom was saying she wished the Holocaust had happened and I'm like WTF who would say something so callous... and claim to follow Christ of all people. Hypocrisy knows no bounds here in America. He needs to walk a fine line, or alienate anyone over on the right side of the line. I'm a progressive, but still believe in democracy of the platform, and that it can be used for good. If they're on FB, maybe - eventually, some will stop being so hypocritical or dumb and wise up.