2 ms·

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite-- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around their filters. Hence changing "muslims" to "migrants." Not much evidence is given for the claim, but it's there.

tomp 8y ago
Only after being pressured by the government. The problem is that the pressure needed to be applied in the first place. “Weak” people (i.e. those not backed by powerful organisations) have no recourse.
CapacitorSet 8y ago
They're imposing Facebook's moral indeed: racism is bad, but not if it's from a famous person that makes your social network relevant.
akerro 8y ago
>Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. Would be it more OK if it was about Venezuelan pro-government mafia?
Eochei5h 8y ago
Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  >If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?
  - Eochei5h 8y ago
    If you know how to solve the network effect that would be great. Otherwise we might just end up trading one master for another.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Plenty of things have been popular and then gone out of style. Perhaps the answer is to make the concept of social networks no longer cool; or even make them undesirable. I think it's pretty clear they are not, anyways. I use whatsapp, line, email and photo sharing services that allow me to easily share and communicate thoughts and media with exactly who I want. It's more personal, not addictive, creates better relationships, and helps me focus more on who I am rather than how others perceive me. And of course I don't have to use facebook and be a part of all its oft-criticized problems.
  - gt_ 8y ago
    If people would stop using money rather than complaining about it, perhaps banks wouldn’t be able to cause a financial crash to begin with, so don’t blame them! You need to recognize the level of organization you are proposing might be possible but is adamantly undermined by governments and businesses around the world, and nothing like it is found in the history books. Not even close, unless maybe you count Noah’s Ark. Your expression here is generally only expressed by sheltered Americans, and there must be a reason almost nobody in the rest of the world would accept a such a short conception. It might be useful for someone stuck in this view to realize that.
  - nhfoiwehf 8y ago
    If we don't complain about Facebook, how are the people still on it going to know all the reasons they should leave?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    To stop spam we can stop using email. For hundreds of millions of people Facebook is the messaging system. There's postal, telephone, email, FB messaging. It's also the most used. I think you need to come up with solutions that assume it, or an equivalent, will continue to be a principle and primary means of communication for billions of people.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place. Just the myriad of other articles complaining about FB implicitly promoting hate by taking no responsibility for what is posted.
StreamBright 8y ago
>> This article is about the opposite Well no, this article is about moral policing you do not agree with.
white-flame 8y ago
This still reinforces that they do act as "moral police" and are practicing selectively enforcement by mandate. That is not a reasonable communications policy for anything of any scale or importance. Facebook should not be tampering with and editorializing private communications or the public square, which they have become.

tomp 8y ago

Only after being pressured by the government. The problem is that the pressure needed to be applied in the first place. “Weak” people (i.e. those not backed by powerful organisations) have no recourse.

CapacitorSet 8y ago

They're imposing Facebook's moral indeed: racism is bad, but not if it's from a famous person that makes your social network relevant.

akerro 8y ago

>Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. Would be it more OK if it was about Venezuelan pro-government mafia?

Eochei5h 8y ago

Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.

18pfsmt 8y ago
>If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?
- Eochei5h 8y ago
  If you know how to solve the network effect that would be great. Otherwise we might just end up trading one master for another.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Plenty of things have been popular and then gone out of style. Perhaps the answer is to make the concept of social networks no longer cool; or even make them undesirable. I think it's pretty clear they are not, anyways. I use whatsapp, line, email and photo sharing services that allow me to easily share and communicate thoughts and media with exactly who I want. It's more personal, not addictive, creates better relationships, and helps me focus more on who I am rather than how others perceive me. And of course I don't have to use facebook and be a part of all its oft-criticized problems.
- gt_ 8y ago
  If people would stop using money rather than complaining about it, perhaps banks wouldn’t be able to cause a financial crash to begin with, so don’t blame them! You need to recognize the level of organization you are proposing might be possible but is adamantly undermined by governments and businesses around the world, and nothing like it is found in the history books. Not even close, unless maybe you count Noah’s Ark. Your expression here is generally only expressed by sheltered Americans, and there must be a reason almost nobody in the rest of the world would accept a such a short conception. It might be useful for someone stuck in this view to realize that.
- nhfoiwehf 8y ago
  If we don't complain about Facebook, how are the people still on it going to know all the reasons they should leave?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  To stop spam we can stop using email. For hundreds of millions of people Facebook is the messaging system. There's postal, telephone, email, FB messaging. It's also the most used. I think you need to come up with solutions that assume it, or an equivalent, will continue to be a principle and primary means of communication for billions of people.
kodablah 8y ago
> If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place. Just the myriad of other articles complaining about FB implicitly promoting hate by taking no responsibility for what is posted.

StreamBright 8y ago

>> This article is about the opposite Well no, this article is about moral policing you do not agree with.

white-flame 8y ago

This still reinforces that they do act as "moral police" and are practicing selectively enforcement by mandate. That is not a reasonable communications policy for anything of any scale or importance. Facebook should not be tampering with and editorializing private communications or the public square, which they have become.