4 ms·
Well, if the definition of free speech is 'it should be allowed on Facebook' then that's a horrible definition :) It does point toward a bigger issue, where Fa
by wildebaard 8y ago
Well, if the definition of free speech is 'it should be allowed on Facebook' then that's a horrible definition :)
It does point toward a bigger issue, where Facebook is used and trusted by so many users that they do not access alternative sources of information.
- yAnonymous 8y agoNo. The companies involved (Arvato/Bertelsmann) get to make their own rules. Facebook doesn't even have a say in this, although they're paying for it as required by the law. They were threatened with fines in the millions (up to 50 mil) if they didn't comply. The situation is absurd. Facebook is legally required to pay for censorship by companies with close ties to the government.
- wildebaard 8y agoIf I understand you correctly, this censorship only applies to Facebook. If that's correct, then I still do not agree with the statement 'there is no free speech' unless Facebook is your/the sole source of information. However, I do agree that it's problematic.
- undreren 8y agoSource?
- yAnonymous 8y agohttps://www.arvato.com/en/about/press/2018/facebook-and-arvato-continue-their-successful-collaboration.html https://www.arvato.com/en/about/press/2018/facebook-and-arva... Directly from the devil himself. Arvato belongs to Bertelsmann. Here's a German article about how close they are to the government. https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsmann-3572721.html?seite=all https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Lobbyismus-Koenig-Bertelsma...