6 ms·
Meh I can kind of understand why the site is deemed questionable. It's paid for by a Republican political consulting firm. It may not be orchestrated by the Tru
by midasz 6y ago
Meh I can kind of understand why the site is deemed questionable. It's paid for by a Republican political consulting firm. It may not be orchestrated by the Trump campaign but they definitely condone it. According to Snopes some parts of it can also be deemed as misinformation (like the picture framed as Biden groping Stephanie Carter).
So to me it's in the grey area bordering on black, but I'm also not a fan of this type of campaigning (playing on the man).The fact that they try to present it as an actual Biden website is also questionable.
- kart23 6y agoSo? Are we really at the point where we can defend censorship of a website that doesn't have any illegal content, no links to illegal content, and the purpose of which is not to do anything illegal, but whose only purpose make ones political opinions known. On Facebook messenger, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world. This is honestly disgusting, and I think they are going to face backlash for it.
- yeetman21 6y agothey're a private company and can do whatever they want
- andreilys 6y agoSure, and we as citizens can hold these private companies accountable by voicing our concerns to our government representatives who can enact legislation to prevent companies from doing whatever they want.
- yeetman21 6y agoand they as a billion dollar company can voice their concerns to lobbyist who will then convince the government to do nothing
- typenil 6y agoIt's always odd to me when someone is talking about a public backlash and this is the response. Did they say anything about legality? Facebook is free to do what it wants and the public is free to criticize it. Legality isn't a magic shield against criticism.
- yeetman21 6y ago>defend censorship of a website that doesn't have any illegal content yes
- SkyBelow 6y agoExcept they generally can't. See limits on who they can hire and what speech they can engage in. So we already limit the powers of companies to protect the rights of people even though we could have just told the people work/shop/go somewhere else. Why doesn't that logic also extend to speech?
- midasz 6y agoSo you're fine with the fact that they are purposefully spreading misinformation? Then just say that you're OK with that (if it suits your agenda, of course) instead of downvoting.
- hwillis 6y ago> According to Snopes some parts of it can also be deemed as misinformation (like the picture framed as Biden groping Stephanie Carter). It has the full, unedited video segment, and you can't even send that site in a direct message to a facebook friend. You're making a motte and bailey to try to defend one of the largest companies on earth directly interfering in what I can say to a single other person. Maintaining a community is one thing. This is quite another.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 101404 6y agoSo if TMobile or Verizon would drop your call, because you mentioned some political candidate's name, that would be completely okay with you?
- midasz 6y agoAre you comparing facebook to a utility company? But honestly, misinformation in this day and age is such a huge problem. If a source is willfully spreading misinformation (that can be fact checked) then yeah, why should they be allowed to do that? They have absolutely no value, except for the people trying to deceive in order to further their agendas.