4 ms·

> I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will

by bzb3 6y ago

> I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled Out in clear policies. Very sensible position: leave it up unless there is imminent, serious risk.

alpacaillama 6y ago
I thought the same, but what it (and this has happened before) one of D.T’s followers sees this and shoots people? Afaik the post said something to the effect of “Rioter’s should be shot” not by the police or a government force. But just a general statement. Also i am saddened how the goal posts have moved. Before this it was that people who spew vitriol should be deplatformed but now we are at how this counts as government action? Also if I was hypothetically a dictator about to do an ethnic cleansing, and post the same thing, would it still be ok? Tbh this isn’t even a hypothetical since Facebook was used in a genocide in Myanmar and did nothing but agreed they fucked up later to 0 accountability.
- lsiebert 6y ago
  reminds me of this honestly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
  - tareqak 6y ago
    It also reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)#Stocha... .
- contrast 6y ago
  The post was by the most senior individual in government. When the commander in chief says something should happen, then obviously - completely and utterly obviously - that specifically encourages and endorses such action by the police and military. It’s not just a general statement.
methodsignature 6y ago
Except FB has a policy of sensoring based on simple fact checking (see an article also on the HN front page right now). Not sure how that article and this position line up.
monkeydreams 6y ago
> leave it up unless there is imminent, serious risk A new mother has put up a picture of her breastfeeding her baby! There is an imminent, serious risk that someone, somewhere might see a nipple! Quick! To the Zuckmobile!
contrast 6y ago
The post in question promotes a specific, imminent, and serious risk. The situation in question already has one unwarranted killing, and the phrase in question refers to a historical record of excessively violent suppression, so we’re well beyond the hypothetical. That risk is definitely present. This leaves “spelled out in clear policies”. This essentially means that no matter how clear the intent or deadly the consequences of a post, Facebook can argue “it wasn’t a policy statement” and therefore is OK. That’s not so much a sensible position as a carefully constructed excuse to never have responsibility under any circumstances.

by bzb3 6y ago

alpacaillama 6y ago

I thought the same, but what it (and this has happened before) one of D.T’s followers sees this and shoots people? Afaik the post said something to the effect of “Rioter’s should be shot” not by the police or a government force. But just a general statement. Also i am saddened how the goal posts have moved. Before this it was that people who spew vitriol should be deplatformed but now we are at how this counts as government action? Also if I was hypothetically a dictator about to do an ethnic cleansing, and post the same thing, would it still be ok? Tbh this isn’t even a hypothetical since Facebook was used in a genocide in Myanmar and did nothing but agreed they fucked up later to 0 accountability.

lsiebert 6y ago
reminds me of this honestly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
- tareqak 6y ago
  It also reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)#Stocha... .
contrast 6y ago
The post was by the most senior individual in government. When the commander in chief says something should happen, then obviously - completely and utterly obviously - that specifically encourages and endorses such action by the police and military. It’s not just a general statement.

methodsignature 6y ago

Except FB has a policy of sensoring based on simple fact checking (see an article also on the HN front page right now). Not sure how that article and this position line up.

monkeydreams 6y ago

> leave it up unless there is imminent, serious risk A new mother has put up a picture of her breastfeeding her baby! There is an imminent, serious risk that someone, somewhere might see a nipple! Quick! To the Zuckmobile!

contrast 6y ago

The post in question promotes a specific, imminent, and serious risk. The situation in question already has one unwarranted killing, and the phrase in question refers to a historical record of excessively violent suppression, so we’re well beyond the hypothetical. That risk is definitely present. This leaves “spelled out in clear policies”. This essentially means that no matter how clear the intent or deadly the consequences of a post, Facebook can argue “it wasn’t a policy statement” and therefore is OK. That’s not so much a sensible position as a carefully constructed excuse to never have responsibility under any circumstances.