3 ms·
The truth is that they do censor content so words have no meaning.
by nikivi 6y ago
The truth is that they do censor content so words have no meaning.
- leesec 6y agoThey censor content that would lead to immediate harm. How would you prove a Trump post can lead to immediate harm? Is CNN immoral for reporting what he says? Is my Dad immoral for telling me what he says, becuz it might lead to harm? Don't shoot the messenger.
- elygre 6y agoImmediate harm. Like this iconic picture. Or breastfeeding. https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/norway-right-pissed-facebook-photo-censorship/amp https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/norway-rig...
- leesec 6y agoThis is exactly my point, clearly this is an instance of the algorithm innacurately censoring content. A bunch of things get swept up when you have to provide general guidelines for what to censor. And so you want them to censor more? And get even more wrong? Or do you think that Nudity should just be prohibited and Facebook should be 4chan? Or maybe Facebook should hire 20 million people to decide picture by picture which ones are OK? For the scale that Facebook is at, they do an amazing job of keeping the peace. https://youtu.be/ATmQj787Jcc https://youtu.be/ATmQj787Jcc Please watch this talk and realize Facebook is thinking really hard about what to allow, and how there are tradeoffs for any approach.
- franckl 6y agoThey censor more than just content that would lead to immediate harm : https://petapixel.com/2020/05/30/facebook-suspends-top-photo-colorist-for-dangerous-wwii-images/ https://petapixel.com/2020/05/30/facebook-suspends-top-photo...
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoAgreed. I think the larger issue is the hypocrisy. I think it’s totally possible Facebook can have been censoring things that don’t break their TOS for years, individuality at FB can be punished in favor of groupthink so attacking them for company actions isn’t right, I also don’t need to like FB in any way. The world is grey.