3 ms·

What I don't understand about all of this because I'm simply not in the know, so hopefully somebody can explain it in more detail, is this: Facebook regularly m

What I don't understand about all of this because I'm simply not in the know, so hopefully somebody can explain it in more detail, is this: Facebook regularly monitors posts for inappropriate content such as this. This seems more of an active "we want to leave this up" than a "we want to take this down" type of post, correct? I have trouble forming an opinion on whether or not I agree with Facebook or with Twitter on the whole matter because I'm not well-versed with their previous T&C, and what would typically happen for a tweet like this from someone who isn't POTUS. If someone could provide some resources, that would be great and useful to myself and hopefully others who want to get a fuller understanding of this issue.

giobox 6y ago
I'm not even sure the T&C even matters _that_ much. Facebook is a private platform, they can likely take anything down they like. This is a "moral" judgement call really, about the content of the post. Twitter/Jack decided one way, FB/Mark the other (was cross posted on both platforms).
jimmaswell 6y ago
From Zuckerberg: "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/facebook-staff-angry--zuckerberg.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/facebook-staff-angry--zucker... It's a perfectly reasonable to keep up things that are a matter of public record like this. I find people walking out over their employer not censoring enough childish and indicative of a generation that hasn't learned the dangers of censorship, caring more about moral grandstanding than freedom of the press or information otherwise being accessible. It comes off as especially pretentious doing it in the middle of all the protests over the very serious and real issues with the police, contrasted with Facebook employees with cushy jobs being mad their boss didn't do enough to curate the platform to their liking.
- saos 6y ago
  > "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." That’s pretty fair. But, will that set a precedence of violent posts?
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    From the president? Maybe, but I'd still think the value of the public record is more important here. From regular users it would still be disallowed. Instead of this murky de-facto system of different rules for public officials and regular users, maybe we need to have it codified. Accounts owned by public officials have their activity publicly recorded (with edit/deletion attempt history, etc) and with something in the UI indicating it's such a type of account, and a link to a disclaimer visible near all the posts explaining that the post might have TOS violations and doesn't necessarily serve as an example of acceptable behavior for other users. Such protection would go away when their term is over and they'd be able to be banned for past posts (but everything remaining visible), maybe reopened if they're in a position again later on.
    - carterklein13 6y ago
      I think this is a sensible and easily-enforceable solution. Facebook and Twitter are necessities today and oftentimes (for better or for much, much worse) are where history is being written. I think using these platforms as a highly important person geopolitically should dictate different rules than me, who has like 400 friends from the decade or so I've been on the platform, 90% of whom I haven't spoken to in years.
      - e2021 6y ago
        I wish twitter hadn't opened this whole can of worms. I thought their previous policy of basically saying 'yes, different rules do apply to the president, so we're just not going to delete his posts' was pretty good.

giobox 6y ago

I'm not even sure the T&C even matters _that_ much. Facebook is a private platform, they can likely take anything down they like. This is a "moral" judgement call really, about the content of the post. Twitter/Jack decided one way, FB/Mark the other (was cross posted on both platforms).

jimmaswell 6y ago

From Zuckerberg: "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/facebook-staff-angry--zuckerberg.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/01/facebook-staff-angry--zucker... It's a perfectly reasonable to keep up things that are a matter of public record like this. I find people walking out over their employer not censoring enough childish and indicative of a generation that hasn't learned the dangers of censorship, caring more about moral grandstanding than freedom of the press or information otherwise being accessible. It comes off as especially pretentious doing it in the middle of all the protests over the very serious and real issues with the police, contrasted with Facebook employees with cushy jobs being mad their boss didn't do enough to curate the platform to their liking.

saos 6y ago
> "I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open." That’s pretty fair. But, will that set a precedence of violent posts?
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  From the president? Maybe, but I'd still think the value of the public record is more important here. From regular users it would still be disallowed. Instead of this murky de-facto system of different rules for public officials and regular users, maybe we need to have it codified. Accounts owned by public officials have their activity publicly recorded (with edit/deletion attempt history, etc) and with something in the UI indicating it's such a type of account, and a link to a disclaimer visible near all the posts explaining that the post might have TOS violations and doesn't necessarily serve as an example of acceptable behavior for other users. Such protection would go away when their term is over and they'd be able to be banned for past posts (but everything remaining visible), maybe reopened if they're in a position again later on.
  - carterklein13 6y ago
    I think this is a sensible and easily-enforceable solution. Facebook and Twitter are necessities today and oftentimes (for better or for much, much worse) are where history is being written. I think using these platforms as a highly important person geopolitically should dictate different rules than me, who has like 400 friends from the decade or so I've been on the platform, 90% of whom I haven't spoken to in years.
    - e2021 6y ago
      I wish twitter hadn't opened this whole can of worms. I thought their previous policy of basically saying 'yes, different rules do apply to the president, so we're just not going to delete his posts' was pretty good.