3 ms·

I don't agree with what Trump says. Nor do I condone violence... Would you be ok with WeChat censoring "anti-China slogans" coming from HK? Think about it. Dee

I don't agree with what Trump says. Nor do I condone violence... Would you be ok with WeChat censoring "anti-China slogans" coming from HK? Think about it. Deeply. People in China think of HK citizens as against their country and what they stand for. And, just because we fall into one side of the barricade, we think that WeChat censoring stuff is NOT OK. Are we asking Facebook to do the same as WeChat? Here is another hypothetical situation. Imagine if all tech companies were pro-republican and there was no voice for democrats on social media. Just saying to make a point. Now reverse the situation, aren't Republicans in this nation feeling threatened by excessive control of information governed by a handful few? Think deeply and try putting yourself in their shoes. When you fall into the abyss, the abyss falls into you. This is a dangerous situation to be taking sides and also a dangerous situation to stay neutral as our nation falls apart.

paulgb 6y ago
The Facebook TOC has rules against violence. Zuckerberg has previously said that inciting violence is where he would draw the line for a political figure. Trump's post incited violence -- if you don't believe me, look at the way police officers felt empowered to treat protesters and reporters over the weekend. Now that Trump has crossed that line, Facebook has contorted it. In the process, Zuckerberg and Trump talked on the phone. To those of us who oppose this, it's because the neutrality argument has gone out the window. Would anti-China protesters in HK be able to get away with breaking the TOS? Can they call Zuckerberg on the phone?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I think breaking the TOC should be applied universally across the board. But you can't write the TOC that picks sides (I don't think violent statements are acceptable by either side). My fear is that there are people on Twitter asking to ban President Trump's account. Slowly, eroding constitutional rights (I know Twitter is a private platform, but come on, it is really a public place of discourse). Right now its violence, then it's hate, then it's policy and the environment, then it's anything against democrats. We become blind to what's acceptable and what's not. This is a slippery slope. Be careful, tread slowly.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    If we're being honest, and I sure hope we are, several accounts have been banned for more minor infractions. Trump has shown his narcissism time and again; this isn't opinion. The mere fact that he refused to use the official White House social media handles and insisted on using his own personal ones, allows him to carry his influence/reach well beyond his term as president. That is not an accident. He's flouted federal rules and guidelines and now we're debating whether private companies are allowed to operate as they always have?
alpha_squared 6y ago
Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy. The argument isn't being made to remove all posts from all members of a certain political party or ideological background. It's not even to remove all posts by a single person. It's to address and, hopefully prevent, posts that incite violence and unrest. Literally every platform, including HN, has guidelines around what should and should not be allowed when users contribute. Having those rules defined is great, but enforcement is what makes sure the rules are followed. For a long time, and perhaps still, Twitter was selectively enforcing those rules to users. Facebook seems to be doing the same. Twitter finally applied those rules, rather loosely, to Trump via a couple of minor footnotes to his posts (not censoring at all). Then Twitter put a soft censor, meaning it was still viewable though not through normal user behavior, on a post that very clearly incited violence. I think the fact that these platforms have gone so long without enforcing their policies to this particular person has given the impression that there are no policies and no enforcement and, by extension, that they're open platforms accepting all speech. They aren't, never were, and as private entities are not beholden to be.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I agree with your assessment of the situation. I also agree with getting rid of posts that incite violence. I am just concerned about whether it grows over time into eroding away the ability to speak on the internet. This is just one thing. We don't even have any visibility in the true special sauce - the algorithms that determine what to show to people. Do you see the problem with this or you think that people who are responsible for these algos are good samaritans and they don't need any public oversight?
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    > I am just concerned about whether it grows over time into eroding away the ability to speak on the internet. By this reasoning, we'd be crippled to make any decision for fear of what that may lead to. This leads back into the slippery slope fallacy. When something larger is at hand, then we can re-visit, but this is not large enough to merit that amount of mental and emotional effort to justify and discuss. Granted, that's entirely subjective, but I fail to see this as a very large issue. It's only making the news because these social media companies have gone so long without enforcing these policies. > This is just one thing. We don't even have any visibility in the true special sauce - the algorithms that determine what to show to people. Do you see the problem with this or you think that people who are responsible for these algos are good samaritans and they don't need any public oversight? This is extremely problematic and I agree. This isn't really the topic of this discussion, but it's definitely a problem. Social media companies are already censoring and filtering posts via their algorithms. That wouldn't be the case if feeds were purely based on a time-series (as they used to be).

paulgb 6y ago

The Facebook TOC has rules against violence. Zuckerberg has previously said that inciting violence is where he would draw the line for a political figure. Trump's post incited violence -- if you don't believe me, look at the way police officers felt empowered to treat protesters and reporters over the weekend. Now that Trump has crossed that line, Facebook has contorted it. In the process, Zuckerberg and Trump talked on the phone. To those of us who oppose this, it's because the neutrality argument has gone out the window. Would anti-China protesters in HK be able to get away with breaking the TOS? Can they call Zuckerberg on the phone?

systemvoltage 6y ago
I think breaking the TOC should be applied universally across the board. But you can't write the TOC that picks sides (I don't think violent statements are acceptable by either side). My fear is that there are people on Twitter asking to ban President Trump's account. Slowly, eroding constitutional rights (I know Twitter is a private platform, but come on, it is really a public place of discourse). Right now its violence, then it's hate, then it's policy and the environment, then it's anything against democrats. We become blind to what's acceptable and what's not. This is a slippery slope. Be careful, tread slowly.
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  If we're being honest, and I sure hope we are, several accounts have been banned for more minor infractions. Trump has shown his narcissism time and again; this isn't opinion. The mere fact that he refused to use the official White House social media handles and insisted on using his own personal ones, allows him to carry his influence/reach well beyond his term as president. That is not an accident. He's flouted federal rules and guidelines and now we're debating whether private companies are allowed to operate as they always have?

alpha_squared 6y ago

Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy. The argument isn't being made to remove all posts from all members of a certain political party or ideological background. It's not even to remove all posts by a single person. It's to address and, hopefully prevent, posts that incite violence and unrest. Literally every platform, including HN, has guidelines around what should and should not be allowed when users contribute. Having those rules defined is great, but enforcement is what makes sure the rules are followed. For a long time, and perhaps still, Twitter was selectively enforcing those rules to users. Facebook seems to be doing the same. Twitter finally applied those rules, rather loosely, to Trump via a couple of minor footnotes to his posts (not censoring at all). Then Twitter put a soft censor, meaning it was still viewable though not through normal user behavior, on a post that very clearly incited violence. I think the fact that these platforms have gone so long without enforcing their policies to this particular person has given the impression that there are no policies and no enforcement and, by extension, that they're open platforms accepting all speech. They aren't, never were, and as private entities are not beholden to be.

systemvoltage 6y ago
I agree with your assessment of the situation. I also agree with getting rid of posts that incite violence. I am just concerned about whether it grows over time into eroding away the ability to speak on the internet. This is just one thing. We don't even have any visibility in the true special sauce - the algorithms that determine what to show to people. Do you see the problem with this or you think that people who are responsible for these algos are good samaritans and they don't need any public oversight?
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  > I am just concerned about whether it grows over time into eroding away the ability to speak on the internet. By this reasoning, we'd be crippled to make any decision for fear of what that may lead to. This leads back into the slippery slope fallacy. When something larger is at hand, then we can re-visit, but this is not large enough to merit that amount of mental and emotional effort to justify and discuss. Granted, that's entirely subjective, but I fail to see this as a very large issue. It's only making the news because these social media companies have gone so long without enforcing these policies. > This is just one thing. We don't even have any visibility in the true special sauce - the algorithms that determine what to show to people. Do you see the problem with this or you think that people who are responsible for these algos are good samaritans and they don't need any public oversight? This is extremely problematic and I agree. This isn't really the topic of this discussion, but it's definitely a problem. Social media companies are already censoring and filtering posts via their algorithms. That wouldn't be the case if feeds were purely based on a time-series (as they used to be).