3 ms·
>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifi
by trhway 6y ago
>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials.
It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifically and explicitly excluded public officials from limitations on hate, violence inciting and other otherwise prohibited on the platform speech,and marked that speech accordingly.
Or let an official to explicitly checkbox such exception in his/her profile or may be at individual post level, a la carte style with separate checkboxes for hate speech, racism, etc., and mark such his/her post as made under that exception - "This post is published under the hate speech, [comma separated iterator over the checked checkboxes' values] exception requested by this public official"
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoWould it help? I would expect that to just make things worse, as the right to freer speech on Facebook becomes an explicit asset with unequal allocation. An informal policy seems much less dangerous.
- trhway 6y agoWell, that unequal allocation has been working fine with ads - one can say much more as long as it is clearly marked as political or commercial ad.
- briffle 6y agoRight, so the people that are registered with the US political Party ANP (American Nazi Party) Or many other parties you have never heard of could then check the box, and be free to say whatever they want. Or is Facebook going to police it only for a few popular political parties in the US, and not censor which political parties get speech?
- trhway 6y agoI meant public officials. As there is at least some public interest in giving them platform, and there is at least some minimal check/scrutiny for them - their voters.
- fsociety 6y agoRead section 2 of their Community Standards about Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. Then read the definition of a terrorist. They really do have exceptions for this.