8 ms·
If the mayor of a small town threatens on Facebook to murder people, should that be left alone, since, after all, violence is what government does?
by baddox 6y ago
If the mayor of a small town threatens on Facebook to murder people, should that be left alone, since, after all, violence is what government does?
- philwelch 6y agoYes, because the public has a right to know that their mayor is threatening to murder them.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoTaking the threat itself down from Facebook in no way violates the public’s “right to know”.
- vageli 6y ago> Taking the threat itself down from Facebook in no way violates the public’s “right to know”. How can we even do journalism if we are deleting the sources quoted?
- philwelch 6y agoThat’s the insidious side of censorship. If you censor the original source, you can claim that the original source said literally anything.
- baddox 6y agoHow can we do journalism about things people say to journalists that aren’t even recorded?
- philwelch 6y agoYou can, but if you actually start from those recordings and then delete them and claim that it's too dangerous to publish actual evidence that somebody said X when journalists keep claiming that they said X, that's a little suspicious.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThat doesn’t make sense in this scenario. The person making the posts that Facebook takes down isn’t trying to hide that they said those things — they want that message conveyed. Why would they deny it when asked? Also, it’s trivial to take screenshots or otherwise archive the page even if Facebook takes it down.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 6y agoFalse. In any scenario where a censor can claim Person A is saying X while also censoring Person A, anything Person A says that conflicts with the censors’ narrative will itself be censored.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoBut all narratives would be consistent. This is the scenario we're talking about: 1. Person A says X on Facebook. 2. Facebook removes Person A's post. 3. Journalist reports that Person A said X and that Facebook removed it. Why would Person A suddenly disclaim X? They want X to be heard, which is why they said it on Facebook in the first place. And again, there are ways to archive digital content even if its original source has been taken down.
- philwelch 6y ago> 3. Journalist reports that Person A said X and that Facebook removed it. Alternative: Journalist claims that Person A said Y and that Facebook removed it. Person A is unable to disclaim it because every time they repeat X it gets taken down and misreported as Y. The public are none the wiser.