4 ms·
You 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
by philwelch 6y ago
You 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.