5 ms·

Facebook Decisions Were 'Setbacks for Civil Rights,' Audit Finds

13 points by mitchbob 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago
These are not civil rights groups in my opinion and I think Facebook did better than comparable sites. The internet theoretically connects everyone on the planet. If you state to like coffee, you will have someone hating you for that. The net was a better place and more civil, when people were able to classify it as such. > including increasing hiring of in-house civil rights experts over the past two years Again, they are no civil rights groups. They are self-interested in gaining a foothold and suppress certain opinions to justify their job. Spreading misinformation is no offense. You are free to disbelieve content on the net. These "civil rights" activists want their truth to be told, nothing else. Facebook should suspend talks. Equality and freedom collide at some point. There is no objective truth were corners should be cut.
37e7dyey 6y ago
Am I insane or does the NYT bend over backwards to avoid identifying what civil rights group performed the audit? Is this what journalism is now?
- david38 6y ago
  NYT has always been like this. Once their bias was pointed out to me, I saw it constantly.
jmisavage 6y ago
The Engadget version of the article has more info. "The report, led by civil rights leader Laura W. Murphy and the civil rights law firm Relman Colfax, had a number of recommendations." https://www.engadget.com/facebook-audit-civil-rights-hate-speech-134739868.html https://www.engadget.com/facebook-audit-civil-rights-hate-sp...
throwawaysea 6y ago
There is also a related NYT Opinion article at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opinion/facebook-civil-rights-audit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opinion/facebook-civil-ri..., titled "Does Zuckerberg Understand How the Right to Free Speech Works?" As with other such article, it is calling for Facebook to devalue the principle of Free Speech, which is very disappointing. Personally, I think a platform as large as Facebook must only use a very light touch, and avoiding violating principles of Free Speech beyond what the law minimally requires.

13 points by mitchbob 6y ago

These are not civil rights groups in my opinion and I think Facebook did better than comparable sites. The internet theoretically connects everyone on the planet. If you state to like coffee, you will have someone hating you for that. The net was a better place and more civil, when people were able to classify it as such. > including increasing hiring of in-house civil rights experts over the past two years Again, they are no civil rights groups. They are self-interested in gaining a foothold and suppress certain opinions to justify their job. Spreading misinformation is no offense. You are free to disbelieve content on the net. These "civil rights" activists want their truth to be told, nothing else. Facebook should suspend talks. Equality and freedom collide at some point. There is no objective truth were corners should be cut.

37e7dyey 6y ago

Am I insane or does the NYT bend over backwards to avoid identifying what civil rights group performed the audit? Is this what journalism is now?

david38 6y ago
NYT has always been like this. Once their bias was pointed out to me, I saw it constantly.

jmisavage 6y ago

The Engadget version of the article has more info. "The report, led by civil rights leader Laura W. Murphy and the civil rights law firm Relman Colfax, had a number of recommendations." https://www.engadget.com/facebook-audit-civil-rights-hate-speech-134739868.html https://www.engadget.com/facebook-audit-civil-rights-hate-sp...

throwawaysea 6y ago

There is also a related NYT Opinion article at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opinion/facebook-civil-rights-audit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/opinion/facebook-civil-ri..., titled "Does Zuckerberg Understand How the Right to Free Speech Works?" As with other such article, it is calling for Facebook to devalue the principle of Free Speech, which is very disappointing. Personally, I think a platform as large as Facebook must only use a very light touch, and avoiding violating principles of Free Speech beyond what the law minimally requires.