3 ms·
This is why I'm so cynical about the Zuckerberg's stated stance on “free expression”. You can't go around positioning yourself as if you're the last bastion of
by paulgb 6y ago
This is why I'm so cynical about the Zuckerberg's stated stance on “free expression”. You can't go around positioning yourself as if you're the last bastion of free speech online[1] and then turn around and block large swathes of indie content because they are hosted on a particular domain.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerberg-standing-voice-free-expression/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/zuckerb...
- luckylion 6y agoThose are different things though. You can most likely write whatever you want to link to on Facebook, so they're not really censoring speech. They censor some off-platform links.
- paulgb 6y agoI could see an argument for this if: 1. They limited themselves to blocking content that was decidedly harmful (phishing sites, malware, etc.), AND 2. They were transparent about what links they blocked and why. It seems that neither was the case here.
- luckylion 6y agoThe limitation might be there, but bans are usually not surgical. If you have a thousand subdomains of some domain hosting spam, you'll likely block the domain if it's not a major player like wordpress.com. Transparency would be nice indeed. The argument I keep hearing against it is that they believe it would help the spammers.