4 ms·

Sounds like they were engaging in straight-up slander—-even worse than if they had “cancelled” their victims, whatever that actually means.

• smt88 6y ago
  Slander is a reason to have slander suits, not a ban on a class of people imposed on a social network. I'm all for the free market (i.e. users) pressuring social networks to ban certain groups, like pedophiles or neo-Nazis. I'm deeply against a government telling a social network that any broad class of people should be banned, especially if they're mainstream enough that their leader is in office.
  • foepys 6y ago
    > I'm deeply against a government telling a social network that any broad class of people should be banned, especially if they're mainstream enough that their leader is in office. Even if those people are calling for a coup d'etat to change the democracy into a dictatorship and place this leader at the top?
    • smt88 6y ago
      > Even if those people are calling for a coup d'etat to change the democracy into a dictatorship and place this leader at the top? If they are calling for violence, I support govt censorship only of the violent speech and only if each case is considered individually.
  • pjc50 6y ago
    This is the outcome of the slander lawsuits: Facebook has been ordered to stop publishing slander.
    • smt88 6y ago
      I meant individual slander suits.