2 ms·
The platform operator's, of course. Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his d
by CydeWeys 6y ago
The platform operator's, of course.
Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his death, should he have been allowed to post on Twitter encouraging the murders of more people? Would Twitter have been a "hateful extremist" for banning him and other Al Qaeda accounts? Or -- and here me out here -- would it have been acceptable to ban him? If so, then there is a line somewhere. And if there is a line, then why shouldn't modern day Neo-Nazis calling for the deaths of Jews be on the other side of the line as well?
- donatj 6y agoI mean death threats are clearly the line. That’s not the issue at hand though. Death threats are already banned from facebook unless their against celebrities / politicians - which to me is a weird distinction to make.
- CydeWeys 6y agoIt seems to me that the normalization of Neo-Nazi Holocaust denialist content will directly lead to more deaths in the near future, so that's clearly beyond the line for me too. I mean, it already lead to the deaths of tens of millions, so we do in fact have an answer here to "What's the worst that could happen?" And if you're willing to defer to Facebook's judgment here, then the problem is solved. Holocaust denial is banned from Facebook, same as death threats. Discussion resolved. We're in agreement.