3 ms·
Is this censorship? My understanding is they held it for review, that just seems responsible? Also it seems like the NY Post article is highly suspect, so again
by libraryatnight 6y ago
Is this censorship? My understanding is they held it for review, that just seems responsible? Also it seems like the NY Post article is highly suspect, so again, this seems responsible. Especially given echoes of a previous email "bombshell" that proved to be absolutely nothing after the damage was done? I just don't know what people want, they want FB to stop misinformation, but not step on anyone's speech? Also I see lots of cries this is partisan, but not seeing many credible examples, so if you're going to what-about on this please give sources. This thread is filled with claims of double standards and no links.
We always hear the adage about free speech and screaming fire in a crowded theater; facebook is a crowded theater and we have a lot of people trying to yell fire.
- woo49 6y agoa. They had the same information as everyone else, so what would they figure out in their ‘review’ that readers wouldn’t? B. It’s really the double standard that is the problem here. If you do it do it for this then do it for everything else, including the myriad stories about Trump that are posted based on ‘rumors’, ‘leaks’, anonymous sources etc. Whether you like Trump or not should not matter if you are honest with yourself! Funny thing is, this story was not ‘trending’ on twitter but the meta story (totally with no evidence) that this was the result of Russian hackers who gave the content to Rudy was trending! That tells you everything about why this is so inconsistent and thus either grossly incompetent or malicious.
- libraryatnight 6y agoa) its the nypost, a tabloid. b) what stories? I keep seeing this. I see very little printed about trump that doesn't end up true. I also don't belong to FB so I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about. As I said in my reply, please supply links to any double standards cited.