6 ms·
The point is they dismissed it out of hand and banned anyone who said otherwise. Btw, liberal news outlets are finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesi
by throwaway8581 5y ago
The point is they dismissed it out of hand and banned anyone who said otherwise. Btw, liberal news outlets are finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesis is probably right.
- ceejayoz 5y agoPeople were banned for falsely asserting it was confirmed to be a lab leak. That's still a false assertion. I'm not aware of any major news outlet - liberal or otherwise - "finally admitting now that the lab leak hypothesis is probably right" at this point. The WSJ story the other day doesn't come close to that assertion yet.
- throwaway8581 5y agoFunny that no one was banned for saying, as many did, that it was impossible for it to have come from a Chinese lab. Those asymmetries in enforcement always seem to lean in the same direction.
- kelnos 5y agoIt's a shame you're being downvoted, because you're exactly correct. I heard a lot of rhetoric around it being impossible that it was a lab leak. I thought it pretty unlikely, but claiming that it was impossible is just as misinformative as claiming it 100% was a lab leak.
- timeon 5y agoCan you give an example?
- therealjumbo 5y agoFacebook banned a New York Post story that was factual and not inflammatory: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/548612-facebook-prevents-sharing-of-new-york-post-black-lives-matter-story https://thehill.com/homenews/media/548612-facebook-prevents-... So people or stories get banned even if they are true for some other reasons. You don't know what those reasons are, and they may change going forward.
- vharuck 5y agoDo you have a link to the New York Post story? I didn't see a link in the article you shared, and Facebook's claim was that the NYP story included a person's home address(es).
- ceejayoz 5y agoFacebook banned that story - as clearly stated in the article - for doxxing someone's private address. They've done this for years, as has Twitter (example from 2017: https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/technology/business/twitter-content-moderation-policy-updates/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/technology/business/twitter...). https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/privacy_violations_image_rights https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/privacy_violatio... > We remove content that shares, offers or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources.
- vxNsr 5y agoThat’s simply false. They don’t block stories that doxx people’s private addresses, their policies are enforced unequally and only when it suites their own political agenda, whatever that may be. Pretending they’re being fair, when you know they’re not is gaslighting. You may think it’s ok for them to apply their policies unequally, and dishonestly; that’s another discussion, but please don’t act like what they’re doing is fair or honest. The biggest example of them not blocking doxxing was the implicit help in spreading the Parlar hacked data. I know of fb devs who participated in spreading it. It can also be very easily argued that the leader of the BLM movement is a public figure and sharing her home address is not doxxing. And I’m sure that argument has been used to allow sharing private info of similar public figures who Facebook’s progressive devs didn’t care for.
- spiderice 5y ago> People were banned for falsely asserting it was confirmed to be a lab leak This is such a false spin on what was actually happening. It was only a year ago. It isn't hard to remember. People were banned/downvoted to oblivion for merely suggesting the lab leak was a credible theory, not for claiming it was definitely the 100% truth. Stop gaslighting.
- ceejayoz 5y agoI don't find it hard to remember, and conflating downvotes and bans as if they're the same thing is disingenuous.