3 ms·

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a company with the resources of Facebook are quicker to pull down a post by a practicing medical doctor stating masks aren't 100

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a company with the resources of Facebook are quicker to pull down a post by a practicing medical doctor stating masks aren't 100% effective than they are to pull down a post inciting violence in a country that has been in the middle of such violence for the last 3 years? The problem with opinions like yours isn't that they're wrong, it's that you've lost all perspective.

missedthecue 5y ago
Facebook drew up some pretty clear guidelines about what was permitted in terms of posting covid related opinions. That makes it very simple for them to make decisions regarding removing flagged posts about masks or vaccines. Facebook doesn't have a set of approved guidelines on what news Ethiopian media can report about their own domestic conflict. The article doesn't share the content of the post in question, so it's impossible to tell, but they don't say that it violated Facebook's general community guidelines in regards to hatespeech or provoking violence. The article just states an opinion of one person that the local media created a post blaming the wrong group. I don't see how facebook can judge whether that news report is right or wrong. It's just he said/she said.
- Randosaurus 5y ago
  People often get things backwards. If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions. Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB? Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    "If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period" This is where we fundamentally disagree then. I think perfectly innocent things can contribute to deadly consequences. For instance, Timothy McVeigh rented a moving truck and filled it with fertilizer to blow up Oklahoma City. But I don't think renting moving trucks or buying farming essentials are morally wrong. I also don't think that posting on Facebook or Facebook algorithmically promoting posts that gain traction is wrong. Like I said in my original comment, the worst thing you can say about Facebook here is that they're not picking sides in a messy ethnic conflict happening in a foreign country.
    - Randosaurus 5y ago
      Timothy McVeigh also took a shit once, no reasonable person would interpret my words as claiming taking a shit is immoral. This is a false equivalency.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        Timothy McVeigh defecating obviously did not lead to the bombing. Him renting a box truck and buying farm goods directly led to it. I don't think i'm the one making the false equivalency here.
        Randosaurus 5y ago
        Since you've chosen to go with a false equivalency using an apples-to-oranges comparison, lets rewrite that "If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period" People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts. ^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being. --- What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong. Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it. --- FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!

missedthecue 5y ago

Facebook drew up some pretty clear guidelines about what was permitted in terms of posting covid related opinions. That makes it very simple for them to make decisions regarding removing flagged posts about masks or vaccines. Facebook doesn't have a set of approved guidelines on what news Ethiopian media can report about their own domestic conflict. The article doesn't share the content of the post in question, so it's impossible to tell, but they don't say that it violated Facebook's general community guidelines in regards to hatespeech or provoking violence. The article just states an opinion of one person that the local media created a post blaming the wrong group. I don't see how facebook can judge whether that news report is right or wrong. It's just he said/she said.

Randosaurus 5y ago
People often get things backwards. If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period. What people get backwards is thinking that if the actions that led up to the razing were themselves not ethically problematic, then the result has no bearing on whether or not we should continue allowing said actions. Then there's the fact that actual FB employee's have gone on record that FB is making things worse in Ethiopia. Or aren't we allowed to take that into account when condemning FB? Discounting this as being simply "he said/she said" is itself ethically dubious.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  "If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period" This is where we fundamentally disagree then. I think perfectly innocent things can contribute to deadly consequences. For instance, Timothy McVeigh rented a moving truck and filled it with fertilizer to blow up Oklahoma City. But I don't think renting moving trucks or buying farming essentials are morally wrong. I also don't think that posting on Facebook or Facebook algorithmically promoting posts that gain traction is wrong. Like I said in my original comment, the worst thing you can say about Facebook here is that they're not picking sides in a messy ethnic conflict happening in a foreign country.
  - Randosaurus 5y ago
    Timothy McVeigh also took a shit once, no reasonable person would interpret my words as claiming taking a shit is immoral. This is a false equivalency.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Timothy McVeigh defecating obviously did not lead to the bombing. Him renting a box truck and buying farm goods directly led to it. I don't think i'm the one making the false equivalency here.
      - Randosaurus 5y ago
        Since you've chosen to go with a false equivalency using an apples-to-oranges comparison, lets rewrite that "If an entire village is razed to the ground then whatever led up to that is wrong, period" People shot guns while hunting all the time, therefore the actions of Cheney that led up to him shooting his friend are both acceptable, things we should continue doing, and should under no circumstances be expected to change in future hunts. ^ Because you see ... it doesn't matter that other people have successfully gone hunting and shot guns in the past, what matters are the specific circumstances that led to Cheney shooting another human being. --- What happens is that people like you want to point to the firing of the gun and argue that firing guns is legal therefore Cheney did nothing wrong. Everyone understand the flaw in that logic, I don't even have to explain it. --- FB did nothing wrong everyone! FB is just displaying text on a webpage, something people do all the time!