5 ms·

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, re

by giaour 5y ago

You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. If Facebook forced itself to be blind to the difference between criminal violence and acts of war, Al Qaeda, Isis, and extra-legal militia groups would have been allowed to advocate for their violent ends. There is nuance to take account of here, and "just stating facts" is either a naive or disingenuous way to engage.

freedomben 5y ago
> You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. My personal opinion is that FB made a good decision, and I support it. But I don't want to pretend that everything is completely binary and/or happens in a vacuum. I strongly believe that if humanity is to move beyond our current hyper-polarization, we need a renewed interest in separating facts from beliefs/opinions/perception. Please point out any of the facts that I have that are incorrect. If you're arguing a similar position of most modern journalists that facts themselves aren't enough because people might reach incorrect conclusions with them, so we need to editorialize a bit to ensure people reach the "right" conclusion, then we have a philosophical disagreement. I'll still assume good faith on your part though, something you aren't willing to do for me.
- giaour 5y ago
  It's the parenthetical "but not against any other group" assertion you made that is factually incorrect. Facebook repeatedly allowed statements celebrating military defeats of Isis and urging the local population to resist. These statements came from the then-president of the US and were not something that just flew under the radar. > No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. I did not assume bad faith, and if you reread my comment, you will see that I said your position was either naive or disingenuous. My hunch is that the former is accurate and that another party that made the argument in bad faith in the hopes of taking advantage of others' naivete.
NoGravitas 5y ago
> If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. That would have been an unqualified good. Acts of war are criminal violence.
- giaour 5y ago
  It certainly would have avoided creating some ambiguity, but that has not been Facebook’s position at any point as far as I know.

by giaour 5y ago

freedomben 5y ago

> You're trying to unfairly paint Facebook as having crossed a Rubicon with this decision. No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. My personal opinion is that FB made a good decision, and I support it. But I don't want to pretend that everything is completely binary and/or happens in a vacuum. I strongly believe that if humanity is to move beyond our current hyper-polarization, we need a renewed interest in separating facts from beliefs/opinions/perception. Please point out any of the facts that I have that are incorrect. If you're arguing a similar position of most modern journalists that facts themselves aren't enough because people might reach incorrect conclusions with them, so we need to editorialize a bit to ensure people reach the "right" conclusion, then we have a philosophical disagreement. I'll still assume good faith on your part though, something you aren't willing to do for me.

giaour 5y ago
It's the parenthetical "but not against any other group" assertion you made that is factually incorrect. Facebook repeatedly allowed statements celebrating military defeats of Isis and urging the local population to resist. These statements came from the then-president of the US and were not something that just flew under the radar. > No, I'm not, and frankly I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. I did not assume bad faith, and if you reread my comment, you will see that I said your position was either naive or disingenuous. My hunch is that the former is accurate and that another party that made the argument in bad faith in the hopes of taking advantage of others' naivete.

NoGravitas 5y ago

> If the rules banned any exhortation to or glorification of violence, recruiting ads for the armed forces would have never been permitted. That would have been an unqualified good. Acts of war are criminal violence.

giaour 5y ago
It certainly would have avoided creating some ambiguity, but that has not been Facebook’s position at any point as far as I know.