2 ms·

A website isn't allowed to prohibit discussion of doing illegal drugs on it? This feels like a bad decision. Is the complaint just that Facebook didn't say spe

A website isn't allowed to prohibit discussion of doing illegal drugs on it? This feels like a bad decision. Is the complaint just that Facebook didn't say specifically that the ban was because the page was promoting drugs? It sounds like it would have been legal if they were just more specific about the why? If that's the case, it feels like a waste of everyone's time when the reasoning is obvious. If that's not the case, it's horrific to think that Poland has some law requiring sites to host any discussion. That would just turn every site into 4chan, and I would sooner ban Poland than ban having rules.

throw_a_grenade 3y ago
> It sounds like it would have been legal if they were just more specific about the why? Maybe (probably?). Court didn't address the merit of the ban, it was impossible to do so, because FB didn't explain their reason. That latter part is ruled illegal, they need to explain (even if they're right) and provide meaningful way to contest (a human with power to make the decision, i.e. not an address that a bot always replies a LLM-generated rejection).