4 ms·

The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. The ad industry tends to be a lot more sensitive to certain content than g

The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. The ad industry tends to be a lot more sensitive to certain content than governments are. (For example simple insults can easily get a Youtube video demonitized.) There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. Without further information, these numbers tell nothing about the actual effects of censorship laws.

ch4s3 2y ago
> The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. This is correct but they do show large national variation in the report. > There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. This doesn't explain the Facebook deletions.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Please note that CSAM is categorized as a "legally permissible expression of general opinion" as defined by this study. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions about the reason for deletion here.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    I didn’t see that in the methodology section. Can you point to that?
    - itishappy 2y ago
      > General expressions of opinion > Comments fell into this category if meaning could be interpreted from them, they were not illegal, did not contain linguistic attacks or fell outside the scope of the report (e.g. CSAM, revenge porn, marketing). Most comments belonged to this category. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...
      - ch4s3 2y ago
        They are saying that those CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report not that it was considered legal speech. Its awkwardly worded. If you read further they say: > Criminal restrictions on content that can be classed as The Future of Free Speech “revenge porn” or Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) are discounted from discussion in this report as they are universally recognized as unprotected speech.
        itishappy 2y ago
        No, they are saying that since CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report that for the purposes of this report it is not coded as illegal speech. Section 2.3 Coding of Data: > These legal notes are based on legislation related to freedom of expression, which means that violations of marketing legislation, for example, were not coded as illegal.
        ch4s3 2y ago
        You have taken that out of context, they say exactly the opposite of what you're claiming very clearly if you read further.

ch4s3 2y ago

> The article does not state that the removed comments were removed for legal reasons. This is correct but they do show large national variation in the report. > There's a good chance that the removal of comments regarding killing and war is caused purely by ad regulations. This doesn't explain the Facebook deletions.

itishappy 2y ago
Please note that CSAM is categorized as a "legally permissible expression of general opinion" as defined by this study. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions about the reason for deletion here.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  I didn’t see that in the methodology section. Can you point to that?
  - itishappy 2y ago
    > General expressions of opinion > Comments fell into this category if meaning could be interpreted from them, they were not illegal, did not contain linguistic attacks or fell outside the scope of the report (e.g. CSAM, revenge porn, marketing). Most comments belonged to this category. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Preventing-Torrents-of-Hate-or-Stifling-Free-Expression-Online-The-Future-of-Free-Speech.pdf https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Prev...
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      They are saying that those CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report not that it was considered legal speech. Its awkwardly worded. If you read further they say: > Criminal restrictions on content that can be classed as The Future of Free Speech “revenge porn” or Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) are discounted from discussion in this report as they are universally recognized as unprotected speech.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        No, they are saying that since CSAM fell outside of the scope of the report that for the purposes of this report it is not coded as illegal speech. Section 2.3 Coding of Data: > These legal notes are based on legislation related to freedom of expression, which means that violations of marketing legislation, for example, were not coded as illegal.
        ch4s3 2y ago
        You have taken that out of context, they say exactly the opposite of what you're claiming very clearly if you read further.