3 ms·
My favorite part is all that Meta will say is "account doesn't follow Community Standards" [1]. Impossible to defend against such a vague accusation, and they g
by like_any_other 5mo ago
My favorite part is all that Meta will say is "account doesn't follow Community Standards" [1]. Impossible to defend against such a vague accusation, and they get to keep the real reason secret.
[1] Really they're Meta's standards - it wasn't "the community" that wrote them.
- 737min 5mo agoYes but this is different - a Muslim country enforcing its own rules against an Islamist activist, and Meta complying.
- like_any_other 5mo agoThen Meta can write "account disabled due to legal order by the Kuwait judiciary", or wherever the order came from, instead of hiding behind "Community Standards". I see this all the time in such cases - deflections about the legality of censorship, to avoid the issue that they want to keep the censorship itself, or the source of it, secret. "They" in this case being Meta, unless they produce a legal order compelling them to deceive us.
- 737min 5mo agoYes more clarity better. Here is summary of Kuwait laws https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/media-laws-at-kuwait https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/media-laws-at-kuwait
- KaiserPro 5mo ago> it wasn't "the community" that wrote them. Have you read them? they are acutally quite good. its a shame they are not enforced evenly.
- like_any_other 5mo agoDid I say they're not good, or did I say the "community" (as if the wildly different groups that use Meta share a single community) didn't write them? And if they're so good, then Meta can take credit for them and call them "Meta's Standards", instead of gaslighting us into thinking there is some shared "community" that encompasses Kuwait and California and Belarus, and that this community has agreed on a single set of standards to be imposed on everyone across the globe.