News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by vsl on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @06:49AM (#11666230)
> covering up "refugee” crimes

This. Facebook agreeing to work with German government to do something about “racism” comments in German version (read: FB users talking about Cologne attacks that weren’t covered by mainstream press at all for weeks). FB blocking links to a mainstream respectable media’s article about freedom of speech in Czech version.

I have no doubt that FB doesn’t consider it bias. They’re righteous and seeing that attitude all over the supposedly “liberal” sphere is frightening.

Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by popmystack on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @09:28AM (#11666965)
Because when has hyperbolic stories about immigrants ever gotten out of hand?
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by MustardTiger on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @05:57PM (#11671005)
I don't know, when? And what exactly is "out of hand", and how out of hand does it need to be before censorship becomes good?
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by chris_wot on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @08:36PM (#11671826)
In Australia. You might want to search for "The Children Overboard Affair".
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by MustardTiger on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @09:59PM (#11672148)
I don't follow. That story got out of hand? In what way? And again, how out of hand does a story need to get to make censorship good?
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by chris_wot on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @12:00AM (#11672565)
Try looking it up first.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by dang on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @04:04PM (#11678768)
Please don't perpetuate spats.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by chris_wot on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @06:41PM (#11679959)
Sorry. It's just that a Google search would have taken him to this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair

Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it helped create a moral panic that boosted the electoral prospects of the Howard government, who subsequently won. It wasn't checked carefully by media organizations who ran the story - so it indeed got out of hand.

Which answered his question.

Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by MustardTiger on Thursday May 12, 2016 @08:18AM (#11682800)
A google search did take me to that, which doesn't answer my question at all. A false story is not a story getting out of hand. It is a false story. And it doesn't address the main question of "how out of hand does a story need to be to make censorship good?".
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by dang on Thursday May 12, 2016 @03:50PM (#11686215)
Really, please stop, both of you.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by MustardTiger on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @07:42AM (#11674332)
I did. Now please explain what you mean. Acting as though anyone who can not read your mind is some sort of mentally defective reject not worth bothering with is in rather poor taste.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by chris_wot on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @08:11AM (#11674494)
I would, but your response is so aggressive I think I'll pass this time.
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by MustardTiger on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:10AM (#11675393)
If you would, then you would have. You didn't the first time I asked, or the second, why pretend you would the third time?
Re:Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conserva... by dang on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @04:03PM (#11678759)
Please stop. Comments here need to be civil and substantive, and yours are crossing both lines.