Re:Facebook protects far-right activists even after rule bre...
by ramblerman on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:48AM
(#17565691)
> Leading far-right activists have received special protection from Facebook...
Jesus, this paper is so biased it's palpable. There is a much better thread here [1], which is at least about the real (non-partisan) discussion - the pros and cons of negationism, and impact on freedom of speech.
Re:Facebook protects far-right activists even after rule bre...
by rinchik on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:45AM
(#17565660)
Far-right is so easily identifiable, but what about far-left?
Far-left is just as controversial and radiates not less violence and nonsense. There should be a clear, widely shared common knowledge and cultural condemnation for any type of extremism.
Re:Facebook protects far-right activists even after rule bre...
by rusk on Thursday July 19, 2018 @09:04AM
(#17565816)
Well, specifically "hate speech" is what's at issue here, which is bad whether it's from the left or the right. Just so happened that the group under discussion was of the latter persuasion. Facebook didn't moderate their posts even though they contravened their guidelines because they had so many followers.
Jesus, this paper is so biased it's palpable. There is a much better thread here [1], which is at least about the real (non-partisan) discussion - the pros and cons of negationism, and impact on freedom of speech.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17562384
Absolutely, but I don't think any media entity is portraying itself as unbiased these days?
Regardless, their desperate banner ads begging for $1 warms me inside.
Far-left is just as controversial and radiates not less violence and nonsense. There should be a clear, widely shared common knowledge and cultural condemnation for any type of extremism.