Re:Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his emplo...
by fsociety on Thursday June 04, 2020 @11:59AM
(#23418314)
Read section 2 of their Community Standards about Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. Then read the definition of a terrorist. They really do have exceptions for this.
Re:Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his emplo...
by briffle on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @12:21PM
(#23405192)
Right, so the people that are registered with the US political Party ANP (American Nazi Party) Or many other parties you have never heard of could then check the box, and be free to say whatever they want. Or is Facebook going to police it only for a few popular political parties in the US, and not censor which political parties get speech?
Re:Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his emplo...
by trhway on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @12:39PM
(#23405425)
I meant public officials. As there is at least some public interest in giving them platform, and there is at least some minimal check/scrutiny for them - their voters.
Re:Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his emplo...
by SpicyLemonZest on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @11:52AM
(#23404787)
Would it help? I would expect that to just make things worse, as the right to freer speech on Facebook becomes an explicit asset with unequal allocation. An informal policy seems much less dangerous.
It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifically and explicitly excluded public officials from limitations on hate, violence inciting and other otherwise prohibited on the platform speech,and marked that speech accordingly.
Or let an official to explicitly checkbox such exception in his/her profile or may be at individual post level, a la carte style with separate checkboxes for hate speech, racism, etc., and mark such his/her post as made under that exception - "This post is published under the hate speech, [comma separated iterator over the checked checkboxes' values] exception requested by this public official"