Is it O.K. for Facebook to allow call for violence against Americans and the British? Should Facebook provide secure channel for the organisation of the assassination of T. Blair?
Zuckerberg moved by the struggle of the Palestinians, starts allowing Hamas to organize attacks through E2E encrypted channel on Israeli soldiers and politicians. Maybe when he is on it, should also provide them with historical location data of the person of interest? Is that alright?
>We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.
> "We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement."
That's a false dichotomy. There's room for reasonable discussion and moderate legislation in between that 100% and 0% control.
I believe a zero tolerance policy on incitement to violence is the only tenable approach. No matter the cause. Replace "Russian" with "US" and you are on CIA's shitlist.
Actual planning of armed resistance should not be done on Facebook or Twitter anyway.
It's easy to say that from the safety of your nuclear armed country. We in eastern Europe have to do what we can.
Yeah, those examples are the easy ones. What about "we should genocide russians"? Where does that lie on your spectrum? Should facebook be allowing such speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Your hypothetical isn’t included in any of the current exemptions to free speech protection.