zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
Activists want to eat their cake and have it too.

On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.

Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.

So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.

Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.

And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.

>>mc32+28
Do you not understand that these non-approved views, for the most part, come from actual nazis? Like, real life nazis. People that will kill you because of your skin colour.

I've read a lot of bootlicking comments on this website lately from people who want to talk in upper abstractions about free speech and discuss moral theory. You are all completely missing the point. That black people are needlessly DYING because real life white supremacists are having their voices promoted and platformed on the internet.

When it comes to activists eating their cake and having it too, yea, those are the privileged facebook employees taking a paid day off as a way of making a statement. What a joke.

You know who needs their voices heard? Who needs free speech? Black people. And our society silences them through gruesome MURDER. Murders with no justice. God forbid someone get their tweet "fact-checked".

>>metalg+mh
Do you not understand that these non-approved views, for the most part, come from actual nazis?

Facebook has been more than happy to censor Palestinian activists at the behest of the Israeli government.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-dele...

Handing over control of what we read, see and hear to a private company that acts as judge and jury should obviously concern anyone that can imagine situations in which it would be better to hear things that powerful actors do not want you to hear. Existing legal frameworks are already problematic ( there are many obscenity, blasphemy, sexuality-related examples you can find in recent history), but at least they require some sort of legal process with some sort of public input.

It would be ironic if your cheerleading for censorship resulted in your _obvious_ hate speech against bootlicking nazis being taken down during the second Trump term using the mechanisms you did your own part in establishing.