Facebook Allowed Violent Threats in Certain Situations?

Discussion in 'Facebook' started by cheat_master30, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. cheat_master30

    cheat_master30 Moderator

    Well, this is an interesting fiasco. Recently Facebook updated their rules for threats and violent content, saying that in 'certain situations' and against 'certain groups' it was deemed fine.

    Here are some quotes from the rules saying as such:

    Do not post threats where threat is defined as:

    Fortunately they've now updated these rules and removed the dodgy language:


    But still, it's kinda worrying that no one saw the potential issues involved in outright saying 'hey, it's fine to threaten violence against people if they're criminals/suspected of such'. In fact, given they outright said it was fine if it was 'established by media reports', that basically said they were supporting the idea of 'trial by media/public opinion', a very dangerous precedent given situations like the Covington kids one where the actions of some group were misrepresented or misunderstood based on questionable evidence.

    It also pretty much encouraged vigilante behaviour, which is something that shouldn't be tolerated in a civil society, and proved without a doubt that enforcement of Facebook's rules was very much situational at best.

    Still, what are your thoughts on it? Do you agree with their policy? Disagree with it?
  2. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    I'm not sure about that, this statement from the link tied my brain in knots...

    'In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. Terrorists deserve to be killed), and we deem those non credible absent specific evidence to the contrary.'

    I genuinely don't understand what they are saying.

    Regardless I don't see how you can micromanage people to that extent and in any case, isn't often said; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I might live in a country where Facebook's definition of acceptability is totally unacceptable to me.
  3. overcast

    overcast Adherent

    I have seen instance where facebook has favored left wing ideology, supported communist threats and socialist posts. In fact saying anything against feminism and communist results in community violations.
  4. cornnfedd

    cornnfedd Captain Futurama

    "certain groups" eg Antifa can threaten "certain groups" eg conservatives.

    that's pretty much how it will go.
  5. MagicalAzareal

    MagicalAzareal Magical Developer

    It's better to just let people say whatever they want than prattering on with this bull****.

    Let the communities filter out what they find objectionable and let users block people they find unpleasant, isn't that what social networks always did before the endless drama after Hillary lost?

    And in a moderated community, threats of violence shouldn't be made against anyone. Period.
    It should not be up-to Mark Zuckerberg to determine which groups should be persecuted and which should not.

    The only reason they updated it is because they tried to twist things in their favor again and people noticed. They did the same thing when they were caught manipulating news feeds and trying to sneak changes into their privacy policies / privacy settings in the past. These people never change.
  6. cornnfedd

    cornnfedd Captain Futurama

    Put it this way, I follow a few facebook groups and one that I follow has started a petition to reduce rights of Australians to protest, because they feel the left (eg Antifa) are getting out of control and need to be stopped. As a conservative I completely disagree with this philosophy. Everybody, and I mean everybody has a right to free speech, they also have a right to protest and if you dont agree with what they are protesting then too bad, go and argue the point with them. The problem with the extreme left or extreme right is both think that censorship is a good win and its a win for their side when someone gets removed from facebook or youtube. What either side seems to forget is the more facebook etc tighten the rules the worse it is for EVERYBODY on both sides. You cant have it both ways, you cant want freedom of speech but only allow your side of the argument. Both sides deserve to have a say, and get up and disagree and put your point of view forward. This is how we all learn and grow, by arguing and discussing ideas and learning from it.

    Obviously there are some things that should be censored like calls to violence and doxxing of people but otherwise it should be a free for all.

    :) :)

    The walls are closing in for big tech, I can see Trumps next battle ground will be to drain big tech of the liberal ideology and replace it with a more centre approach in the next run, we will see...
  7. MagicalAzareal

    MagicalAzareal Magical Developer

    Big tech is bigger than you think, far bigger.

    There are hosts. AWS, OVH, Google Cloud, Azure. Sakura, DigitalOcean, etc.

    There are also ISPs which route your traffic and CDNs.

    There is also Visa, MasterCard and Paypal, which count as financial giants, but Paypal has been known to strike down funding for certain types of content. They're still better than Patreon who have just lost it lately.

    If one of those takes exception with the content being hosted on a site, then you're in for a very bad day and all it takes is one annoyed party to do that. There are also the advertisors, if an advertisor gets offended by a bit of wrongthink, then they can come knocking at the door.
  8. cornnfedd

    cornnfedd Captain Futurama

    yup I know all that, basically tech companies are the new government... but I still hold hope that things may change...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.