Facebook Bans All QAnnon!

[Extreme Z7]

15 minutes ago, datamonster said:

In the case of the restaurant it ends right there once they kicked the guy out. In the case of FB the issue is infinitely bigger and when it ends is completely unknown. You can't seem to see the difference in scale and how that makes a difference...

The fact that FB is bigger is actually a case for stronger and stricter moderation guidelines. The more mainstream a platform is, the more it has to cater to the mainstream public because the minds of far more people are at stake. Not even Fox News should tolerate QAnnon, why do you think there aren't many fringe conspiratorial voices on mainstream conservative news? (There were outliers like Glenn Beck but even he's long left the network)

25 minutes ago, datamonster said:

The opposite is happening with FB and their users. And FB's case is again much different because their users just so happen to be everybody.

Pffff. . .Shut up. I've heard this kind of talk from big-tech conspiracy nuts like you many times, it's getting old. You think everyone or at least the majority has to worry about potentially becoming censored by mainstream platform dictatorships. I don't think you realize most people just don't give a shit.

The truth of the matter is is that most of their guidelines are set up so that only genuinely malicious actors are under threat of being banned. Doesn't mean that there aren't any false-positives or exaggerations from time to time, but the average user doesn't have to worry about getting unfairly banned even if they hold unpopular opinions. They're carefully set up in a way to only target those who are an actual threat to certain individuals or groups of people. But of course, people like you will never hesitate to defend these threats as if they do no harm whatsoever.

[Extreme Z7]

10 minutes ago, datamonster said:

It's a completely different story if all restaurant owners in the country came together and collectively decided they no longer want to tolerate people with certain convictions.

Nobody made that argument because it's a supremely dumb thing to say. Like, my god dude. . . seriously. . . what are you even talking about?

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Because of decentralization. There is no one guy who owns all the restaurants in the country who could make that decision. If this was the case, that would indeed be very concerning.

It's a completely different story if all restaurant owners in the country came together and collectively decided they no longer want to tolerate people with certain convictions.

McDonald's and Starbucks will not hesitate to kick out a customer who walks into their store with a t-shirt that says, "Obama is a monkey".

They are very centralized with 100s of thousands of employees and millions of customers. These stores effectively have ToS. You cannot walk into a McDonald's without shoes and shirt, and many other restrictions exist. They can even force you to wear a face mask!

Imagine what would happen if you walked into a McDonald's with a giant poster of hardcore porn.

[Rilles]

7 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Yeah, what a threat to society. The power of McDonalds to force customers not to be naked is really the same thing as Facebook's ability to determine who can say what to whom.

Woah... you should learn norms bro, getting naked in public is one of the weirdest things you can do, its a crime! Why dont you try!  

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, datamonster said:

there needs to be regulation and control of power to make sure it is used to the benefit of the people and not against them. Think cars, airplanes, guns, drugs, chemicals, etc.

I totally agree.

But until such regulation exists, Facebook gotta keep their shit together. And even after such regulation, Facebook still gotta keep their shit together.

Regulation is not gonna make Facebook more free, it will make it more restricted. There will be public rules on top of private rules. Just as there are in McDonald's. The government regulates McDonald's to make sure they do not refuse to serve black people simply for being black. And then McDonald's has a bunch of their own private rules on top of that. You're not allowed bring your dog into McDonald's and have it take a shit on the counter.

QAnnon = dog shitting on the counter

If Facebook started banning black people just for being black, then you'd have a good case. But them banning QAnnon is the least they could do to remain non-toxic.

[Gesundheit]

Yo I get the feeling that politics in the west is a complete joke. Go get a dictator and be done with this silliness.

[Preety_India]

You're having an illogical argument here. 

Facebook as a company reserves the right to allow or ban whatever communication they want on their platform. This is because whatever damage occurs has to be accrued by them and not by the government. 

You could say that Facebook doesn't have the right to do it in a totally socialist society where every element is ruled by the government 

In this case its not so. Facebook is a capitalist company. If someone gets injured by the actions of a person who was saying nonsense on Facebook, the family of the victim can hold Facebook liable in court. Government is not going to rescue its ass then. So obviously Facebook has to take every measure to protect its safety and this involves banning of dangerous ideas that can turn into dangerous actions.. 

In this case, it's not so much about Freedom of Speech but more about curbing the abuse of Freedom of speech. 

Freedom of speech has never meant to use to spread hate speech or brainwash people with dangerous ideas or Slandering. Be careful how you use the term of Freedom of Speech to defend Devilry. 

Facebook reserves the right to take every action to protect both itself and its user Base. 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, datamonster said:

So, what's next? Are we just gonna ban everyone who doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative?

The slippery slope argument would be more valid if there was no incentive to maintain a relatively high degree of free speech. It's a social media platform, a place where you come to speak your mind. If they become too strict, people wouldn't want to use it anymore. The restrictions have to be highly selective. The amount of people who are affected by this ban is negligible.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Extreme Z7]

1 hour ago, datamonster said:

I'm fully onboard with banning Q.

In your first post on this thread, you said "While I do believe Qanon is complete BS, I see freedom of speech severely threatened by banning them."

Not complaining or anything, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you changed your mind at some point in the thread.

[Preety_India]

19 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Do you really want to leave all of this up to Mark?

Why are you thinking that this is all about Mark? 

You think that he is taking these decisions.. 

Nah. 

Facebook is a big corporation. Decisions are taken after multiple parties come to a mutual decision and agreement. It's like a democratic process. 

They are aware of their user base. They are not going to annoy them. Of course they won't care if a few users got pissed 

 

In fact such decisions are generally taken after user complaints and feedback. 

Facebook through AI regularly scans what their users want in their environment.

Don't worry. Most Facebook users are happy with the decision. 

If these multi billion companies pissed off their users they would have gone bust. 

They are too clever they know what they are doing. They understand public sentiment especially a company like Facebook that constantly does data surveillance. 

You're barking up the wrong tree. Facebook is smart

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Preety_India

[Preety_India]

 

@datamonster  please don't believe all this. This is not how big corporations work at all. This is media bullshit. 

Most corporations are very careful of their image. 

Much of the hype on the media is slander. 

And Zuckerberg is no idiot. 

Facebook is running very successfully for years, thanks to Zuckerberg. He got nice brains. 

He knows the public too well. And also I'm sure he is not taking all decisions on his own. 

The spiral is much deeper. 

 

[Rilles]

Lock this thread already, its been going in circles all day, datamonster is not going to change his opinion. 

[Preety_India]

Just now, datamonster said:

You can just lookup that Mark owns 58% of the total voting shares. If you have a basic understanding of how a public company works, you know what this means.

Even if I have to believe that Mark runs the show, he has done a good job. 

Don't you think that banning Qanon was a great idea? 

That was such a stupid conspiracy group. 

 

[Preety_India]

Just now, datamonster said:

I'm not gonna start all over again...

Why would you not want it banned? 

Simply for freedom of speech 

What they say about Trump is ridiculous 

 

Why would you ever want such a group to take over the media. Smh. 

 

[Preety_India]

Just now, datamonster said:

Sigh...

You never explain why you want Qanon. 

Without it there's not much to go about. 

 

[Preety_India]

@datamonster then if you don't want it, shouldn't you be glad that Facebook banned that monster 

 

[Opo]

@datamonster How do you think people will recognize that the social media platforms need to be democratized if they don't fuck up in some way? 

To me this seems like a normal progress. 

[Preety_India]

 

@datamonster if Facebook had done something that most people don't want or didn't like, then I would have said  that they are undemocratic. 

Whether it's Facebook or the government, somebody has to take the decision

If it's in favor of the general public, then it's already a democracy!! 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Preety_India

[Opo]

2 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Well, I think this ban was a step against the democratization of social media. It has shown that FB can act autonomously in these matters with no repercussions.

Because most of the people agree with their decision. 

In order for people to start wanting to take away the power of Facebook they need to do something the people disagree with. 

5 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Next time, who do you think will decide what is OK to say? The people? The government? Or do you think it is more likely that FB will continue going down this road?

For now they'll keep going down this road. 

[Preety_India]

Facebook is not fascist. It's just a mirror. 

It reflects people's opinions and needs. 

So it is a reflection of the decision of the people by proxy. 

In a way its people who took this decision. 

Facebook simply reflected it.