Free speech or dirtbags

[4merper4mer]

I suppose if we want free speech, we have to put up with dirt bags.

 

From the article:

 

The American social media giant also allows people to live stream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress”.

 

 

 

If they were interested in telling the truth they would have followed up with something like:

 

Rather, Facebook prefers to profit from their suffering by letting the entire world look in and do nothing. Internal studies have shown that Facebook's profits increased 2% by allowing these videos and the people inflicting self harm only felt slightly worse about themselves knowing that they were being ignored by the entire world, rather than just the people in their general vicinity. Various other repugnant acts depicting the saddest elements of society and most helpless people and animals also boost the bottom line. Facebook prides itself on grudgingly dripping some of their profits into charities helping the afflicted so it can toot its own horn and gain more clicks from people tuning in to look out for future victims. We are proud to keep in line with our roots of electronically belittling others. It harkens back to our origins of exposing who is sleeping with whom.

 

 

[Rockpile233]

Where are you getting the bottom quote from and how do they even quantify that?

 

Personally, I think this an interesting subject for debate. I completely buy the excuse that resources for watching/reviewing user content has not caught up with traffic. I don't have an answer to what "should be" censored. I feel like they are damned either way with a group of people.

[4merper4mer]

Where are you getting the bottom quote from and how do they even quantify that?

 

Personally, I think this an interesting subject for debate. I completely buy the excuse that resources for watching/reviewing user content has not caught up with traffic. I don't have an answer to what "should be" censored. I feel like they are damned either way with a group of people.

 

 

The bottom quote is basically what is really going on. I used my interpretive skills and typed it myself. I don't know if my numbers are exact but you can bet they know how to quantify it and wouldn't sacrifice a few bucks just because some poor doofus may ant to get famous by cutting off their own hand on live stream or beating up a puppy.

 

While I agree that it is a good debate topic and agree that they are damned either way, I do not buy their crap excuse for content review. That is known as planning. They did none before they released this stuff and any pea brained idiot could have easily predicted what has happened. And it will get more vulgar.

[Rockpile233]

It's a very complex issue. What do you allow? How far do you let it go? What legal basis is there for various forms/subject matter of content. What are the various legal differences between countries?

 

It's essentially in uncharted territory and some confusion is expected. The cynic in this situation says they are adjusting to maximum profit, but I buy the excuses of confusion and limited resources. I don't get that cynical read from their leadership. I plan in business every day, but that plan needs to be adjusted once reality starts.

 

It's hard to even begin having a conversation about what should be censored by moderators. There are very few things that are universally rejected. Now try writing a consistent code of ethics for however many millions of users they have.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Rockpile233

[4merper4mer]

It's a very complex issue. What do you allow? How far do you let it go? What legal basis is there for various forms/subject matter of content. What are the various legal differences between countries?

 

It's essentially in uncharted territory and some confusion is expected. The cynic in this situation says they are adjusting to maximum profit, but I buy the excuses of confusion and limited resources. I don't get that cynical read from their leadership. I plan in business every day, but that plan needs to be adjusted once reality starts.

 

It's hard to even begin having a conversation about what should be censored by moderators. There are very few things that are universally rejected. Now try writing a consistent code of ethics for however many millions of users they have.

 

 

There is no question that there are difficult things in play from both a technical and moral standpoint.

 

From a legal standpoint, I have no qualms about Facebook being able to do practically whatever they want in allowing their member to air things. In some respects, they are simply a vehicle. It is also unreasonable to expect them to intervene in every situation in a timely manner.

 

From a moral standpoint they are dirtbags IMO. They knew exactly the type of thing that would be going out on their platform. They knew it would be everything from live funny cat videos to make your own shows about recipes or hairstyles or whatever to the lowest of the low torturing people and animals, to sad lonely people crying for help in many forms. They made a decision that the torture and strife was worth the ability of people to share their new hair-do because of their lack of self of steam. This is not a decision that I see as honorable although I do not dispute the right of these scum bags to make it.

[boyst]

Faceook and mark zuckerberg are terrible people. It'll be a joke when he is president.

[Deranged Rhino]

Faceook and mark zuckerberg are terrible people. It'll be a joke when he is president.

[DC Tom]

 

 

There is no question that there are difficult things in play from both a technical and moral standpoint.

 

From a legal standpoint, I have no qualms about Facebook being able to do practically whatever they want in allowing their member to air things. In some respects, they are simply a vehicle. It is also unreasonable to expect them to intervene in every situation in a timely manner.

 

From a moral standpoint they are dirtbags IMO. They knew exactly the type of thing that would be going out on their platform. They knew it would be everything from live funny cat videos to make your own shows about recipes or hairstyles or whatever to the lowest of the low torturing people and animals, to sad lonely people crying for help in many forms. They made a decision that the torture and strife was worth the ability of people to share their new hair-do because of their lack of self of steam. This is not a decision that I see as honorable although I do not dispute the right of these scum bags to make it.

 

Every violent authoritarian revolution or group in modern history, from the Jacobins to the Nazis to the Interahamwe, has required something like Facebook to organize and succeed.

[Rockpile233]

All manufacturers of firearms and/or ammunition are morally bankrupt scumbags. They know full well that for every dad and son shooting clay pigeons, there is a poor sad individual planning a spree killing or holding up a gas station. While I'm not debating their right to manufacture these instruments of violence, I'm calling them out to be the scumbags they are.

 

...now I most certainly don't really believe or argue this, but it's definitely in the same vein. There is a tremendous demand for social media or platforms to post user content. I don't participate in social media, but I'm in the minority. I just think you can make an argument like this towards most businesses.

[DC Tom]

All manufacturers of firearms and/or ammunition are morally bankrupt scumbags. They know full well that for every dad and son shooting clay pigeons, there is a poor sad individual planning a spree killing or holding up a gas station. While I'm not debating their right to manufacture these instruments of violence, I'm calling them out to be the scumbags they are.

 

...now I most certainly don't really believe or argue this, but it's definitely in the same vein. There is a tremendous demand for social media or platforms to post user content. I don't participate in social media, but I'm in the minority. I just think you can make an argument like this towards most businesses.

 

Really? Do chimney sweeps.

[Rockpile233]

Really? Do chimney sweeps.

You're trying to drag my argument down into absurdity. Comment on the analogy of the firearm manufacturer specifically.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Looks like Wall-E made it to Broadway.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Looks like Wall-E made it to Broadway.

 

 

Boyst is right though, he's at least considering a run for POTUS in 2020. He's already been making the rounds in Iowa.

[DC Tom]

You're trying to drag my argument down into absurdity. Comment on the analogy of the firearm manufacturer specifically.

 

No, I'm not, truly. It's a good argument. I just want to see if there's an industry where it doesn't hold.

 

Sometimes here, we're lunatic just for the sake of lunacy.

[Rockpile233]

No, I'm not, truly. It's a good argument. I just want to see if there's an industry where it doesn't hold.

 

Sometimes here, we're lunatic just for the sake of lunacy.

Chimney sweep companies know they are putting their labor force in harms way with black lung and all that. They have the right to their business and there is consumer demand, but damn them for proceeding knowing the harmful side effects.

 

I had to reach for that one. I'm sure we use a mechanical process these days anyway.

 

Maybe "most industries" is a little strong, but plenty.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Rockpile233

[grinreaper]

 

 

Boyst is right though, he's at least considering a run for POTUS in 2020. He's already been making the rounds in Iowa.

Will he be old enough by then?

Chimney sweep companies know they are putting their labor force in harms way with black lung and all that. They have the right to their business and there is consumer demand, but damn them for proceeding knowing the harmful side effects.

 

I had to reach for that one. I'm sure we use a mechanical process these days anyway.

 

Maybe "most industries" is a little strong, but plenty.

I guess then we should ban all cleaning of chimneys. What harm could come of that?

[4merper4mer]

All manufacturers of firearms and/or ammunition are morally bankrupt scumbags. They know full well that for every dad and son shooting clay pigeons, there is a poor sad individual planning a spree killing or holding up a gas station. While I'm not debating their right to manufacture these instruments of violence, I'm calling them out to be the scumbags they are.

 

...now I most certainly don't really believe or argue this, but it's definitely in the same vein. There is a tremendous demand for social media or platforms to post user content. I don't participate in social media, but I'm in the minority. I just think you can make an argument like this towards most businesses.

 

Gun manufacturers do not have the ability to see the uses of their products in real time and halt them. It is a hard product that leaves the door and is gone. Facebook has made a conscience decision that showing self harm live is okey dokey artichokey.

 

Whatever, at least Big Z gets to make the cash. What a great idea he had embarrassing his peers in college. Who could have known it would have led to seeing people die live an in person? So cool.

Edited May 24, 2017 by 4merper4mer

[Rockpile233]

Will he be old enough by then?

I guess then we should ban all cleaning of chimneys. What harm could come of that?

The chimney sweep conversation was in jest, I'm hoping your comment was not taking that literally.

Gun manufacturers do not have the ability to see the uses of their products in real time and halt them. It is a hard product that leaves the door and is gone. Facebook has made a conscience decision that showing self harm live is okey dokey artichokey.

 

Whatever, at least Big Z gets to make the cash. What a great idea he had embarrassing his peers in college. Who could have known it would have led to seeing people die live an in person? So cool.

I'm not totally buying your dismissal of that analogy, but that's not important.

 

I was with you earlier in the thread when I thought you were arguing that FB's policy on user content needed some common sense updates, but once we got into the territory of "it should never have been spawned because of all the potential bad" I had to disagree.

 

There are good things to come from social media platforms, but I'd probably agree that the mundane and the negative outweigh those things.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Rockpile233

[4merper4mer]

The chimney sweep conversation was in jest, I'm hoping your comment was not taking that literally.

 

I'm not totally buying your dismissal of that analogy, but that's not important.

 

I was with you earlier in the thread when I thought you were arguing that FB's policy on user content needed some common sense updates, but once we got into the territory of "it should never have been spawned because of all the potential bad" I had to disagree.

 

 

Way to argue with something I never said.

 

I didn't like it when you said that all puppies should be eradicated.

[Rockpile233]

Way to argue with something I never said.

 

I didn't like it when you said that all puppies should be eradicated.

I'm referring to post #5. To me that clearly reads that they made a morally reprehensible decision to allow user content streams knowing the potential horrible things that could be posted.