255
256

Facebook says holocaust denying, anti-Semitic hate speech "does not violate their guidelines", but a welcomed, unreported, medical picture of a penis in a private message gets you suspended. (self.self)

ClassyJacket が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]WilliamHarry 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (29子コメント)

One is free speech. One is nudity. I don't understand how you don't understand?

[–]lenaro 81 ポイント82 ポイント  (5子コメント)

They're both free speech (as in, the government can't block your ability to say them). Facebook is just choosing to limit speech on their platform by whatever criteria they choose to use. They can do this because they aren't the government.

Facebook is not required to let everyone who uses their site have a platform to spread hate. You don't know what free speech actually is or protects.

[–]zombiesingularity 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is art not speech? A painting denying the Holocaust versus an essay. What's the difference? Facebook got this exactly wrong, it's the hate speech that should br banned, not the medical photo.

[–]content404 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (18子コメント)

The nudity was private communication only "affecting" the two parties directly involved.

[–]TheCrimsonGlass 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Private communication THROUGH FACEBOOK. Facebook has a right to ALL content on their website. Private messages are meant to be private from other Facebook users, not from the people who run Facebook.

[–]grimhowe 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Facebook has a right to ALL content on their website.

Including racist and anti-semetic posts.

[–]TheCrimsonGlass -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Yep. They have a right to remove if they want to. Should they start removing everything someone finds offensive?

[–]lenaro 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Stop using a slippery slope argument. Racism and antisemitism pages are not ambiguous. Banning them does not magically lead to banning normal communication.

[–]nairebis 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Racism and antisemitism pages are not ambiguous.

You can't be serious. Sure, some things would be fairly unambiguous, but there are numerous people who think any criticism of Israel is "anti-semitism". Some people think any criticism of black culture is racism. Really think about the practical problems of determining what is racism/antisemitism when it's not clearly obvious.

[–]Overgoats 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We may not agree on where the line is, but I hope we can agree that pages claiming the Holocaust was a hoax are on the other side.

Facebook draws a line on skin exposure. It can just as easily draw a line on hate speech.

[–]BiDo_Boss 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Racism is unambiguous? Are you fucking serious?

[–]TheCrimsonGlass -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except it's not exactly slippery slope. /u/nairebis hit the nail on the head.

I was avoiding mentioning logical fallacies, but as long as we're going there, the entire premise of this thread is based on appealing to emotion. Facebook doesn't want to host pictures of genitals (plenty of opportunities for litigation if they do), and they don't want to get involved in policing racism. Offensiveness is not relevant to the decision.

[–]grimhowe -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think that is the question.

[–]TheCrimsonGlass 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The answer is "no". A majority of posts probably offend someone, and they should not be removed just because someone chooses to get butthurt about it.

[–]grimhowe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Including penis

[–]TheCrimsonGlass 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They probably have a specific rule saying they're going to remove any pictures of genitals. Maybe they should make a specific rule about removing any content they interpret as hate speech. Clearly they don't have one right now, though.

[–]WilliamHarry 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Nudity is still against fb policy. Whether it's private or not. Why Woudnt you just email something like that? Or text?

[–]content404 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I understand that it's against facebook policy and that it is foolish to expect facebook to respect privacy but that doesn't make it right. If you didn't know that facebook scans private chats then you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A conversation that occurs on a facebook post is public but one that occurs in chat is only immediately visible to the people in that chat. That's the reason people use chat in the first place, to have a private conversation.

Yeah, it's against policy, but that policy is absurd.

[–]PmButtPics4ADrawing 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They don't need to actually read messages in order for them to do what they did to OP. It's possible they just check the md5 hash of any images uploaded and if it matches one in a database of banned images, they ban the user. 4chan does the same thing to deal with illegal images.

[–]warenb 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would like to add that even if you edit the picture by changing its content, resolution, and quality, it will still get flagged by facebook.

[–]TheCrimsonGlass 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you didn't know that facebook scans private chats then you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you have an expectation that Facebook is not going to read content you're using their website to host, then you're living in fairy-land. It's their website. They have access and rights to all parts of it.

[–]heyyouitsmewhoitsme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Referring to a piece of information as "free speech" doesn't make any sense. "Free speech" describes the conditions under which something is communicated, e.g. "in China, journalists are afforded less freedom of speech by the government than in Germany".

[–]kryptobs2000 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

One is free speech, one is racist, I don't see what you don't understand?

[–]yeago -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

OPs hypersimplification is dumb

First comment's hypersimplification is slightly less dumb

Welcome to Reddit.