Facebook Moderators Join Criticism of Zuckerberg Over Trump Stance (theguardian.com) 221
Pressure from Facebook staff is continuing to mount on Mark Zuckerberg over his policies towards posts by Donald Trump, with moderators joining those criticizing their boss for his stance. From a report: The moderators penned an open letter to their colleagues in support of virtual walkouts that have broken out at the company, after Zuckerberg refused to take down posts by Trump that many believed breached the site's policies on incitement of violence. "We would walk out with you -- if Facebook would allow it," the moderators write. In their statement, all the company's currently employed moderators remained anonymous, highlighting the precarious nature of their employment, which is subcontracted out through third parties.
"As outsourced contractors, non-disclosure agreements deter us from speaking openly about what we do and witness for most of our waking hours. Safety and data protection are important, but so is a healthy debate about what happens at Facebook. We can't walk out, but we cannot stay silent ... Facebook can do better," the letter continues. "We need to express that Mr Zuckerberg's words about personal dismay caused by Trump's 'looting and shooting' rhetoric are not enough. The benefit of the doubt this politician is being given as a user, even with such a large platform, is unparalleled -- the attempt to retroactively place his words behind the context of other posts actually has had effect of putting it on an isolated pedestal. This may be the ultimate exhibit of white exceptionality and further legitimization of state brutality we have witnessed in the last weeks." Further reading: More Than 140 Zuckerberg-funded Scientists Call on Facebook To Rein in Trump.
"As outsourced contractors, non-disclosure agreements deter us from speaking openly about what we do and witness for most of our waking hours. Safety and data protection are important, but so is a healthy debate about what happens at Facebook. We can't walk out, but we cannot stay silent ... Facebook can do better," the letter continues. "We need to express that Mr Zuckerberg's words about personal dismay caused by Trump's 'looting and shooting' rhetoric are not enough. The benefit of the doubt this politician is being given as a user, even with such a large platform, is unparalleled -- the attempt to retroactively place his words behind the context of other posts actually has had effect of putting it on an isolated pedestal. This may be the ultimate exhibit of white exceptionality and further legitimization of state brutality we have witnessed in the last weeks." Further reading: More Than 140 Zuckerberg-funded Scientists Call on Facebook To Rein in Trump.
Isn't that special (Score:5, Funny)
Church Lady demands rebuke of Satan.
Re: (Score:2)
Church Lady demands rebuke of Satan.
Curch ladies vs. Satan? Satan doesn't stand a chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't give a damn about their policies on "incitement of violence"... I personally reported a post last week that showed a cop shot dead, laying in the street, and which read "the only good cop is a dead cop" ...and got a response that it wasn't found to violate their policies.
This has nothing to do with inciting violence, they just don't like Trump.
Re:Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As an example of this, a friend of mine posted an article from ABC news claiming that Trump said that George Floyd is happy about the good economic indicators. It's literally fake news. The story even had the video that contradicted the actual story. I found out later that, not surprisingly, the article was one of many making the same false claim - clearly news organizations working together to push a false narrative.
Not surprisingly, it wasn't "fact checked" or whatever on Facebook. Well, it was on my
Re: (Score:3)
He did say that. It isn't "fake news" it is just that President Trump is a horrible and immoral person who says things like that without shame.
Re:Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Informative)
As I keep saying - quit making me defend Trump.
Well, you could stop lying. That would make it easier.
"We all saw what happened last week. We can't let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that's happening for our country. (It's) a great day for him. It's a great day for everybody," Trump said during a White House Rose Garden event before signing a piece of legislation devoted to small business loan flexibility.
Story with embedded video: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05... [cnn.com]
Re:Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Informative)
They don't give a damn about their policies on "incitement of violence"... I personally reported a post last week that showed a cop shot dead, laying in the street, and which read "the only good cop is a dead cop" ...and got a response that it wasn't found to violate their policies.
This has nothing to do with inciting violence, they just don't like Trump.
Interesting, because one of the main reasons I stopped using Facebook was because of the constant, unending flow of pro-Trump, anti-Obama/Pelosi, horribly misleading and taken out of context quotes attacking non-conservatives, and outright threats against democrats posts in my news feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, more likely, paid bots working either for the Trump campaign, or one of our international rivals like China and Russia.
Re:Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
The crap you get on Facebook is largely a function of who you're friends with. I've it's a lot of conservative family members then you'll probably get more anti-Obama stuff. It it's more liberals then expect anti-Trump stuff. I just avoid the problem altogether by not using Facebook. If something is important to me I'll do my own research.
Re: (Score:2)
The crap you get on Facebook is largely a function of who you're friends with. I've it's a lot of conservative family members then you'll probably get more anti-Obama stuff. It it's more liberals then expect anti-Trump stuff. I just avoid the problem altogether by not using Facebook. If something is important to me I'll do my own research.
Correct. Most of my college friends (went to a small, rural, southern, religious college) tended to post the crazier, incendiary right wing stuff, while most of my graduate school friends (large, urban, and political science to be exact) tended to post more reasoned stuff, including my more right-wing school friends (I was more center-right and while most of my friends were more left-wing we did have several right wing and we all got along fine, so it can be done!). But i'm still better off not using Fac
Re: (Score:2)
They really don't care what they shove in your face as long as your face stays glued to their site and those ad impressions keep piling up.
It seems the perfect user is one who exists in an echo chamber of their own making, and is always connected, always liking/up voting/etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hilarious. The founder of Google was on the Hillary campaign, Zuckerberg is on tape pledging loyalty to Merkel, and Jack from Twitter openly campaigns for Obama and Biden. Yet despite all this happening, leftists STILL want to live in the magical fantasy that social media is against them. They're fucking nuts.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe you're incorrect. This website seems to have collated most of the information Owens refers to.
https://thecourierdaily.com/ge... [thecourierdaily.com]
Re:Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rules change, when you get big.
This is something that Social Media companies don't realize.
A small company, with a niche subset of users, you can get away with allowing rants and having week moderation. Only taking out the worse of the worse.
However Facebook, has too many users, and is a huge company. Its design to spread and share information allows for ideas to be hacked and misinformation to be spread. The size of the platform allows for massive spreading of data without any controls.
A few years back, a Guy Entered a Pizza Place armed, because there was a conspiracy that Hillary Clinton was trafficking children there. This could had been considered parody on a smallish site like Slashdot, where we know they are tolls, and a lot of stupid static. But on the Facebook level. People will take it more seriously, especially if it looks like it came from a credible source.
Social media sites, size matters. Parody needs to be clearly shown and explained as such. Facts need to be checked and verified.
In normal cases we should expect information from the president to be factual, researched, and toned in a way to be uplifting.
Trump fails to do that, it is often from a working theory, based on his gut instincts, and toned to rally only his supporters, and insulting and scary to those who do not love him, he can just be outwardly lying too, because he can't stand anything that gets in the way of his ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
140 Facebook scientists say they don't like what Trump says. The other 44K employees didn't get the petition link prior to article posting.
This industry, my industry, is entirely biased and DO NOT UNDERSTAND FREE SPEECH. The rules should not be stop something because you don't like it, they should be stop something because it incites people to do harm. If you want to filter truth/false then it should be a very narrow brush only filtering out that which is factually proven.
E.X. 5G
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Facebook moderation is a joke... (Score:3)
Funny how often Trump independently comes up with the exact words white supremacists use.
The first couple of times, maybe. At this point, you're a racist or deaf if you don't hear the whistle.
Walkout lie (Score:2, Insightful)
"We can't walk out, but we cannot stay silent"
Uhhhhhhh the hell you can't walk out. You just don't want to because you like the money. What the heck kind of people say this? Stand up for what you believe in, or shut the hell up.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you read the article?
As outsourced contractors, non-disclosure agreements deter us from speaking openly about what we do and witness for most of our waking hours
It's not just about walking out. There's NDAs that apply. NDAs apply be it that you are employed or not. So even if they wanted to "stand up for what they believe in", and leave the job, they still cannot speak out about the company.
Also the full line of the quote was.
We can’t walk out, but we cannot stay silent Facebook can do better,
Which looks like the article is paraphrasing them. But it looks like the silent part refers not so much as to yielding up the dirt but just simply blowing the whistle.
Finally.
You just don't want to because you like the money
This kind of stance is not incredibly g
Re: (Score:2)
"So even if they wanted to "stand up for what they believe in", and leave the job, they still cannot speak out about the company."
Baloney. That isn't what NDAs cover. More excuses. Even IF you believe what you just said, you pointed out that they literally said "We can’t walk out, but we cannot stay silent Facebook can do better,"
Ummmmm...yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
''That isn't what NDAs cover.''
Wrong. Their NDA precludes discussion of any information about the client they work for, the specificity of their job, all work related education, processes and employee responsibilities.
ps.. they don't get a check from FB.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. And none of what you mentioned prevents anything that is required to speak out about policy issues after you leave the company. And LITERALLY the next sentence said they "could no longer keep silent" so if you really believe what you just said, then you should realize that they are willing to dismiss their NDA if it did apply (which it doesn't). NDAs are limited in scope.
Re: (Score:2)
And none of what you mentioned prevents anything that is required to speak out about policy issues after you leave the company.
NDAs can be in effect five to ten years after employment, depending on the State we are talking about. Case in point, DB Riley, Inc. v. AB Engineering Corp established that a 10-year duration for protection to the Employer was not unreasonable. NDAs are still in full effect after you leave your company that is not a matter of debate but settled law. Your understanding of NDAs is at best flawed and your lack of understanding them has been clearly demonstrated. Not just here, but in other comments to you.
Zuck knows what is coming... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook(all social media really) != Real News in any way
Just my 2 cents
Re:Better hope it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
''and I think it will be awesome''
I absolutely agree, by design.. right? The cat is out of the bag and no entity can easily stop ability for anyone with a small amount of skill from distributing information. No user with the same skill level can't now find any information they need, nor will it be prevented in the future.
example thepiratebay
Re: (Score:2)
I am interested in the notion of going back to an internet closer to what we had when it was still in its youth. The technology has gotten signifi
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting take. I personally don't believe that 230 will end up getting changed very much if it happens at all. Trump
Politicians have been threatening to change 230 in a bi-partisan way for a couple years now. The "Earn It" act is a notable example. You are right they won't do it for Trump, but politicians see it as a way to control software companies.
Most people don't have the skill for that (Score:2)
It also means that if your personal blog gets popular it's easy to silence you, since you'll lose anonymity. At some point I'll be able to do a warrant to your hosting provider, and they'll cough up the goods. In comes the lawsuits and down you go.
In short, it's the end of Free Speech o
Re: Better hope it's not (Score:3)
Try to imagine if it was legal for me to send Robocall you as much as I want whenever I want. No Do Not Call Lists. No rules about Junk Faxes. Nothing. Just common carrier all the way. And imagine if your telephone company tried to filter those calls and got sued into oblivion if they did.
Uh. My phone company doesn't filter robocalls, their "do not call lists" are fucking useless, and while I don't have a fax machine, I'm pretty sure they don't do anything about junk faxes either. I've set up my own solution to block junk calls exactly because the phone company does nothing about it.
Sure, a few big websites might survive. Heck, Facebook probably will. Maybe Twitter.
Kiss YouTube goodbye, too expensive to run. Gab and it's offshoots are toast. 4chan too. And /..
No clue how you came to those conclusions. YouTube may or may not survive, but it seems insane to suggest that Facebook would somehow have a better chance of surviving than 4chan or Slashdot.
Which is just what they want, and which is exactly why we're having this conversation in the first place. Attempts to apply common carrier to websites & kill Section 230 are the single greatest threat to Freedom of Speech in history.
I understand that
You contradicted yourself (Score:2)
A "do not call list" is filtering.
Right now legal companies and individuals fearful of litigation are held down by those (plus most cell phone providers do fairly good filtering, you don't notice it because you still get 1 or 2 robocalls a day but ignore the 10-20 they don't let through).
As for how I came to that conclusion it's pretty cut and dry. Section 230 lets people make websites where content is shared.
Re: (Score:2)
it's the end of the Internet if that happens. Zuck can't live with common carrier.
I remember the internet before social media. It was a better place. I remember the internet before the world wide web. There was plenty of great discussion, most of it unmoderated.
The internet was originally an uncensored, moderation-optional place. Allowing people to express their opinions, however wrong, will not be the end of the internet.
Try to imagine if it was legal for me to send Robocall you as much as I want whenever I want.
So, pretty much today then, since there are no effective laws preventing it. However, spam filtering on the other side has gotten better and better. For the most
Re: (Score:2)
Kiss YouTube goodbye
Don't think so..
Alphabet market cap 983billion
Facebook market cap 655billion
YouTube isn't going away for quite a while, it's a major cash cow.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube m
Explain to me like I'm five (Score:2, Insightful)
Could someone explain to me how "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" entices violence? It merely warns that violence brings more violence, which is absolutely true.
Re:Explain to me like I'm five (Score:5, Informative)
Could someone explain to me how "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" entices violence? It merely warns that violence brings more violence, which is absolutely true.
From Wikipedia (with bold emphasis added):
The first known use of the phrase was in a press conference held by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, on December 26, 1967. Headly announced that six three-man teams of officers equipped with "shotguns and dogs" [very similar to Trump's threat of "vicious dogs" and "ominous weapons"] would respond to the "young hoodlums" from "Negro districts" in Miami with lethal force[1][11] and stated "his men have been told that any force, up to and including death, is proper when apprehending a felon".[12] In a pithy soundbite during the post-statement interview with reporters, Headley claimed that Miami had avoided "civil uprising and looting" because he had "let the word filter down that when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
Headley clarified: "Felons are going to learn that they can't be bonded out from the morgue."[15] Florida Governor Claude Kirk expressed his support for Headley's tactics: "Let them all know they will be dealt with [harshly]. We have the weapons to defeat crime. Not to use them is a crime in itself."[14] Headley added "we don't mind being accused of police brutality."[14] In a follow-up press conference, Headley refused to say whether the policy of shooting looters would only be applied to blacks, given his previous stances, leading to a heightened state of fear among the black communities of Miami.[4]:3
A paraphrased version of his December 1967 remarks was quoted in his 1968 Miami Herald obituary: "There is only one way to handle looters and arsonists during a riot and that is to shoot them on sight. I've let the word filter down — when the looting starts, the shooting starts."[16][17] Anecdotes were shared that City of Miami police officers had started aggressively enforcing its stop-and-frisk law by stopping black males in public with no pretext, calling them belittling or racist epithets, then demanding identification and their purpose.[4]:3 Three weeks after the new policy started, Chief Headley declared that it had caused the violent crime rate to fall by 60%.[18] In contrast to the continuous harassment by Miami police officers, the Dade County Public Safety Department built relationships between its deputy sheriffs and the black community; although both the City of Miami and Dade County were judged to have effectively maintained order, the Miami Police Department were perceived to have revived prior racist policies.
TL;DR:
Because as originally used it was used as a specific threat of violence towards black people. Also, why in any sane world would a crime against property that in no way is threatening the safety of others warrant a lethal response? Looted TVs can be replaced. Dead people can't. And yes, I am also aware I just fed a troll.
Re:Explain to me like I'm five (Score:5, Insightful)
That attitude really is hellbent on living in a shithole.
Petty crime seems petty until you consider the ramifications of living in a society that tolerates it.
No more leaving stuff in your car, bikes (even locked up), etc. Fixing broken car windows, having foreign visitors take a train to SF because their passport is stolen, replacing all your stuff, not being able to live without assuming it will get stolen ? It's stealing from all of our lives.
Your attitude sucks, and the city you want to live in. There are clear rights and wrongs, that should be dealt with harshly. I would also love to go spray paint and burn a bunch of things, or loot a store, but I know it's wrong, and I don't do it. Are there really people that don't know this is wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
That attitude really is hellbent on living in a shithole.
Petty crime seems petty until you consider the ramifications of living in a society that tolerates it.
No more leaving stuff in your car, bikes (even locked up), etc. Fixing broken car windows, having foreign visitors take a train to SF because their passport is stolen, replacing all your stuff, not being able to live without assuming it will get stolen ? It's stealing from all of our lives.
Your attitude sucks, and the city you want to live in. There are clear rights and wrongs, that should be dealt with harshly. I would also love to go spray paint and burn a bunch of things, or loot a store, but I know it's wrong, and I don't do it. Are there really people that don't know this is wrong?
Petty crime is a symptom of poverty, drug use, and an uneducated/unemployed population. Instead of treating the symptom, how about we treat the cause? I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards better safety nets, increased drug treatment and policies such as needle exchanges, and a better educational system than see it go towards cops rolling down the street wearing milsurp tactical gear riding MRAPs.
Re:Explain to me like I'm five (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how Rudy Giuliani cleaned up NYC? He started enforcing the "small crimes", like jumping turnstiles at the subway. Coincidentally, crimes on the subway dropped. Turned out those committing most of the robberies/assaults on the subway were also the same folks jumping turnstiles. And many got caught early on.
Same with graffiti. Turned out a lot of it was gangs and drug dealers placing marks down about their territories. Clean up the people tagging, and you also cleaned up the people selling or assisting in the distribution of drugs.
Clean up the small crimes, and you tend to also eliminate the criminals who also commit the big crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Independent studies generally have failed to link the tactics of the Giuliani administration with the large decrease in crime rates. Rather, many criminologists believe the decline in New York, as in Chicago, San Diego, Miami and elsewhere, was the result of a complex mix of social and demographic changes, including a break in the crack cocaine epidemic, an improving economy, and increased prison terms for proven lawbreakers. Better policing tactics and policies were likely part of it, experts say, but not to the extent Giuliani claims.
Re:Explain to me like I'm five (Score:4, Interesting)
Social and demographics changes, and an improving economy have NOT helped in San Francisco and LA. Sure the "numbers" are down - because we're also not actively pursuing crimes with a value of $950 or less. The actual violent crime rates in CA, at least, have trended up since the passage of Prop 47 [ca.gov], even though the economy has steadily improved.
Looking at that, I think Giuliani was right - catch the criminal doing ANYTHING illegal, and you tend to stop them from committing much worse crimes in the future. In CA, starting at the end of 2014, we're ignoring those "petty crimes" - and we're seeing violent crime explode.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Explain to me like I'm five (Score:5, Insightful)
In many states, property owners have a right to defend their property.
Looters are invading someone else's property and stealing or causing damage. The property owners have the right to respond with force to deter or prevent such activity.
The police also have the right to enforce the law, including lethal force if necessary. If large numbers of looters can't be stopped by non lethal means then deadly force or the threat of it may be necessary.
If the police or property owners are threatened they are justified in using deadly force. If there are a large number of angry looters, even if they aren't carrying guns they are still dangerous. It's quite possible for a large group of looters to beat someone to death with their bare hands, or whatever solid implements are to hand.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the police to stand by and do nothing while looting is taking place. It is their job to prevent and stop such activity, and if the looters respond to police presence with violence the police are justified in responding in kind.
Responding to looters has nothing to do with racism. Looting is a crime, irrespective of the race of the perpetrator.
Re: (Score:2)
In many states, property owners have a right to defend their property.
Looters are invading someone else's property and stealing or causing damage. The property owners have the right to respond with force to deter or prevent such activity.
If someone wants to break into my house, I'll meet them with a gun. If I catch them breaking into my truck I'm calling the cops. Things can be replaced, people(me, my family, even the person committing the crime) can't.
The police also have the right to enforce the law, including lethal force if necessary. If large numbers of looters can't be stopped by non lethal means then deadly force or the threat of it may be necessary.
If the police or property owners are threatened they are justified in using deadly force. If there are a large number of angry looters, even if they aren't carrying guns they are still dangerous. It's quite possible for a large group of looters to beat someone to death with their bare hands, or whatever solid implements are to hand.
And once they start threatening to beat someone up then they are now putting the safety of others in jeopardy and deadly force is now morally acceptable (ideally only after less lethal means are used first, but that's not always practicable). If they are looting an empty store, not so much
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they shouldn't. But shooting isn't "responding in kind" unless there is a legitimate threat to the safety of others.
The police should attempt to stop the crime which is being committed, it is their duty to do so.
In many cases, looters will respond violently to attempts by police to arrest them and actively resist arrest, possibly threatening the officers who are doing their jobs.
If/when this happens, then there is a legitimate threat to the safety of the police officers and the only reasonable action is for them to respond forcefully.
If the police were to simply back away when threatened, then it would encourage more cri
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they shouldn't. But shooting isn't "responding in kind" unless there is a legitimate threat to the safety of others.
The police should attempt to stop the crime which is being committed, it is their duty to do so.
Ah, no, not always. Running from the police is a crime, yes? During police chases people will break all sorts of additional laws as well, such as reckless driving or assault. The police might even know the owner of the car has a warrant. But police often make the determination to terminate the chase because continuing the chase puts the lives of others at risk. So not only is there precedent, but there is also often policy dictating that the police do not have a duty to stop every crime as it is being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In sane states property owners don't (Score:2)
Police, OTOH, are (or should) be held to a higher standard. They are trained in and given the right to use force. With great power yada yada yada.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, why in any sane world would a crime against property that in no way is threatening the safety of others warrant a lethal response? Looted TVs can be replaced. Dead people can't.
If you observe how people behave, you learn that civilization requires property crimes be treated seriously by authorities. Failing to do that causes owners of property to protect their property with whatever violence is required. And if that property is stolen, the property owners will go try to get it back. Or try to get something else back instead. When they do, there will be violence. Violence gets answered with violence.
Throughout history and even before, every village chief, every elder, every sm
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why in any sane world would a crime against property that in no way is threatening the safety of others warrant a lethal response? Looted TVs can be replaced. Dead people can't.
If you observe how people behave, you learn that civilization requires property crimes be treated seriously by authorities.
Where did I say not to? I'm not saying let people loot willy nilly. Police should try to stop looters and protect stores, but if it comes down to shooting someone or letting them steal a TV or a designer purse, well then the solution should be obvious. Instead of calling up thousands of National Guard to watch over some protestors, or using elite police units to bust 75 year old men's head son the ground, and use helicopters to beat protestors down with prop wash, use them to patrol, look for looters, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apples. Oranges. You knew that.
Fruitist! A fruit is a fruit, no matter what color they are! How dare you try to claim they are different.
*Proud member of Antifru*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you had to go back over 50 years to find an old, hoary reference that nobody has ever heard of? Jeez. That's a reach,
Yeah, the Civil Rights movement is completely irrelevant these days......
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that Trump, the man who famously does not remember what he said 5 minutes ago, went into the archives, dug out a forgotten phrase from ancient history, and made sure to use it in an attempt to incite violence, which was already well-incited by the protesters themselves? That's your story?
Trump is like a child: he regularly repeats what he hears other people say, and he has surrounded himself with educated, intelligent people. One of them could have easily known the story and context behind that quote and said it to Trump precisely because it will get the media up in arms and his base will eat it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Shorter version: By adding a page (or 100 pages) of your own additional words that Trump never said.
Can't win. When the media reports on what trump says, his supporters all go "you have to look at what he really means, not what he actually says", and when the media reports on what Trump really means, his supporters go "you have to look at what he's saying".
Inciting violence? (Score:4, Informative)
His post doesn't look like an incitement to violence, it looks like a warning to those who are planning to commit the crime of looting.
Looting is illegal.
If you are looting, you risk being shot - not only by the police, but also by law abiding property owners who don't want to be the victims of looting and are defending their own property.
If you are looting as part of a large group, even if none of you are armed with guns, large numbers of people either unarmed or armed with improvised weapons (rocks, sticks etc) can still be highly threatening and warrant a deadly response.
While there are undoubtedly some bad cops out there, and innocent people have wrongly died at the hands of the police, getting to a state where the cops are afraid to deal with ACTUAL CRIMINALS (which is exactly what looters are) is bad for everyone.
Looters are not peaceful protesters, they are not standing up for a cause, they are criminals who are opportunistically using the situation for their own profit and they should be dealt with like any other criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
Looters are not peaceful protesters, they are not standing up for a cause, they are criminals who are opportunistically using the situation for their own profit and they should be dealt with like any other criminals.
Exactly. They should be arrested, tried before a jury of their peers with access to legal council, and sentenced if found guilty and freed if found innocent. Not summarily executed, by police or civilians. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" implies otherwise. A crime against property with no threat to human life should not be a death sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
> Exactly. They [looters] should be arrested, tried before a jury
Not always possible. When you have huge violent mobs looting a store, and there are no police nearby.
I am allowed to shoot people who break into my home, why not people who break into my business?
Re: (Score:2)
I am allowed to shoot people who break into my home, why not people who break into my business?
Breaking into a residence carries with it an inherent threat to the safety of others as it can reasonably be assumed someone is there. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume someone breaking into your house is there to, or at least willing to, do bodily harm to you or your family. That isn't the case with a business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it is OK to steal everything I have and ruin my life, I have to sit there and watch= FUCK YOU, I hope someone does it to you, then you can fucking virtue signal like the little bitch you are.
Did you not insure your business? Bad life choice. I thought American was all about personal responsibility? And by all means try to stop them, call the police, etc. But you aren't morally justified in killing them unless you, or another person, are threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking into a residence carries with it an inherent threat to the safety of others as it can reasonably be assumed someone is there. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume someone breaking into your house is there to, or at least willing to, do bodily harm to you or your family. That isn't the case with a business.
It is if you are currently in that place of business. One example, how many mom and pop stores have their living quarters above the store? Even without that consideration, if you are in your store and the looting starts, you still have the right to protect your own life. The fact that you are also protecting your store is irrelevent.
Re: (Score:2)
If these were conservatives burning down planned parenthood abortion clinics nationwide you'd be outraged and calling for death.
No, I'd rather see them get caught, arrested, and serving a nice long prison sentence. Not even really a fan of the death penalty since innocent people have been killed and it's often more expensive to execute someone than to house them for life. But that's more a fact of how little money is invested/spent on the prison system, but the failures of a for-profit prison system is another issue entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
"I am allowed to shoot people who break into my home, why not people who break into my business?"
My home is my castle, not my ice-cream parlor.
Have you not seen Pelosi's freezer?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not always possible to peacefully arrest someone in the midst of chaos.
I love how up in arms everyone is about tear gas / rubber bullets, but think the cops should just stand there and ACCEPT getting hit with BRICKS (and amimojo thinks they should do it without riot gear, just in normal cloth uniforms!)
I would expect to be shot if I threw a brick at a cop, especially if me and ten friends were doing it, I don't really understand how anyone wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They should be arrested, tried before a jury of their peers with access to legal council, and sentenced if found guilty and freed if found innocent. Not summarily executed, by police or civilians. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" implies otherwise. A crime against property with no threat to human life should not be a death sentence.
Exactly. And if the police are able to arrest the looters that's exactly what they should do.
However the reality is often not so simple. When the police attend the scene of the crime and find a large number of looters, its highly likely that many of them will resist arrest (ie committing a further crime) and may escalate the level of violence by trying to attack the police. Large crowds can be threatening and deadly even if they are armed with only blunt instruments.
The police cannot be expected to simply b
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They should be arrested, tried before a jury of their peers with access to legal council, and sentenced if found guilty and freed if found innocent. Not summarily executed, by police or civilians. "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" implies otherwise. A crime against property with no threat to human life should not be a death sentence.
Exactly. And if the police are able to arrest the looters that's exactly what they should do.
However the reality is often not so simple. When the police attend the scene of the crime and find a large number of looters, its highly likely that many of them will resist arrest (ie committing a further crime) and may escalate the level of violence by trying to attack the police. Large crowds can be threatening and deadly even if they are armed with only blunt instruments.
The police cannot be expected to simply back away and ignore the fact that a crime is taking place. It is their duty to stop the crime, if the looters respond to police attempts to arrest them by resisting arrest and escalating violence against the police then it is not unreasonable for the police to defend themselves.
Yes, but they cannot (well, should not) automatically assume hostile or violent intent on the part of the looters. If looters start resisting (and by resisting I mean actually actively resisting, ie throwing punches or objects or kicking, not simply "not complying"), then by all means start cracking skulls of the people actually resisting. If a store is being looted box it in. But police should not ever instigate the violence unless it is clear that other people are in danger of injury.
Re:Inciting violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump wants the public to focus just on the looting (which barring a few hotspots, has really not been out-of-control). Some police departments are inciting escalation to justify their tactics. First sign of trouble, here comes the riot squad. When you create a phalanx of armored authority figures, do you think that will have a calming effect on the crowd?
We ignore common sense that says "let's have a real discussion and see how we can move forward". The root cause extends far beyond one man being murdered while handcuffed.
So we just have to suck it up and deal with a few bad cops who unnecessarily kill others but a few looters (out of the thousands that protested peacefully) and now it's ok to authorize lethal force by the police (which is how we got to where we are)?
Censoring the president (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are these leftists so hell bent on censoring the president? If what he says is indeed a lie then it should be easy to disprove. If Trump's speech bothers them to that extent then maybe they should stop following him.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are these leftists so hell bent on censoring
Might as well just the sentence there.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are these leftists so hell bent on censoring the president? If what he says is indeed a lie then it should be easy to disprove. If Trump's speech bothers them to that extent then maybe they should stop following him.
Good Lord, Republicans want him muzzled too.
Why? Are you serious?
Re: (Score:2)
Let him talk all he wants and people can decide what to do with that information. The more you suppress something the more taboo it becomes.
Re: (Score:2)
People are walking out of the company because Zuck won't slap a warning label on Trump's speech. They would rather facebook not publish anything Trump says. Effectively censorship. Why is it twitter's job to decide what people say is truthful or not?
Moderators? (Score:2)
Their job is to provide a rating consistent with a specific written set of guidelines. There's no specific control of what is or isn't removed. They're just the herd that flags content for a Facebook employee to deal with. The fact remains that Facebook has been fucking them for as long as they've been employed by the 'subcontracting company'. The majority of the work that their direct employer has is directly from Facebook. So fuck them for their specific reason for a ''walk out'', and fuck Facebook for no
Well.... (Score:2)
If it really is Trump's posts, they'll make great evidence against him at his trials.
If not, then it's a false account masquerading as him. Shut it down then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are stupid, where did I say anything even remotely similar.?
You retardlicans are morons
Discriminatory hiring is the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
When companies and government institutions are allowed to openly discriminate against beliefs and ideas, this social contract falls apart and devolves into tribalism. Suddenly, you are allowed to surround yourself with people who only have the "right" idea and who never challenge you. Since this one world view is the only "correct" worldview, anyone who disagrees is deemed either stupid of crazy. Therefore, they should not be in your club, business, or organization, according to this tribal view.
If anyone openly disagrees with tribal view, then they should be censored or fired. In fact, since the tribal view is "perfect." and criticism of it should be ignored. It should also be stamped out elsewhere. There is no room for differing opinions anywhere.
This all happens because these places are allowed to openly discriminate against ideas, even encouraged to do so. The Facebook moderator feels that way because, FB has only hired people with a certain mindset, or at least chased off anyone who disagrees. Group think has set in, and the lapdog of true racism dutifully follows. The moderators have no sense of balance or fairness and should be fired, not celebrated. With 20% out of work, I am sure there are others who are willing to overlook tribalism and do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because the American left considers the American right to be The Other. [archive.is]
... and vice versa. Americans are simply tribal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because the American left considers the American right to be The Other. [archive.is]
... and vice versa. Humans are simply tribal.
FTFY. It's an intrinsic part of human nature to need something to identify with, and an "other" is required for that something to have value. It can be something as big as a race or nation, or something as small as a high school sports team fanbase or a fringe conspiracy theory group.
I don't think it's tribal (Score:2)
People accuse me of hating Trump personally because I do, but they also use that to ignore the reams of real, substantive reasons I dispise him and his policies.
I think this comic [duckduckgo.com] sums up the concerns the left wing have. If I may Godwin this thread, the Nazis played well within th
We need some neologisms (Score:2, Insightful)
The first neologism we need, which someone here can become famous by coining, has the definition of "something that's only wrong when Trump does it."
The second is "the upcoming time between now and election day when all voices that don't toe the Democratic Party line are silenced." I suggest something ending in -pocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
"something that's only wrong when [OTHER] does it."
This is called Politics. Thanks for tuning in.
The second is "the upcoming time between now and election day when all voices that don't toe the Democratic Party line are silenced." I suggest something ending in -pocalypse.
Elections will have consequences-alypse?
looting and shooting (Score:2)
You can read into that whatever you care to. But the fact remains that many city police departments failed to be able to protect private property.
In some states it's perfectly legal to use deadly force to protect personal property, even if it's not in your home.
It's an embarrassment that some private business owners had their property and product looted for 15 hours with no response from police. There's no mob mentality to loot when the possibility of lethal force by property owners is eminent and the peopl
Re: (Score:2)
If the cops can't protect private property and fail to follow the laws they swear to uphold then fire them and charge them. They're acting like children when told to act reasonable and stop doing illegal things. Their unions need to be dissolved firstly.
Hate has lost all meaning (Score:2, Insightful)
Shall we get real about this? Once upon a time hate speech meant demeaning speech about a person based on identity politics. Now it has been redefined to include things like saying all lives matter instead of black lives matter. Some people believe in identity politics, others do not. Ironically it is the people that have the inclusive view and who want to treat people equally regardless of the color of their skin that are being accused of hate speech.
The people with the exclusive view that want to practice
Usually dont see eye to eye with Zuck (Score:2)
He's a scumbag. But he also seems to be the only one at Facebook who has any foresight.
Right now social media in general and Facebook in particular is under a lot of scrutiny from both parties in Washington and the last thing they wan't to do is piss off politicians.
Here's the thing, the current laws in place regulating the internet pre-date internet based mega corps and social media. When 230 was written, "social media" were BBS and small forums run by individuals. There is a big difference between a niche
Why must businesses even participate? (Score:2)
When did we decide that businesses should be here to amplify a particular political position? Is this just more fallout from citizens united, or a change in our culture that finds it acceptable for a business to risk everything on the divided political battles.
I believe that individual voters should be the ones driving a democracy, not non-voting corporate entities.
FB learning nothing from the NY Times meltdown (Score:2)
The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning - amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton about the George Floyd unrest last week.
Bennet had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, "Send in the Troops." Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops to help quell riots and looting that emerged amid the anger over Floyd's death in Minneapolis police custody last month.
"T
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t understand that one bit. That is the literal definition of shooting the messenger. It’s the fucking opinion page!
Does anybody care about Voltaire? (Score:2)