Zuckerberg Says Steve Bannon Has Not Violated Enough Policies For Suspension (reuters.com) 153
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg told an all-staff meeting on Thursday that former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon had not violated enough of the company's policies to justify his suspension when he urged beheading two senior U.S. officials, according to a recording heard by Reuters. Zuckerberg acknowledged criticism of Facebook by President-elect Joe Biden but said the company shared some of the Biden team's same concerns about social media. He urged employees not to jump to conclusions about how the new administration might approach regulation of social media companies.
Bannon suggested in a video posted on Nov. 5 that FBI Director Christopher Wray and government infectious diseases expert Anthony Fauci should be beheaded, saying they had been disloyal to U.S. President Donald Trump, who last week lost his re-election bid to Biden. Facebook removed the video but left up Bannon's page, which has about 175,000 followers. Twitter banned Bannon last week over the same content. "We have specific rules around how many times you need to violate certain policies before we will deactivate your account completely," Zuckerberg said. "While the offenses here, I think, came close to crossing that line, they clearly did not cross the line." Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the company would take further action against Bannon's page "if there are additional violations." Last Friday, independent activist network Avaaz alerted Facebook to a network of misinformation pages that Steve Bannon was involved with.
"We're a small team run with small donations," Quran told Gizmodo. "If we can spot this stuff, a multi-billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees focused on the election and disinformation most certainly can. We are tired of doing their job for them." Quran added that Avaaz has been alerting Facebook to its problems all year. "If 2016 was an accident," Quran added, "2020 has been negligence."
Bannon suggested in a video posted on Nov. 5 that FBI Director Christopher Wray and government infectious diseases expert Anthony Fauci should be beheaded, saying they had been disloyal to U.S. President Donald Trump, who last week lost his re-election bid to Biden. Facebook removed the video but left up Bannon's page, which has about 175,000 followers. Twitter banned Bannon last week over the same content. "We have specific rules around how many times you need to violate certain policies before we will deactivate your account completely," Zuckerberg said. "While the offenses here, I think, came close to crossing that line, they clearly did not cross the line." Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the company would take further action against Bannon's page "if there are additional violations." Last Friday, independent activist network Avaaz alerted Facebook to a network of misinformation pages that Steve Bannon was involved with.
"We're a small team run with small donations," Quran told Gizmodo. "If we can spot this stuff, a multi-billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees focused on the election and disinformation most certainly can. We are tired of doing their job for them." Quran added that Avaaz has been alerting Facebook to its problems all year. "If 2016 was an accident," Quran added, "2020 has been negligence."
Still many paths to a Trump victory, folks. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
For example, he can pretend to kidnap himself and demand a second term as the ransom.
Won't people realize it's a fake plot when the ransom note comes written in Sharpie?
Re:Still many paths to a Trump victory, folks. (Score:4, Funny)
Won't people realize it's a fake plot when the ransom note comes written in Sharpie?
Maybe he'll have Eric do it to help throw them off, then it will be written in crayon instead.
"He whose name need not be mentioned" anymore. (Score:2)
Well played and funny mods well earned.
Still, I think it is time to excise that proper noun. Note the difference between "need" and "must". Motivated by irrelevance, not fear.
Being completely ignored is probably the worst punishment possible. And completely deserved.
So to change the topic to something more important, I haven't read any of her books since the original seven Harry Potter books. They were pretty good, but descriptions of her later stuff have put me off. Sounded like she was burned out. Or mayb
Re: (Score:2)
I've only read the Potter books, so I can't help you there. I do want to read the new one so I can decide whether to be incensed about it, which I'm not yet. I prefer to actually have the facts in hand before I get butt-hurt.
I hope she made enough money to satisfy her muse, though. After what she "gave" us (we did pay for it, but anyway) we should be satisfied.
Re: (Score:3)
He calls it Operation Blazing Saddles.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, he can pretend to kidnap himself and demand a second term as the ransom.
Is it possible that we instead ask for a most gruesome death in exchange for not only not giving Trump a second term, but actually offering the presidency to Hillary? I'm sure even the democrats will take him up on that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> demand a second term as the ransom
Three lifetime terms in some government facility will be even better.
Just absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Bannon calls for a beheading yet FB continues to let him spew. What happens when he calls for Zuck's head?
Re:Just absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Zuckerberg call for the removal of someone who is enabling him to make money?
Two morally bankrupt peas in a pod.
Re:Just absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
While you make a great point about FB being an enabler, from what I've seen people like Bannon can turn on a dime and go after companies or people with whom they might disagree at some point. Case in point - Fox News and Trump. While Fox News hasn't completely turned on Trump, they are leaning in that direction.
Another case in point - Trump wanting to make a digital media channel to try and screw over Fox News - the very same org that enabled him over the last 4 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And like everything else the alleged president touches, a new media company will die due to the alleged president's managerial prowess. Fox has nothing to worry about, where is their audience going to go to get their daily right-wing nutjob fix?
Re: (Score:3)
And like everything else the alleged president touches, a new media company will die due to the alleged president's managerial prowess. Fox has nothing to worry about, where is their audience going to go to get their daily right-wing nutjob fix?
OAN? Newsmax?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting collection of mod points you have there. Is that because the economic model of propaganda disguised as journalism has nothing to do with "managerial prowess"? Do you think the real deciders actually care if FAUX (or Clear Channel or OAN) makes money as long as it gets "the message" out? The advertising is just camouflage. The ratings still matter, but NOT because of the advertising, only because of the eyeballs for "the message".
Re: (Score:2)
FAUX
DAMN THAT'S CLEVER!
Re:Just absurd (Score:4, Interesting)
Two current Facebook employees and two former employees, who spoke anonymously out of fear of professional repercussions, said they believed the company had become hypersensitive to conservative complaints, in some cases making special allowances for conservative pages to avoid negative publicity.
“This supposed goal of this process is to prevent embarrassing false positives against respectable content partners, but the data shows that this is instead being used primarily to shield conservative fake news from the consequences,” said one former employee.
About two-thirds of the “escalations” included in the leaked list relate to misinformation issues linked to conservative pages, including those of Breitbart, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Gateway Pundit. There was one escalation related to a progressive advocacy group and one each for CNN, CBS, Yahoo and the World Health Organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that OAN (One America Network)? The only network that actually puts Trump in a good light these days after even Fox News got tired of him?
It was so good, Trump put an OAN reporter as spokesperson for the FDA where she lasted about 20 hours before being turfed for some reason or another.
And Trump loves the easy questions OAN asks to a fault.
Steve Bannon on FB is like a dildo sold at WalMart (Score:2)
Facebook's business plan in regards to politics makes no sense. It's like if Wal Mart started selling sex toys. Why would they
Re: Steve Bannon on FB is like a dildo sold at Wal (Score:2)
But Walmart has the low prices!
https://www.walmart.com/search... [walmart.com] toys
Re: Steve Bannon on FB is like a dildo sold at Wal (Score:2)
You make a sensible argument but what do the machines think? AI is at the heart of content control and it doesn't get caught up in what makes sense to us. Zuckerberg might be giving what seems like a human interpretation but I suspect he's still listening to what the data tells him. It's ultimately impossible for people to control content on the platform and so 90% of the decisions are automated. The machines are convinced that politics is a key strategy in "engaging" us in social media despite the apparent
Re:Just absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, one must call for the beheading of at least three people in order to be banned.
Rules are rules. If you bend them just because a guy is a demented sociopath, you'll end up harming your shareholders and for that you'll eventually burn in hell.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess one "Allahu Akbar" adds two bonus beheading calls to one it's combined with.
Re: Just absurd (Score:2)
Allahu akbar means Allah is Supreme which is same as Christ is the only savior and Jai Shri Ram. Facebook should ignore it.
And as a minority opinion here let me just say Facebook is right. Zuckerberg is not a public servant. Pass a law that bans calling for beheading or don't use facebook. From a policy perspective Facebook is right.
Re: (Score:3)
Something is wrong when the CEO of this major company is intimately involved in the details of individual membership criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you have him do, plug his ears up and ignore how his product is being used? Not to suggest that isn't where his head is at anyway - he's probably in mortal fear of people leaving the Zuckergarten, which they are starting to.
You see, he didn't bring the issue up, but he did declare it a non-issue. The best place for it to be is under the rug. Hope that the people who will read it on FB won't care, and the people that would care won't read it. Which is by and large true due to filterly bubblage.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be effective policies in place to police membership, content, content manipulation, etc. Of course they're evolving in this kind of environment. Maybe the CEO is concerned with correcting these policies when egregious mistakes are made.
To get involved with details/decisions about the membership & activity of a specific person who's known to lie and manipulate his content for political purposes puts Zuckerberg into question of supporting or enabling it.
Re: (Score:2)
When Bannon calls for the head of Zuckerberg's dick I am sure he will insert it without further ado.
Re: (Score:2)
Bannon is not banned, but I got banned for 30 days for posting an article some crazy right wing conspiracy theory. They protect the Right Wingers...:-(
Re:Just absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he though? If you haven't noticed, there are people out there who will gladly deceive you about what people have actually said and done. They're called journalists. There's a reason Bannon's actual words don't appear in the summary, he's using common metaphor in stating an opinion.
If you think, “I’d put the heads on pikes. Right. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you are gone", is meant to be take literally, then I can tell you what party you beong to. There's no way a neutral observer could take that as a literal statement.
I could agree if he hadn't added where exactly the severed heads should be displayed as a visual warning, that's crossing the line from metaphorical to literal.
It's a problem either way (Score:2, Troll)
Context matters in these things. If I joke about launching Trump & McConnell into the sun from the context it's clear I'm joking because a) longstanding jokes about launching annoying people into the sun b) the compl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain how you would put someone's head on a pike without beheading the person?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because only a moron takes it seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Because everyone who isn't a super-serious, pain in the ass trying to score cheap political points knows that it's not a serious call for violence.
We live in a world where people will read on the internet rumors about a child sex trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza parlor (that's in a building with no basement) and show up to "investigate" it with an AR-15 and start popping off shots. The "reasonable person interpretation" defense went out the window a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a world where people will read on the internet rumours that a bunch of virgins await them if they commit acts of atrocity against others, that they read on the internet were doing bad things against your mates, and will do far worse than pop off shots with an AR-15.
That's not Islam any more than QAnon is conservatism.
Re:Because only a moron takes it seriously (Score:4)
That's not Islam any more than QAnon is conservatism.
That's what everyone says in defense of religious extremists. But you can literally say that about any faith, and usually have a valid argument. For example, Catholicism isn't Christianity, because the Bible doesn't say shit about a pope. But Catholics will argue until the end that they are Christians. In the end they are marked down as a Christian sect. The violent Islamists are no less followers of Islam than any others, they're only interpreting the documentation differently.
This is why, ultimately, no religions should be respected ever. They are all subjective. They are all bullshit until proven otherwise. They are all harmful in that they teach people to accept bullshit into their heart as their god and savior, amen. Magical thinking leads to more magical thinking. It's only a short hop from "I have a special magical sky friend" to "my magical sky friend says I should kill you".
Trying to stamp out religions by force ultimately has negative side effects that are at least as harmful as they are, so I don't advocate for that. But they still have to be combated as the pre-scientific hogwash that they are, if we are to move forward as a species. They exist only to divide and control people.
Re:Just STFU with your lame excuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a "reasonable person" there is no law.
That's exactly why Republicans are always attacking education. They don't people to be reasonable, they are too hard to manipulate in that state. They want people to be emotional and uneducated. Hence DeVos, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we need to keep our “reasonable person” notion in the law, but surely we can agree that it isn’t a defense here, given that reasonable people don’t publicly advocate for the beheadings of others, whether seriously or in jest.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that we need to keep our âoereasonable personâ notion in the law, but surely we can agree that it isnâ(TM)t a defense here, given that reasonable people donâ(TM)t publicly advocate for the beheadings of others, whether seriously or in jest.
Read what you write before you hit submit — Reasonable people don't believe that a jest (or a figure of speech) adds up to advocating for the beheading of others.
ObDisclaimer: I'm not commenting on how Bannon meant it, I haven't watched his videos, and don't plan to. I'm happy to not have to look at his face, or hear his voice.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that reasonable people generally don’t misunderstand those sorts of things, but that’s missing the point I was getting at, which was that reasonable people don’t say such things in the first place because they know unreasonable people will misunderstand their words.
Re:Because only a moron takes it seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
We had a bunch of right wing idiots plotting to kidnap a state governor because she told everyone to wear masks.
It's not about cheap political points. It's about high profile people whose words reach a large number of people, some small fraction of which are fucking psychopaths who will try to act on those words. These people MUST be held to a higher standard than the idiot in your break room.
Re: (Score:2)
And Bannon's followers are morons. QED.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how you would put someone's head on a pike without beheading the person?
You can leave the head on the body and just run the pike from his ass all the up to the skull. Though technically it would be called "impaling"
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how you would put someone's head on a pike without beheading the person?
http://www.readwritethink.org/... [readwritethink.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Bannon did not "call for beheading government officials," he used a common expression: "put [X]'s head on a pike."
Explain how you would put someone's head on a pike without beheading the person?
Metaphorically
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, neither you, nor anyone else, has explained how saying to put their head on a pike does not mean to behead the person. That is the literal meaning of the phrase. There can be no other meaning than to behead someone.
To use your own words: If you don't know that, then you're not qualified to comment.
Also, if that phrase is so innocuous, then I dare you to say to put the con artist's head on a pike. I can gua
Re: (Score:2)
which is not taken literally.
vs.
That is the literal meaning
I'm not even sure what argument you're making. Yes, a phrase has a literal meaning. The phrase was NOT being used literally. I think it's a distasteful statement on his part, but not reasonably interpreted as a literal one.
Re: (Score:2)
>And yet, neither you, nor anyone else, has explained how saying to
>put their head on a pike does not mean to behead the person.
what a limited imagination . . .
leaving aside the non-literal primary meaning when this expression is used, you simply impale the person.
You may optionally detach the body from the head later at your leisure . . .
Or run the spike from the chin, with a crossbar to prevent it from penetrating far enough to hit the brain . . .
Or enter from the back of the head.
See, if you want t
Re: (Score:2)
Can you find a definition of the phrase that assumes that "pike" refers to a fish?
Re: (Score:2)
ooh . . . even *more* creative.
head on a pike, n. To sleep with a stinky pillow . . .
[smiley deleted as lameness filter mistook this for ascii art]
[stretched out version of "ooh" removed for same reason]
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, by "pike", Bannon meant a fish, and not a pole with a sharp point? Perhaps he meant that the people should have their heads grafted onto a fish? However, it still requires beheading.
Re: (Score:2)
>There are many figures of speech in the English language,
>which by definition are not to be taken literally.
Wait a minute . . . does this mean that someone who finds himself hoist by his own petard wasn't always blown up during the siege of a castle?
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and a footy team which "decimated" their opponents didn't kill 10% of them.
It's sad to see the ongoing lack of English comprehension on Slashdot, and how people will defend it unto oblivion. Where I [literally] come from, nerds care about facts. Though to be fair, we called ourselves "geeks" in Santa Cruz, and we valued wit and knowledge, not lawyering and whining.
Re: (Score:2)
Will everyone know it's not meant to be taken literally?
Re:Anndddd he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem of course is that reasonable people will understand it as a metaphor and know that he's not actually calling for someone to be beheaded.
But it appears that there's a not insignificant number of Trump Supporters that would infer that yes, Bannon wants these two folks beheaded and their heads on pikes in front of the White House.
That's been the problem for the past several years. Since Trump doesn't denounce White Supremacists outright, they feel he's one of them and is giving a wink and a nod when speaking. That way when some group of nutjobs actually plan to kidnap a Governor, he can deny actually telling them to do that. LIBERATE MICHIGAN! No no, I didn't mean actually do physical violence, *wink* *wink* say no more, say no more.
And yes, I did read the transcript provided by the White House. Trump did say, "good people on both sides" and it wasn't until several minutes later and after reporters continued to ask him to confirm he was supporting White Supremacists that he said they are bad people. If I have to get you to say something under duress, it's unlikely to be true.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest an experiment: set up a new Facebook account and call for Zuckerberg's head on a pike. See how long the account stays up.
Re: (Score:2)
Took me several minutes to parse and read that stretch, in transcript form. It's nearly verbal vomit. I don't think it would be a "lie" to claim that as several minutes if you've only seen the transcript. Just a bad guess.
Either way, it is not an isolated incident. There are so many "I never said that" corrections that clarify to the press what he actually meant. But his target audience heard him the first time and ignore the corrections.
Re:Anndddd he's right (Score:4, Informative)
If you are going to quote the transcript it may help to quote the relevant part:
Reporter: "The neo-N azis {slashdot forced this edit to avoid filter error] started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
It is a bit disingenuous to try quoting the transcript and then just leave out the part of the quote that you are trying to refute.
The other thing that I find interesting in that press conference is actually near the start of the transcript:
Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-N azis {slashdot forced this edit]?"
Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."
Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."
Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.
"So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to --
I guess Trump has given up the whole "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct" when it comes to the election and claiming there was massive fraud that "stole" the election from him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Can you imagine the response if he had a dummy head of one of them, with bloody neck and holding a knife?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not strictly true: the pike can be set flat on the ground, and somebody can lay their head on it. Technically their head would be on a spike (duct-tape it to the spike to call it properly mounted if you insist) and there would be no wailing or gnashing of teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your attempted pedanticism also failed.
lol
"On top of" would also apply if you took a pike, stuck the sharp point into another object, then stood the pike up vertically.
False. Attempt to construct such a sentence that sounds natural, and isn't a joke, hyperbole, or sarcasm.
Double standard? (Score:2)
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that those other people aren't big cash cows for Facebook. Bannon increases revenue.
Maybe Zuckerberg assumes the Bannon problem will go away when he goes to jail for stealing money from his We Build the Wall "foundation"? Bannon is up on state charges so no pardon for him, if Trump would even want to after their falling out.
Literally his head on a spike? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One question (Score:5, Informative)
Why, yes, [facebook.com] he did.
That's a line that Facebook doesn't draw, and it's a distinction without a difference.
That's a line that Facebook doesn't draw, and it's a distinction without a difference.
But he did. You should actually read the document that you're referencing. Your homework for the day [facebook.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No, not a link to the podcast but the actual podcast?
That's a line that Facebook doesn't draw, and it's a distinction without a difference.
There have been numerous stories and comments on Slashdot that argue that there is a distinction, generally involving linking to "pirated" copyrighted material.
Re: (Score:2)
And that concerns copyright infringement, which is different from community standards concerning what sort of content you can post on Facebook. One is a statute that requires that you reproduce the content, the other is a set of conditions concerning how you can use a private service. Nothing in those conditions requires that you reproduce an actua
Re: (Score:2)
If Bannon hasn't violated Facebook's terms of service by constantly deliberately spreading misinformation across Facebook on a large scale then the T's & C's should change.
Bannon co-founded Cambridge Analytica (Score:2)
I thought that Zuck told congress that the Cambridge Analytica company had done very very naughty things and he was very upset about it and pushed CA off his platform for harvesting data on millions and millions of people in violation of an agreement with Facebook and Facebook policy.... .... so the co-founder of that company who did all those terrible things still did not break enough rules?
Mixed Feelings (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the inside I do not truly believe that he abides by what his company is doing despite being unethical in its inception.
Cuckerberg can do what he wants, within reason anyway, as he's running the company. But Facebook was created for nefarious purposes, and he had total disdain for its users from the beginning.
The rude abides.
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a white supremacist enabling scum bag. Facebook calls Breitbart a trusted news source even though they are extremely right wing and publish dangerous conspiracies as news. Facebook doesn't give the staff the ability to deal with fake news in a timely manner.
Judging by the way Zuckerberg allows Facebook to be a breeding ground for racists and liars, it makes me think he is likely a far right racist and liar.
This crap has been going on for years, making a mistake once is an accident, making the same mistake dozens of times is not a mistake, it's deliberate.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck is just an asshole businessman obsessed with money and power. Any "side" will do if it suits his ends. Same mentality as Trump, really.
Really? (Score:2)
I bet if I went on Facebook and called for beheadings of multiple government officials I would get banned. Not really interested in testing that, but I'm willing to bet on it. I might get a visit from the FBI, too.
Who check if Facebook... (Score:2)
...HAS "Violated Enough Policies For Suspension?"
I guess you have to /actually/ behead someone (Score:2)
to get banned from FaceBook.
C'mon, let's just get it in the open (Score:2, Insightful)
Be honest: you want to get rid of Bannon because you hate him, and are just searching for justifications.
Bannon is an odious dick, but this is just the prequel to the post election canceling of everything connected to, related to, or reminding anyone of Donald Trump. He should maybe talk to Louis CK and see what Purgatory feels like.
Funny, it used to be that we recognized the best way to deal with odious fringe crazies was to let them have their say and laugh at how stupid they are. I mean look at the KKK
Re:C'mon, let's just get it in the open (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that the KKK wasn't defeated by laughing at them while they were lynching people?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're right.
Those things were stopped by action, and I'm not trivializing it.
But the KKK was made culturally irrelevant and marginalized as a CONCEPT by mockery, disregard, and shaming. That torpedoed their organization - and most importantly - their ideology, far more permanently than a few arrests.
Let's remember that an esteemed Democratic senator passed away not so long ago that USED to not be ashamed that he was a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Did he stop talking about that because he was afraid of ar
I see (Score:2)
"Steve Bannon had not violated enough of the company's policies to justify his suspension when he urged beheading two senior U.S. officials, "
If people called Saïd and Mohammed would to the same thing, they'd go to jail or if they are located outside the US, perhaps a drone-strike.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are not mature enough to seperate a figure of speech from a demonstrated action.
Re: (Score:2)
"I see you are not mature enough to seperate a figure of speech from a demonstrated action."
At 65 I'm mature enough to know how 'separate' is spelled you stupid whippersnapper.
And now get off my lawn.
ah yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. It’s been super weird seeing /. turning from a fairly neutral place defending free speech, to a lefty virtue signalling echo chamber.
If Steve Bannon was a Muslim (Score:2)
Silence the opposition (Score:3)
When you're so correct that any opposing view must be banned by governments, hidden by search engines, and thrown off of tech giants, you are definitely not a baddie.
That's how it works right?
Also definitely downvote this opinion thanks. That hides it from view. It's not a troll, nor flamebait, so I suggest "overrated", which is immune to metamoderation.
Re: (Score:2)
But who should be allowed that capability? Wide open provably doesn't work, or usenet would still be popular.
Personally, I think all the megacorporations in communications should be broken up, but network effects mean that this would be disadvantageous. (I think that sometimes you need to put up with disadvantageous to avoid the malign effects.)
I'd start by forbidding ISPs from also offering hardware connection layer. The advantages to a unified hardware connection layer are sufficient that this should b
Re: (Score:2)
>"But who should be allowed that capability? Wide open provably doesn't work, or usenet would still be popular."
I believe we either have free speech or we don't. So allow people to say what they want, always. The readers/listeners should have tools to decide if and how they want to limit what they see/hear, based on their own selection of criteria, and based on others they trust (friends) and also at-large moderation for tags (which is open and auditable).
For example, I, as a reader, could moderate pos
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet is a perfect fit for what you want. You just need to develop the next generation newsreader.
Get real (Score:2)
Bannon never made a serious call to behead anybody - and Facebook never silences anybody else for their beheading stunts.
Did Facebook silence HBO after Game of Thrones put Trump's severed head on a pike in a scene?
Did Facebook silence Kathy Griffin after she posed with a fake bloody severed Trump head?
Did Facebook silence the New York theater group that staged the play where they stabbed a Donald Trump look alike to death?