Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Employees Tried To Remove Trump Posts As Hate Speech (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Facebook employees pushed to remove some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Facebook posts -- such as one proposing the ban of Muslims from entering the U.S. -- from the service as hate speech that violated the giant social network's policies, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The decision not to remove the Trump posts was made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the newspaper reported. Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit. "When we review reports of content that may violate our policies, we take context into consideration. That context can include the value of political discourse," Facebook said in an emailed statement. "Many people are voicing opinions about this particular content and it has become an important part of the conversation around who the next U.S. president will be. For those reasons, we are carefully reviewing each report and surrounding context relating to this content on a case by case basis." Senior members of Facebook's policy team posted more details on its policy on Friday: "In the weeks ahead, we're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest -- even if they might otherwise violate our standards."
The system is fixed hillary for prison!
Let's ban ideas we don't like because uncomfortable ideas make us uncomfortable. The world should be a safe space, one where we can focus on how great we are instead of possibly thinking about the disturbing thoughts of others.
FTS: Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit.
Well, bye. Yes Trump is terrible and his viewpoints are awful. He's awful the GOP candidate for President. By squelching his speech content, you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform -- a big no no from Zuckerberg -- and stripping people of newsworthy information, be it for good or bad. Needless to say it does not surprise me they threatened to quit. If I were Zuckerberg, they'd have been gone anyway. They were moderating content on Facebook, a job not relegated to rocket scientists, and failed at it.
Good work ladies and gentlemen.
If said employees feel free to delete others posts, it's not hard to imagine they are reading private messages, monitoring to make sure BadThought is stamped out...
Have these employees been fired? If not, why not?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurrent of them in the left also, as seen in for example Bernie Sanders strong dislike of open immigration).
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches. There's no coherent philosophy that should connect attitude about tax policy to attitude about gay marriage. And in so far as there are attempts at coherent philosophical approaches, they often make very little sense: for example the pro-choice movement's language about freedom and autonomy is very similar to language used by people with strong attitudes about the second amendment or believing they have a right to discriminate, but they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I'm quite left of center and the hate for Hillary among my group is probably as bad as the Trump fan hate for Hillary, and people have been complaining about posts disappearing.
Editing content makes you responsible for the content itself, as you are exerting control over it.
I believe practices like this are ridiculously dumb.
Especially since I consider "hate speech" a great idiot filter. It allows me to keep my friends list trimmed. Just like a Confederate flag is, or Trump signs in the yard. But that's my own choosing. I don't want Facebook choosing for me.
Yeah, I know, if it's free you are the product. The problem is that the telnet chat that everyone used has been abandoned (even though it's still up after all these years).
--
BMO
Trump is a conservative? That's a riot. I know he's a Republican (today), but he doesn't hold very conservative views.
What were the exact posts? Unfortunately the article doesn't seem to have them.
"Employees" and "pushed for". According to Google, Facebook had over 12,500 employees in 2015. So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy. Nobody stole the secret codes to the hidden filter chamber.
Basically, this articles takes Facebook taking things seriously, doing what I think most of us would hope it would do, and tries to paint it as beastial. I would *hope* that Facebook /doesn't/ hire based on political perspective, so I would hope it has employees of all ends of the political perspective and seeks to maintain a neutral stance. That doesn't mean that it's employees shouldn't be able to raise their concerns internally either way.
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
that this election is so bat-$h!t (yeah, I know, it's the Internet, I can swear, but I like this better) that Facebook has to change their posting guidelines to allow what's become "normal" political speech?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
You might be surprised to find people on the other side of the aisle find your views just as ugly, selfish, and repugnant, though they aren't far enough down the authoritarian rabbit hole to try to censor your speech. They will come around eventually, though, if you and your ilk persist.
I believe it was that, given the the religious violence currently going on in the Muslim community, we should have a temporary hiatus on foreign Muslims entering the country until we can re-evaluate our immigration policies to better evaluate the likelihood of foreigners committing violence while here.
Again, sounds prudent to me. Foreigners have no automatic right to enter the US. It's a privilege, which may be restricted or withdrawn.
If my employees tried to kill my company, they would no longer be my employees.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Let's use full context here. Banning Muslims from extremest hot spots until we can improve how we vet them. Not much different from banning German men of military age from immigrating while at war with Germany.
Rather than playing the Democrat's hate card to always try to suppress the Republican vote, let's have an honest discussion on what the proposed policy was actually about. Let's use the full context and implied reasoning. Not the political soundbites.
Citizens have rights in this country. We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals.
Everything you are saying is backwards.
Conservatism, as it's defined today by empirical evidence and voting records, is an extremist institution that supports terrorizing and torturing the public, a state-controlled media, totalitarianism, fascism, and income confiscation through tax and public debt. The democratic party also believes in these same things. These are black and white beliefs when you get down to it.
The current RNC candidate is, by comparison, very moderate.
Newborn males in the US have a 50\50 shot of having kids themselves, based the analysis of PEW and GAO research into marriage and birth rates; we've never dipped below 90% since the stats started getting collected in the 50's. Half of men with over an 80th percentile income have not procreated; if you want to know why there's such a market for hookers and porn, that's why. Under present conditions, migrants fleeing 3rd world countries can expect they and the next generation coming here will never escape poverty. Immigration, today, is a discussion about eugenics; it's about foreigners having more desirable genetic and social traits than the domestic population does, and the one deeming this is the "ruling elites".
*not the same AC, but he is right
Citation:
Demore V. Kim
Georgetown University Law Center analysis
Short version: The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that constitutional rights, the right to bear arms and freedom of travel in this discussion, do not extend to non-citizens. Thus, not only the other AC is right in that "We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals." but that we don't extend those rights to non-citizens as a matter of law laid out by the highest court in the country.
Let's use full context here. Banning Muslims from extremest hot spots until we can improve how we vet them. Not much different from banning German men of military age from immigrating while at war with Germany.
...Or putting all the Japanese in Americans in camps. That was another great idea that helped us win the war with the Japs and the Jerries. Also, just to fully frame context of the time that you are getting your good ideas from, you should also segregate your colored soldiers from your white soldiers, and keep them mostly in manual labor and support roles.
Yessir, the 1930s and 40s were full of great ideas that we can mine!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world, and which is fundamentally incompatible and in conflict with many of the most basic principles of your society makes perfect sense. In fact, not doing so seems completely insane.
What a lot of people don't get is that many of the people in their beloved minority groups wouldn't hesitate in a second to completely destroy many of the freedoms that we've fought so hard to accomplish. And quite frankly seeing women wearing that full-face-cover head veil thing (there's at least one who lives near me) makes me sick.
Islam teaches that women are literally the property of their husbands, no different than cattle. That should make anyone sick.
Guess that would have been a 'no' on Albert Einstein then. Good job.
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Ah, I wish I could mod you up.
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
My wife is from the Philippines, and most Filipinos that I know are actually kind of pissed about the "illegals". When you come here legally, it costs a bunch of money, if you have a work permit it has to be renewed in person annually, and going through the process of getting a green card or citizenship is also expensive. And you get harassed if you don't do everything correctly. You (the American citizens) would be embarrassed if you knew how some folks are treated when they simply want to come here legally.
So, yeah, there's a little resentment when people come here without that sort of pain.
At the same time, we have friends who are illegals and we personally know that most go through other kinds of pain - like walking 1000 miles through the desert - to get here.
Do you have ESP?
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian. And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization. It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas
You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.
Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.
believing they have a right to discriminate
Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You're an idiot, if you actually read any of the previous conversation this person was arguing that those kinds of views are extremist and shouldnt necessarily be considered mainstream conservative views. If anything I perceived him to be arguing against a whole sale ban on immigration based on a person's religion, which would put his thinking in line with a lot of our soldiers ive met who have served in the middle east and realized that most people over there are suffering under these assholes more than anyone else. Just because some bad people who need to be killed happen to practice Islam doesnt mean all muslims need to be killed.
Christianity and Judaism are also in conflict with Democracy, because any religion that states that religion is above democracy (which both do, its just that most modern versions of them have pulled back from that 'somewhat')...
Is that right? Hmmmm....
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.
Source: Book of Matthew, Chapter 22.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Albert Einstein was 59 years old by WWII , not exactly "fighting age", US Military cuts off at 35. By 1915 he was 35, and by 1933 he renounced his german citizenship.