Facebook Are 'Morally Bankrupt Liars' Says New Zealand's Privacy Commissioner (theguardian.com)

New Zealand's privacy commissioner has lashed out at social media giant Facebook in the wake of the Christchurch attacks, calling the company "morally bankrupt pathological liars." From a report: The commissioner used his personal Twitter page to lambast the social network, which has also drawn the ire of prime minister Jacinda Ardern for hosting a livestream of the attacks that left 50 dead, which was then copied and shared all over the internet. "Facebook cannot be trusted," wrote Edwards. "They are morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable genocide (Myanmar), facilitate foreign undermining of democratic institutions. [They] allow the live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders, continue to host and publish the mosque attack video, allow advertisers to target 'Jew haters' and other hateful market segments, and refuse to accept any responsibility for any content or harm. "They #dontgiveazuck" wrote Edwards. He later deleted the tweets, saying they had prompted "toxic and misinformed traffic."

Comments

Re:Clueless

[jellomizer]

Being an American company, there is a strong cultural bias towards free speech. Even though Constitutionally the First Amendment only applies to the government not companies. Americans in general have more tolerance towards "bad speech" while they may disagree with it, and condemn it, they often will not want to see it censored or banned. Mostly due to the fact that a lot of this is considered subjective, and can be used against your views in the future if your point of view is unpopular.

Now this is really an American value. Other countries, have a different tolerance on where the line should be drawn, this doesn't make them wrong, but some countries will draw the line much further to a point where banning political ideas that is opposing the party in power is considered harmful hate speech.

Re:Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate.

[smooth wombat]

Repeat it until you believe it: Trump won because he was a better candidate.

The con artist won because Russia helped him and he only got the electoral votes. Hillary got the popular vote.

The con artist was not and is not a better candidate. He got the uneducateds to be so worried about voting for a liberal from New York City, he got them to vote for a liberal from New York City.