| Author | Message | ||
     H0gwash |
Sorry for the persistence, I just thought it was a fair question and thanks for clarifying. | ||
| Sami |
Oh, I think it was a fair question. I agree that Facebook is not a forum, at least this is not its purpose. The purpose of Facebook seems to be to collect information about its users and sell it to advertisers, see Cambridge Analytica. This is how Facebook makes money from their ''product'' aka 'you'. | ||
| H0gwash |
It just seemed to me that YouTube should have a similar set of rules as the ones we use here. I don't mind censorship when its terms are understood and I support the policy the Badweb uses. Disclaimer- I posted something 10 years ago on YouTube, I have a Facebook page under a false name, and I use Google as a browser. | ||
| Sami |
Blake: ''Of all the social media, Facebook seems the least authoritative. Zuckerberg seems to have taken some criticism to heart.'' He's trying to do that recently: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7955589/M ark-Zuckerberg-declares-Facebook-going-stand-free- expression.html Mark Zuckerberg declares Facebook is going to 'stand up for free expression' and allow people to post what they want - but the CEO admits the new move will 'p**s off a lot of people' Mark Zuckerberg hit out at 'excessive censorship' during a tech summit appearance on Friday, vowing that Facebook would stand up for free speech The social media CEO said his company had previously tried to avoid being 'too offensive' but would no longer curtail to those against freedom of expression Zuckerberg predicted the move would undoubtedly 'p**s off a lot of people' but would lead to the creation of a more authentic product The company has been under fire for failing to ban or fact-check political ads on its pages Facebook stocks dropped by 7.2 per cent Wednesday and the firm reported its slowest-ever revenue growth for the fourth quarter (Message edited by Sami on February 02, 2020) | ||
| Aesquire |
And bizarrely, George Soros is attacking Zuckerberg for being a Trump puppet. He's not, but The Red Skull hates freedom of speech. ( Soros runs the closest thing to the comic book Hydra in real life ) | ||
| Sami |
Hootowl, I agree, wish more places could have similar relaxed rules as here. I'm here on Blake's invitation, we've both experienced what unfair rules can be like. Aesquire, Facebook denies Soros' accusation: Facebook pushes back on Soros op-ed alleging 'special relationship' between platform and Trump https://thehill.com/policy/technology/480934-faceb ook-pushes-back-on-soros-op-ed-alleging-special-re lationship-between | ||
| Blake |
Hogs, It is a good question. We don't advertise BadWeB as a platform for free speech. We reserve the right to restrict any speech we so choose. That said, we're not legally liable for the content people post. I guess the difference is how we represent the forum versus how the big social media platforms have represented themselves. I think afternoon may have pro-actively seen the light, thus their recent change of policy. Facebook includes forums, the comment portions of posted content, and special groups that are managed as each forum/group owner sees fit AND according to Facebook rules and moderator judgement as well. YouTube as well has forums, the comment sections of videos that offer that option. Those are administered by the owner of the associated video along with YouTube moderators. Same for Twitter. One big sticking point for YouTube is their child approved content scheme. It is being used nefariously to block content from schools and libraries that is in no way problematic except for its anti-PC factual content. PragerU is suing YouTube over the issue. It's taking a long time to work its way through the courts, but it may be one of the most important cases happening right now. Stay tuned. | ||
| Sami |
Blake, That's a clear explanation. Because of how these big social media platforms represent themselves, they can be sued for what is legally called ''tortious interference'': Tortious interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interferenc e Forums like BadWeB cannot be sued for tortious interference, but these big social media companies certainly can be sued for tortious interference. YouTube is being sued by content creators for tortious interference. Cases like these are important and it will be interesting to see what the courts decide. From what I understand, content creators are in a strong position to win these cases. | ||
| Sami |
Why there's no competitors to Youtube & the business lesson to be learned here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i5N58plzDY Basically, YouTube is losing money and Google may pull the plug soon. | ||
| Blake |
So the whole give it away for long enough to monopolize the market scheme is failing? Awesome. It is though by far the superior platform for videos on the web. It's features all seamlessly integrated and well organized. Maybe they'll see the light and ditch the faux "we're only looking out for our advertisers" baloney, and let all non-pornographic content creators get back to providing what they audiences desire. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Dear Lord let that be so! G | ||
| Blake |
Greg: Wasn't it glorious? The golden age of YouTube liberty. Boy did I take it for granted. | ||
| Sami |
Youtube went down the hill once they started to work with the ADL. YouTube's policy on ''hate speech'' comes from the ADL. ADL is bragging about it: ADL Applauds Google and YouTube in Expanding Initiative to Fight Online Hate https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-applau ds-google-and-youtube-in-expanding-initiative-to-f ight-online-hate Will YouTube see the light? Only if they stop working with the ADL. To YouTube's credit, they are a superior platform indeed, but getting involved with the ADL has definitely harmed their platform. | ||
| Sami |
ADL Presents German Chancellor Angela Merkel with Joseph Prize for Human Rights https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-presen ts-german-chancellor-angela-merkel-with-joseph-pri ze-for-human-rights Angela Merkel Says ‘Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,’ Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free https://www.dailywire.com/news/angela-merkel-says- freedom-of-expression-has-its-limits-must-be-regul ated-to-keep-society-free Merkel, the Red footsoldier: German chancellor under fire over Communist links as image of her in uniform is released https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328536/A ngela-Merkel-Communist-links-new-image-uniform-rel eased.html Interesting to see that the ADL hands out rewards to people who later go on to limit free speech under the guise of preventing ''hate speech''. What is ''hate speech'', anyway? | ||
| Aesquire |
Hate speech is anything racist leftist fundamentally dishonest elitists don't like. Like the sentence above. | ||
| Sami |
If you say something elitists don't like, then you must be saying something right.  Hopefully George Orwell won't mind me slightly changing his words: In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is ''hate speech''. | ||
| H0gwash |
From wikipedia, which we all love and hate: "Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" So speech that promotes hate on Christians would qualify | ||
| Sami |
Who determines what is an expression of hate or an encouragement of violence? For example, does the Bible express hate speech? Do people commit hate speech by preaching the Bible? | ||
| Sami |
The Bible as Hate Speech? Gays Win Big in Canada https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-m ohler/the-bible-as-hate-speech-gays-win-big-in-can ada-1220787.html Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’ https://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supr eme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexua l-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/ | ||
| H0gwash |
It's an inherently judgmental term, so to avoid being biased, I have to say the listener is the one who judges. It's only social criticism, EDIT: here in the US anyway. (Message edited by h0gwash on April 17, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
Gerard, there are 7 billion ''listeners'' on Earth. You are a listener, I am a listener, we are all listeners. So who among us is the one who judges? I hope you catch my drift here. Listeners are many, judges are few. I hate (no pun intended) to be the judge of hate speech. | ||
| H0gwash |
Everyone judges, but yes, only relatively few have the law at their backs. Even at that, different courts judge differently. China doesn't judge the same way that Canada does, to state the obvious. Know your audience because they will judge you. | ||
| Sami |
To reiterate Patrick (which I happen to agree with on this subject): ''Hate speech is anything racist leftist fundamentally dishonest elitists don't like.'' So we are left at the mercy of racist leftist fundamentally dishonest elitists to judge for us what is hate speech. How is this any better than what China is doing? | ||
| H0gwash |
I never said it was any better. Both of us are doing what we think is best for us. We don't have to agree on everything. | ||
| Aesquire |
Here in the US anyway. So far... | ||
| Aesquire |
There's a fundamental difference between "I don't want to hear that thing I disagree with, so I'm going to change the chanel" vs. "I don't want to hear that thing I disagree with so you must shut up" You may disagree. | ||
| Sami |
I envy the US when it comes to free speech. Europe can learn a thing or two from you guys across the pond. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's not a peaceful thing. We like to argue. | ||
| Sami |
You like to argue? Challenge accepted! To be fair to Europe, architecture here is beautiful. Although, Trump wants to make American architecture beautiful again. Trump wants to 'Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again' with neoclassical order https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/04/tr ump-federal-buildings-beautiful-classical-order | ||
| H0gwash |
Haw! Unlike Trump tower. But hey, slap some columns and a pediment at the entry, voila! NEOclassical! |
