Headless video found on topless Facebook


#1

[Permalink]


#2

will do whatever it is told to do by the loudest voice.

Provided that voice doesn’t interfere with revenue, or conversely that that voice enhances revenue.


#3

Solution: Delete your Facebook account.

The End.


#4

Exactly.


#5

Where’s the like button for this post?


#6

I moved 6 posts to a new topic: Changes on BBS


#7


#8

Oh shoot! And I’d just made my own decapitation video to upload on Facebook


#9

Facebook’s problem is that they don’t have any type of consistent policy on freedom of expression. There a million and one logical ways they could have handled this. They could have said that anything except hate speech is fine. They could have said everything is fine and that the users are the only ones responsible for their content. They could have said everything is banned. But instead they tried to play it in a piecemeal fashion where beheadings were fine but breastfeeding was banned.

My thought: don’t police content. It will never work and it will open you up to an incredible amount of criticism when your hypocrisy plays out.


#10

I don’t think it is that simple. Yes if we look at the internet as some kind of libertarian, capitalist utopia, then we can vote with our registrations and viewership and may the company that aligns with the majority opinion rise to the top. But I think there are a lot of us who expect a lot more out of the internet. Majorities are very good at protesting themselves, they are not so good at protecting minority viewpoints. That is what civil rights are all about. Are we really saying that civil rights do not exist online? If the internet is just a compilation of individuals and corporations then it cannot be the community that we all know it can be. There needs to be some expectation of basic human and civil rights somewhere in the wilderness.


#11

I don’t understand how you are equating civil rights with the decisions of a private money making entity. Any private site can remove, through moderation, any opinions they deem offensive, or even those that they don’t like. They can’t deny you access based on things like race and gender, etc.


#12

I don’t think it is that simple.

I agree with you for the most part. But the first step is deleting Facebook accounts and if enough of us do it, you must admit that would send a message loud and clear to other would-be Facebook barons. People who whine about Facebook via Facebook are pathetic, IMO. YMMV.

Yes if we look at the internet as some kind of libertarian

Erm, you’re talking to the person who very honestly thinks that many “lifer” libertarians are suffering from various levels of autism spectrum disorder (undiagnosed or otherwise).

Suggesting that people delete their Facebook accounts doesn’t make me a libertarian. Considering how much Facebook monetizes humanity by trashing their privacy, owning a Facebook account (beyond having an anonymous lurker account) should be an embarrassment to anyone with self-respect.

I agree that there’s much work to be done to protect civil rights (or just damage control at this point). But, if you support Facebook by owning an account in your name, then you’re a part of the problem.

You’re also talking to someone who has had to lose a lot of money by avoiding Facebook in business, etc.


#13

Yes, they are a private money making entity, but why should we say viewpoint discrimination is any different than gender or race discrimination?

I am fully aware of how things are now. I am simply asking if we want the internet of the future, which will probably become more and more essential to everyday life, to be just a collection of private entities with different (and often internally contradictory) views on free speech or should it aspire to a higher ideal?


#14

Money talks LOUDER than anything else in the world today. Cancel out Facebook and start another site where opinions are welcomed, or go to another site that has been started with the same ideals.

Facebook (and Zuck) is experiencing the elevation to power, and as such, it caters to the establishment.


#15

I am not sure enough people understand or care about the issues to make a switch to another platform. There is a certain inertia developed with social media and it’s closed gardens. Perhaps some open platform social media?

I did not call anyone a libertarian, just that voting with your wallets (in this case the advertising dollars you represent) is much more of a libertarian/capitalist idea than enshrining some basic human rights into the system as a whole.


#16

True, but should it? We know votes and human rights should be more powerful in the real world, even if that ideal is hard to reach. Why should we think of the online world differently?

I am not saying people should not opt out or boycott companies they disagree with, just that there is a larger issue here that is being ignored by focusing on individual companies.


#17

just that voting with your wallets (in this case the advertising dollars you represent) is much more of a libertarian/capitalist idea than enshrining some basic human rights into the system as a whole.

Once again, I never suggested that people delete their Facebook account then crawl into a hole.

On that note… probably a good reminder to do this again…


#18

The larger issue is individual companies with clout. Look to see who is benefiting from spying, the TSA, the healthcare program, the taxation, US support of nations with abuses and a host of other inequalities. Look behind the screen to find where policies are paid for and politicians are placed to run in elections. The money you give to Zuck, even indirectly, goes to whoever he’d like to see run for office, or maybe he uses it to schmooze and lobby so that there is even more of your privacy that is given away.


#19

And the ACLU.


#20

They have another problem with their inconsistent policy on privacy, and I’ll bet the two are related.