benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,881 
Likes: 1,602
|
Post by benaj on Jan 25, 2021 18:38:21 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 26, 2021 15:27:40 GMT
The red line seems fairly clear... "Facebook has deleted a post and suspended a chatbot on the page of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's account for violating its policy, it says.The account had asked followers to provide details of friends or relatives aged 60 or over who have not yet received the coronavirus vaccination.It said Mr Netanyahu might call them to convince them.Facebook Israel said the request had breached its policy regarding private medical data."In accordance with our privacy policy, we don't allow content that shares or asks for people's medical information," it said."Using people's medical - let alone contact - details without their explicit permission would be (rightly) illegal here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Jan 26, 2021 15:29:54 GMT
To ask the question the other way should social media allow people to also use their platforms for hate speech, racism, harassment, or any of the other things generally seen as undesirable ? I think it's generally accepted as being a good thing when social media removes people if they're using the platform to something generally seen as undesirable, the question is more where is the thin line that divides what should be allowable or no allowed. But then Facebook seems to have gone a bit OTT with banning some things as hate speech: Facebook apologises banning users mentioning beauty spot Devils Dyke (Daily Mail)
Some the recent debate (particularly around Twitter/Facebook banning Trump) reminds me of some of the debates a few years ago about how much coverage a far right nationalist party should get on TV/Radio/Papers when they were gaining council seats and there was concern about them possibly winning a parliamentary seat. I think the main consensus then was to give them some air time and the majority of people would see sense which largely seems to have worked. |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 26, 2021 15:33:18 GMT
To ask the question the other way should social media allow people to also use their platforms for hate speech, racism, harassment, or any of the other things generally seen as undesirable ? I'm not sure it is "the other way round". The platforms have a published set of Ts & Cs. Somebody breaches them? They get warned, then suspended, then finally banned. It shouldn't matter who they are or what the infringements are. And that's before we get near actual legal restrictions being breached, which "hate speech" usually does. It's what happened to Trump - just not soon enough. Did who he was mean those lines got bent...?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 4,194
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 26, 2021 15:37:37 GMT
To ask the question the other way should social media allow people to also use their platforms for hate speech, racism, harassment, or any of the other things generally seen as undesirable ? I'm not sure it is "the other way round". The platforms have a published set of Ts & Cs. Somebody breaches them? They get warned, then suspended, then finally banned. It shouldn't matter who they are or what the infringements are. And that's before we get near actual legal restrictions being breached, which "hate speech" usually does. It's what happened to Trump - just not soon enough. Did who he was mean those lines got bent...?I thought the likes of Twitter had seperate rules for world leaders, whch allowed them to post things that the average man in the street would get banned for?
|
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Jan 26, 2021 15:55:27 GMT
To ask the question the other way should social media allow people to also use their platforms for hate speech, racism, harassment, or any of the other things generally seen as undesirable ? I'm not sure it is "the other way round". I was thinking about the groups of people who seem to be suggesting that Twitter/FB did the wrong thing by banning Trump. For some people the decision as to whether a ban was justified or not seems to depend on the persons name as much as what they did. If you asked those groups a series of questions (is inciting violence wrong? should social media allow users to incite violence?) they would probably agree with you until you asked about a specific person.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 26, 2021 16:43:28 GMT
I'm not sure it is "the other way round". I was thinking about the groups of people who seem to be suggesting that Twitter/FB did the wrong thing by banning Trump. For some people the decision as to whether a ban was justified or not seems to depend on the persons name as much as what they did. If you asked those groups a series of questions (is inciting violence wrong? should social media allow users to incite violence?) they would probably agree with you until you asked about a specific person. Ah, yes... The people who shout loudest about how private companies should be free to refuse business from customers they don't like... (so long as the customer's wanting something like a gay cake)
|
|
