undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointscryptonector6y ago0 comments

Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".

0 comments

michannne6y ago

>they're too big

And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"

yhamv6y ago

In fact Facebook said they didn't remove the nz shooter livestream because nobody bothered to report it until very late

dangxiaopin6y ago

I would argue that the actual graphic livestream of a real mass murder is a much much more toxic and dangerous material than any theoretical manifesto. It's not even in the same league. But Facebook is too big to be dropped as a customer!

ElCapitanMarkla6y ago

Is Facebook a customer? I thought they had their own network?

2 more replies

fgdaniels6y ago

Please, as if Facebook would be taken down when a few pubescent mongoloids "glorified violence".

Glorification is a matter of free speech, because it is an expression of opinion. That you find it distasteful is fine, using that as a weapon is not.

Either way, Facebook won't be held accountable because it's funded by large investment funds, and HN won't complain because they're in bed together.

The "too big" argument is not a moral argument, that just says "we have money invested in it". If that's acceptable to you you have no morality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse