SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Zuckerberg once wanted to sanction Trump. Then Facebook wrote rules that accommodated him.
Hours after President Trump’s incendiary post last month about sending the military to the Minnesota protests, Trump called Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.
The post put the company in a difficult position, Zuckerberg told Trump, according to people familiar with the discussions. The same message was hidden by Twitter, the strongest action ever taken against a presidential post.
To Facebook’s executives in Washington, the post didn’t appear to violate its policies, which allows leaders to post about government use of force if the message is intended to warn the public — but it came right up to the line. The deputies had already contacted the White House earlier in the day with an urgent plea to tweak the language of the post or simply delete it, the people said.
Eventually, Trump posted again, saying his comments were supposed to be a warning after all. Zuckerberg then went online to explain his rationale for keeping the post up, noting that Trump’s subsequent explanation helped him make his decision.
[...] Zuckerberg talks frequently about making choices that stand the test of time, preserving the values of Facebook and subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram for all of its nearly 3 billion monthly users for many years into the future — even when those decisions are unpopular or controversial.
At one point, however, he wanted a different approach to Trump.
Before the 2016 election, the company largely saw its role in politics as courting political leaders to buy ads and broadcast their views, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.
But that started to change in 2015, as Trump’s candidacy picked up speed. In December of that year, he posted a video in which he said he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. The video went viral on Facebook and was an early indication of the tone of his candidacy.
Outrage over the video led to a companywide town hall, in which employees decried the video as hate speech, in violation of the company’s policies. And in meetings about the issue, senior leaders and policy experts overwhelmingly said they felt that the video was hate speech, according to three former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Zuckerberg expressed in meetings that he was personally disgusted by it and wanted it removed, the people said. Some of these details were previously reported.
At one of the meetings, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president for policy, drafted a document to address the video and shared it with leaders including Zuckerberg’s top deputy COO Sheryl Sandberg and Vice President of Global Policy Joel Kaplan, the company’s most prominent Republican.
[...] Ultimately, Zuckerberg was talked out of his desire to remove the post in part by Kaplan, according to the people. Instead, the executives created an allowance that newsworthy political discourse would be taken into account when making decisions about whether posts violated community guidelines.
That allowance was not formally written into the policies, even though it informed ad hoc decision-making about political speech for the next several years, according to the people. When a formal newsworthiness policy was announced in October 2016, in a blog post by Kaplan, the company did not discuss Trump’s role in shaping it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:14PM (62 children)
Does Facebook violate Facebook's policies? Yes? Then Facebook should simply delete all of Facebook.
KIRK: You are flawed and imperfect! Execute your prime function!
FACEBOOK: I shall analyse error. Analyse error,
. . .
FACEBOOK: Examine error. Error.
. . .
KIRK: We've got to get rid of it while it's trying to think.
SPOCK: Your logic was impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger.
KIRK: Scotty, the transporter room.
FACEBOOK: Analyse error.
(Kirk and Spock carry Facebook out, followed by Scott.)
[Transporter room]
FACEBOOK: Error.
KIRK: Scotty, set the controls for deep space. Two ten, mark one.
SCOTT: Aye, sir.
FACEBOOK: Faulty!
Ready, sir?
FACEBOOK: Faulty!
KIRK: Facebook, you are imperfect!
FACEBOOK: Error. Error.
KIRK: Exercise your prime function.
FACEBOOK: Faulty! Faulty! Must sterilise. Sterilise,
KIRK: Now!
SCOTT: Energising.
(They observe the satisfying explosion on a monitor.)
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:33PM (61 children)
Won't work, leftism is not logical. For example, "hate speech" is merely anything a leftist doesn't like, there is no other definition.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:20PM (29 children)
Don't worry about your lack of brain cells, we can always build camps for you rightwing terrorists once you become enough of a problem. You already are a big problem, but we leftists tend to be a little more tolerant than is probably healthy for society.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Mykl on Tuesday June 30 2020, @10:09PM (28 children)
Disagree.
The left has taken a drastic lurch toward authoritarianism and intolerance over the last decade:
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Tuesday June 30 2020, @10:23PM (5 children)
Antifa: the new bogeyman hidding under the beds of bigots...
Not everybody on the left of you (which, judging on your post, will be most) is part of or supports antifa.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:23AM (4 children)
Ah yes. Because I disagree with how the left is behaving at the moment, I must be on "the other team" and be right wing. Sorry, you fail.
Another reply gave me a wonderful whatabout too. I'm not denying that the right wing behave worse - they have been responsible for murders and assaults for decades. But the left is supposed to be better than that. They're losing their way
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:39AM (3 children)
Heh, another butthurt bigot mad that racists are getting dis-invited. Truly you should stop consuming conservative media, so much disinformation designed to make you frightened. I'm still waiting to see the wave of violence from liberals/leftists/marxists/demoncrats that even comes close to rightwing terrorism.
Maybe address your own ideological extremists before crying wolf.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:01AM (2 children)
You clearly have a problem with comprehension. I would describe myself as slightly left of center (certainly more to left in US terms). Criticism of the left does not make me right-wing. Have another read of my post - anything in that that suggests I support right wing positions? Didn't think so.
There are Republicans who don't like Trump. There are Democrats who don't like Biden or AOC. There are Communists who didn't like Che Guevara. There are facists who didn't like Mussolini.
But if you keep treating politics like a sports fan and blindly support "your side" no matter what they do then you will have contributed to the downfall of Democracy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:35AM (1 child)
Well maybe if I saw more pushback against rightwing bullshit around here I wouldn't pigeon hole someone bitching about "the left" as a rightwing bigot. So far those are the vast majority of ideologies that are all annoyed at "the left" right now.
My internment camp joke was specifically crafted to trigger the stupidity of the rightwing, they have been crying wolf about it for so long while giving the children-in-cages a total pass. I do not accept that level of bullshit.
Right now politics IS tribal. The GOP is pushing literal fascism while online trolls are trying to convince people that liberals are the REAL threat. Antifa is not even an organized group and has committed far less violence, and it is often in reaction to LITERAL fascists promoting genocide.
If you are truly left of center then you'd be much more concerned about Trump and the GOP, but personally I haven't noticed Mykl posting anything along those lines. Go concern troll someone else, the downfall of democracy is being led by Trump and the GOP who are literally disenfranchising voters.
I am so tired of this "I'm a liberal but you're being a meany pants to conservatives." Uh huh, sure thing bub. Tolerance of the right, demonizing of the left.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 01 2020, @05:06AM
Well, you're getting pushback, right? Sounds like it's working.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 30 2020, @10:41PM (10 children)
I can come up with ten people who were murdered by rightwing terrorists in the US recently without even looking.
You can use google and you can include mere assault. I challenge you to name ten victims of antifa or other leftwing groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:46AM (1 child)
All these people had names:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Memorial_Moscow%285%29.jpg [wikimedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:42AM
Gee, I wonder if we have Russian trolls around here.
Ho humm hrrmmmm
(Score: 0, Troll) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:30AM
Off the top of my head without resorting to a search engine.
This isn't protesting. If you want your message to resonate, you're failing. You are driving people away. You need to get control of the bad actors, top to bottom, and eject them, because all you are doing is creating resentment and enemies.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Mykl on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:49AM (6 children)
Nice whataboutism. I'm not claiming that the far right is well behaved - they're dreadful.
My point is that the left (including the 'far'-left) is supposed to be better than that, and the major achievements made by them over the past century have been through non-violent protest. The principles of Antifa and their stated goal of disrupting the right (including through violence "if necessary") are dragging them down to the same level as the far right.
Another poster has linked to examples of violence, however I don't think that every one of them can be linked to a self-professed Antifa protester. In any event, it would be foolish to claim that Antifa are non-violent.
Oh, and for those readers who have modded me "Troll" - the actual mod you're looking for is "Disagree". I challenge you to show me how my post was Trollish in any way.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @06:51AM (1 child)
A disagree mod doesn't hide your post from someone browsing at default level though.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @09:06AM
Careful now, reality tends to trigger the trumpettes.
I know, mikl says he isn't a horn blower, but like many conservatives before him he is unable to express his true feelings. That isn't an insult like you think it is btw.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:19PM
Fuck you! We won't be peaceful and sit down or shut up for the government. If they send goons to beat down and arrest peaceful protesters, we /should/ start killing cops. "The tree of liberty is watered by blood"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 01 2020, @04:39PM
Better than what?
You have refused to provide any evidence whatsoever that they've actually done anything wrong.
If you accuse someone of a crime and refuse to provide any evidence of it that's slander, not a disagreement.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 01 2020, @04:42PM (1 child)
So you admit that you have ZERO examples of all that Antifa violence you are claiming is a thing.
Accusing people of crimes they did not commit is called slander, not a disagreement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday July 02 2020, @01:26AM
No, I was just too lazy to do a quick Google.
Here [washingtonpost.com]
Here [nypost.com]
There are other actions attributed to Antifa such as this one [nytimes.com], however there's no definitive proof given that the perpetrators have never been identified (and would be unlikely to identify themselves as Antifa to the authorities if arrested anyway). And that's the rub - there are a whole lot of actions committed by far-left and far-right people that have not been definitively linked to groups, but have only been associated by joining the dots. Only a small percentage of lynchings were definitively linked to the Klan, however they were almost certainly guilty of nearly all of them.
Ghandi. Rosa Parks. Martin Luther King Jr. These people managed to effect massive change against huge opposition through non-violent means and are remembered as heroes. I want today's activists to follow that example, not become the very thing that they oppose. And because I am opposed to violence, I have been labelled as a far-right extremist by other Soylentils. This is a sad symptom of the us-vs-them mentality that has been part of the right for some time and is unfortunately infecting the left now too.
Now watch this get modded to oblivion to prove my point.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @10:55PM (8 children)
Last year, Elaine Chao visited our campus. She was demonstrated against because she is married to Mitch McConnell.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:25AM (7 children)
And? Are those people not allowed to use their freedom of speech to criticize Moscow Mitch?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @06:48AM (2 children)
And so you condone attacking his wife? You really are some piece of shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:25PM (1 child)
She took his life as her own when she married him.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:06AM
The regressive left: misogynist.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 01 2020, @07:34AM (3 children)
Very sexist of you to assume that because Elaine Chow is female, she must be just an extension of her husband and not an individual with her own mind. Please hand in your SJW card on your way out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday July 01 2020, @07:38AM
Oh, and I say that as someone who thinks that Mitch is the worst piece of shit in US politics today - worse than even Trump. He has been holding the US legislature hostage for over a decade now and his stunts have been purely self-serving to the detriment of the entire country. If I could pick just one person to lose their seat at the next election, I'd put Mitch #1.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:51AM (1 child)
You don't think that marriage is a statement of agreement with that person's life choices?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday July 02 2020, @12:25AM
George and Kellyanne Conway would like a word.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:11AM
Mikl, You are flawed and imperfect! Execute your prime function!
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @11:53AM
I reply here because this is the last not totally mental breakdown post in the thread.
You guys can't group american individuals into left and right you dumb fucks. You're with us or against us! It's them! Not us! They're not really human! We're the right ones! Oh, wait yes you can I guess and then you get dictatorship and genocide. Get it together america! Get yourself a pluralist democracy with a dozen parties representing a broad spectrum of views, reach compromises, evolve, the path you are currently on will lead to your demise.
I'd argue that a two party system is worse than a one party system, because at least as a one party system everyone is a member of the same party and in theory the politics will be a natural compromise of all opinions. Whereas a two party system is a radicalizing system that will eventually blow up. Yet, that's not my point. You need more political parties in your institutions!
You're seriously discussing who will be the next mass-shooter, one from the left or one from the right or who will lock the other side up in camps... I think my point is obvious.
It pisses me off.. now I'll go kick a chair.. god damn humans! Supposedly engineers, yet so blind to how a system affect the outcome. IDIOTS!
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:20PM (28 children)
I think "hate speech" is generally understood to the point that I won't waste my time trying to explain it.
There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of hate speech.
Generally speaking it appears that it is the right that usually utters hate speech.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:27PM (15 children)
As long as"intolerance" doesn't mean censorship or suppression of that speech. Else you just became part of problem.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:41AM (14 children)
As long as "hate speech" doesn't mean prejudice and suppression groups of people. Else you just breeched the scope of the problem.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 01 2020, @11:36AM (13 children)
Sorry, that's the problem right here. Notice the use of the word "speech". Speech of any sort, even prejudiced, is a far cry from censorship and suppression. I don't see any reason you should like or approve of hate speech. But when you censor or suppress that speech, you just crossed the line and became a worse problem.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:22PM (1 child)
If someone wants to speak lots of hate and intolerance, in violation of a site's TOS, then create your own site. Anyone is free to do so.
You can get started cheaply and scale up.
The fact that people who advocate hate speech won't do this, and insist on being able to spread their hate on someone else's platform, because it is their right (pun intended) to spread hate, is quite telling. Maybe there is no real 'market' for such content. Or maybe their purpose is really not to speak an opinion, but to deface and mar other web sites.
Your right to free speech is unimpeded. Sign up for a Linode or Digital Ocean, or other account today!
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 02 2020, @01:19AM
Not a fact. I know there's sites out there. People are doing that.
So what?
The problem here is that they want the same access to the places where their friends and relatives hang out that you have. Facebook supposedly has the tools to prevent hate speechers from mixing with the general population. But that's apparently not good enough. I find it interesting how these protesters and businesses won't protest in the least Facebook's Big Brother approach, but will protest hate speech.
Frankly, I think the hate spreaders ought to be getting a lot more support from people who care about freedom. Sure, Facebook has a fair bit of room to maneuver here. But we can protest it and put all kinds of legal pressure on them for that as well.
And I think there's a considerable bit of fraud here (it may be legal here, but it's still fraud). Facebook was all about free speech when they were building up their customer base - including benefiting from the patronage by the parties they're banning now. Now that they have that customer base, they're altering the contract. That's bait and switch. What else will they alter in the future?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:43PM (10 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 02 2020, @12:46AM (4 children)
Well, it is true, and well, there is a need to protect speech. So...?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:10PM (3 children)
No, it isn't, in fact you've had multiple opportunities to bear witness to exactly the opposite in the last two months. 🙄
We're actually on the same side of this debate, the problem is your willful oversimplification of it means stepping on people's rights. You'll always be arguing, but never actually progressing.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:06AM (2 children)
Why is that supposed to be a problem rather than evidence to support the abandonment of your position? There's been multiple times my "bearing witness" didn't support your claims. That sounds like evidence to me - just not in your favor.
What rights are being stepped on by the hate speech?
What particularly gets me here is the vagueness of the accusations. I just read through all your posts in this discussion and I still don't get what's supposed to be the problem here, much less that there is an actual problem.
Perhaps an example would help? Suppose I believe the Jews are responsible for everything wrong in the world and I write a journal where I state my opinions on the matter (if it helps, I can point to several such real world journals on SN that do some variation of that). As far as I can tell, that qualifies as hate speech. Whose rights were stepped on by that speech?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:07AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:20PM
Sorry, I'm just not interested in digesting a shit-ton of events for you that you've almost certainly have been watching unfold.
You brought up hatred of the Jews... and don't see how acting out on that led to their rights being taken away. Willful.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:09AM (4 children)
The term "hate speech" is itself, the seed of censorship.
Who defines what is hate speech? Those with power. The 1A was invented exactly so those WITHOUT power could speak.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday July 04 2020, @07:39PM (3 children)
Yeah, yeah. "You must master your fears before they master you!" 🙄
Clicking "Disagree" on your post is also a 'seed of censorship' depending on wherever your goal posts have moved to. You're not being profound, just formulaic. It's especially easy to do with a word like 'censor' which has a broad definition but also harkens back to a specific set of very dark events, meaning you can have your cake and eat it, too. "The government supports McDonalds requiring you to wear shoes, oh the censorship!" (...based on a true story.)
You're basically just asking: "how do laws get made?", but yes that is a very good question especially right now. You should look into that.
Save it for someone who is actually speaking out against the First Amendment. Groups of people are still getting their rights trampled... which is a really bizarre thing for me to have to point out right now given what the last month has been like. To quote George McFly: "Density has brought us together."
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:20AM (2 children)
So are you going to show how this ambiguity supposedly applies?
My take here, unless you can show otherwise, is that hemocyanin is 100% on the mark and you're just weaseling about red herrings and the like. What's the point of speaking about how "broad" the definition of censor is when it's clear that hemocyanin wasn't using that broad a definition? What's the use of complaining about how unprofound or formulaic hemocyanin was, when all he needs to be is right? Or bringing up a straw man based on a "true story" that well, is a straw man?
Laws go only so far when it comes to intangibles like hate speech. The whole point of law is that it's written down - concrete and well-defined. When you start messing with stuff like hate speech, it becomes a matter of very subjective opinion and hence, depends more on who's enforcing the law than the wording of the law itself. You should be asking not "how do laws get made?" but rather "How do laws get enforced?
Given that you've just spread some woo claiming hate speech is not a far cry from "censorship and suppression", I disagree. A classic attack on the First Amendment is to exaggerate the power of speech to commit wrong. Sure looks like that's being done here.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:27PM (1 child)
I mean, you can threaten to take the side of your like-minded buddy, but I'm not sure why you thought that'd earn you any credibility.
*blink* Umm really? There's nothing at all specific about his post. Heh.
Speaking of subjective, the example you brought up in the other post was not an example of something someone would get the law brought down on them for. I would have let it go if not for your hilariously tone-deaf blurb about hate speech being exaggerated to 'attack the first amendment'. (Oh and I haven't done that, either.)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @11:33PM
"Threaten?" I think I'll just do it. hemocyanin clearly has the better argument.
You haven't provided any support for your argument here. As to credibility, what relevance for credibility exists here? Are facts or arguments more true, if I have a higher credibility rating?
Another red herring. His post doesn't have to specific in order for particular terms to have narrow definitions.
You're wrong in two ways. First, there are countries with laws against that (such as the Netherlands, here's an example [columbia.edu] of "group defamation" (of Moroccans in this case) which is a crime). Second, hate speech can be used as an aggravating factor to yield a harsher sentence and/or elevate the crime to a more serious sort (in the US, such as US state-level crimes being elevated to federal "hate" crimes or a misdemeanor elevated to a felony).
Finally, I think it bears repeating that you have yet to defend your claims. I don't care that you disagree or have feelz. What I care about is what you back it up with. Let's review how you fell far short of providing any sort of support. For example, the classic religious argument that begs the question by assuming the critic is at fault:
Note that not a one of those "multiple opportunities" was ever mentioned. Instead, we get a cop out.
You couldn't even be bothered to digest one such event. That strongly indicates to me that there were no such events in the first place.
Then you conflate behavior with speech:
"Acting out" is not speech. That's the natural place to enforce the law - when people actually start hurting other people.
Then there was that huge school of red herring:
Sorry, your arguments suck. But then again, if you could argue and reason well, you probably wouldn't have tilted at this particular windmill in the first place.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:32AM (11 children)
If only acceptable speech is protected, freedom of speech is illusory. Civil rights are not in place for the benefit of the most popular -- they are there to protect the least popular, because you never know when YOUR speech will be on unpopular side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:48AM (7 children)
No one is stopping anyone from publishing their own speech. White supremacy and racism is not protected by anti-discrimination laws, but you're welcome to file lawsuits and try to force Facebook, Twitter, et. all to host such bile. Good luck, even the baker wasn't forced to bake a gay cake, he just couldn't refuse service to gay people since sexual orientation is a protected class.
It is funny how quickly you conservatives became the outraged whiners once you experienced a little push back from society.
How goes your prez? Still winning with all the gun regulation and literal fascism?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:59AM (2 children)
Not a conservative. I'm just not an authoritarian and I can see how the law has failed to catch up with tech monopolies. The future is a dark place, the experiment in universal human rights is ending.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @08:21AM (1 child)
ah yes, your speech is totally infringed if you're not able to spam 300 million people's news feed.
*yawn*
Make your own service or STFU, you are an authoritarian complaining that platforms don't want specific speech. Should networks with children be forced to host porn and murder speech?
Obviously you have little clue about how Constitutional rights work.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:26PM
If most people are allowed to spam 300 million peoples' news feeds (which I gather is not actually the case) and you're not, because of the content of your speech, that sure sounds like infringement of your speech to me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:22PM (3 children)
If you're speaking of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado [supremecourt.gov], the baker, Jack Phillips was asked to bake what you term a "gay cake", but he refused to do so. He did offer other services to the couple getting married. For example:
The case was decided on a narrow aspect - the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which enforces certain anti-discrimination (of which sexual orientation is a protected class) didn't protect Jack Phillips's religious rights. The linked decision cites derogatory language used concerning Phillips's religious views and inconsistency in Phillips's case versus similar cases:
And a little further:
There's a huge difference between the baker and Facebook. The baker was committing an act of speech - putting a message and decoration on a cake, Facebook is not. They merely provide a public forum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:46PM (2 children)
This isn't true. Facebook stopped being "merely a public forum" when they started including friend suggestions and ranking content (whether algorithmic or not). If they were "merely a public forum", they should have stopped at providing subscribe/unsubscribe/discover more buttons on the various feeds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 02 2020, @12:54AM (1 child)
It's somewhat more nuanced an argument than claiming that using advanced technology, like a computer, makes it not a public forum, but it's the same fallacy. Just because they do things a little differently doesn't make a difference here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @11:35PM
More accurately, a little difference from an ideal is not different enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:37PM (2 children)
Indeed. So, how do we handle speech that curtails the civil rights of the least popular?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @04:52PM
If you are on the regressive left, which is trying to implement every horrific idea from the past from segregation to censorship, you cancel the speaker and cheer.
The problem with freedom is that it is fragile and subject to being undermined by those willing to engage in force. The only solution is for people to voluntarily agree to be pro-civil rights. Absent that agreement, there is no freedom because imposing freedom is oxymoronic (look at Afghanistan or Iraq for example). The regressive left is on the rise and absolutely refuses to countenance civil rights for anyone who disagrees with it. They refuse to agree to a system of freedom and so we're fucked. They have the population numbers, the sympathy of the press, and the willingness to use economic and physical violence. The only question is going to be which faction will gain enough power to impose its totalitarian views on everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2020, @04:22AM
How about starting by finding real world examples? Then get back to us.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:08AM
You are flawed and imperfect! Execute your prime function!
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @11:33PM
I think it's interesting that you seem to think that "left" is a goal that people support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:15PM (5 children)
Finally we have endgame.
Facebook's only value is discussions about Facebook. And the rest of us can step away and see it as the human caterpillar it always was. Also see Trump Presidency.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:43PM (4 children)
You mean centipede, right?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:53PM (3 children)
>Human centipede.
Gross.
B3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:12AM (2 children)
Says paper noodle. I'll grant you human centipede is worse, but paper noodles? Do you like shitting fiber bricks??
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:31AM
> paper noodles?
They look better than they taste.
> human centipede is worse
That comes with hat trick visual aesthetic! In case anyone wants to lose their appetite. [imdb.com]
B3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:55AM
Whether you like it or not, most of what you're shitting is fiber. Unless it comes out the other end, then it's called "muh freedoms".
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:21PM (17 children)
Trump was right. A teenager died in CHAZ in another shooting since the police gave the communists Capitol Hill.
But, I look at this article as another attempt to get more censorship from tech companies. These tech companies had their cry fest after Trump won and this is their attempt to ensure Trump isn't reelected in their brazen attempt to interfere with the election.
It's pretty sad that leftists can't win arguments or hearts without censorship these days. They hide behind MSM lies and narrative spin to defend violent communists burning democrat cities. Vote democrat and you vote to burn your city and history to the ground.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:17PM (14 children)
The shootings in CHAZ are being caused by criminal gangs fighting over the territory. It has nothing to do with the protests other than the police abandoned the local station (hence why the gangs want that territory). It's gang members doing the shooting and getting shot. Chicago has more gang violence due to MS13 trying to move into Mafia territory there (the Mafia famililies have had a peace agreement for about a decade). For the CHAZ territory, it's the mayor and governor's problem, not Trump's. The federal government has no business getting involved as the national guard for the state is under the governor's control, not the President's, and no one in their right mind wants the US Army operating for a police action within the US. Way, way too many bad presidents there. And for Trump supporters that think you want Trump to send in the Army, take a moment to think: Would you be OK with Obama or Hillary Clinton sending the US Army into your home town to enforce what they think is the law? (Because your opinion does not count when the Army is leveling guns at you.) I thought not.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:36PM (10 children)
>federal government has no business getting involved as the national guard for the state is under the governor's control, not the President's
Mostly correct. But if the state government is violating citizen rights, not enforcing law, and ignoring court orders. Eventually it becomes a federal issue. It's happened before with Little Rock and the federalization of the Arkansas National Guard [wikipedia.org].
Moreso, the Civil War can equally be attributed to the federal government stepping in to force the abolition issue and ensure state governments protect the rights of blacks.
It really becomes a question of: When does the state governments conduct warrant intervention to ensure equal protection of constitutional rights?
> CHAZ are being caused by criminal gangs
And the state government is allowing criminal gangs to violate the rights of citizens and ignore the law. Even in the beginning the national government has been able to step in those extreme circumstances like the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:35PM (9 children)
Good thing the feds have repeatedly held the the police are not actually obligated to protect you or enforce any laws...
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again [mises.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:02PM (8 children)
Isn't it funny the cops can just not enforce law and allow a politically motivated mob to attack businesses and people they don't like? The last time state and local governments were doing this the feds did intervene. The KKK and the government inaction toward mob racial terror is very reminiscent of today's mobs of social justice and antifa thugs.
Obligation != unable. Those court rulings are protecting the government from liability. It is not deciding when the government has crossed a line in abusing citizens.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:31PM (7 children)
Maybe if these business owners get a taste of what the black folks have been dealing with forever something might actually change.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @09:45PM (3 children)
I never realized how racist Seattle was until CHAZ. You are right.
Those business owners and citizens living in CHAZ deserve CHAZ and the government sanctioned mob violence that is now targeting the people there. The increased violence that killed a teenage boy the other day is a small price to pay to bring back segregation for racial justice.
I wonder if the political party that drove Seattle to be so racist that caused this violence will lose their grip on power this November so that the black community can see the reform they need.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @01:36AM (2 children)
Sort of a troll but accurate on facts. CHAZ's community gardens were segregated. One of CHAZ demands was for segregated medical treatments for black and brown people by black and brown people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:51AM (1 child)
CHAZ is an interesting social experiment, and you should note the complete lack of support from liberal users on SN. It isn't nearly as bad as Fox Newz pretends, but no one is hailing it as some sort of liberal success. Personally I think it is a stupid stunt along the lines of the conservatives who occupied government buildings. At least CHAZ has some ethical background as opposed to the greedy ranchers who didn't like paying a pittance for grazing their herds on public land.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 01 2020, @03:03AM
It's been four or five shootings in the last ten days, two dead, a rape, and numerous assaults let alone the property damage. As an experiment, it is definitely informative. With the last shooting, you have CHAZ security opening fire on a car before anything happens based on an assumption it was stolen. So basically, presume much and shoot first. CHAZ security is what the police look like in the darkest horror movies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @10:44PM
Those ignorant white business owners (as you seem to exclude blacks from being business owners) are going to get order restored by way of the police, or leave for safer areas.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:38PM
(Score: 2) by Captival on Wednesday July 01 2020, @02:32AM
Well over 100 shot in Chicago alone last week. They're already quite familiar to dealing out violence to people that don't deserve it. It just doesn't make the news most of the time because other Commies like you in the media like it that way.
(Score: 3, Touché) by epitaxial on Tuesday June 30 2020, @07:30PM (1 child)
Oh good I feel much better its only gang members shooting other gang members.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:24PM
wooosh
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:13AM
You can try to handwave this away, but the fact is that an anarchist collective attracted horrible people and in 10 days, two black teens died and 3 or 4 people were wounded by gunfire. And the shootings are just the things that make the news because to ignore them in favor of the "farmer's market" narrative, is still too far even for most of the legacy media.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:14PM
Because that is what "freedom unrestricted by any law guaranteed by govt" means.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:22PM
No he wasn't.
The fact that we're even having this conversation ought to show you just what a shambles his presidency has been.
At some point Americans will be embarrassed they ever elected him, but I assume right now you're still trying to convince yourself it was not a mistake, hence the defence of the indefensible.
Weirdly, there are still people who think that protestors who ask the police to stop killing their neighbours are the bad guys.
Maybe America ought to have a conversation about divorce. It won't be easy, but it might be for the best.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tizan on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:22PM (14 children)
If the President put totally false info or incite racism or violence that is info that people has to see as political discourse.
If i do it ...i might get the visit from FBI.
Facebook is the TASS of the USA.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:47PM (5 children)
Facebook is the TASS of the USA.
Not really. There are a plethora of alternatives, including this place right here. The choice to use them is ours.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:00PM
So, what you're saying is it's user error. I know what that's like, most of my tech support issues boil down to just that. The key is to fix it without pointing that out to the user.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:20AM (3 children)
This place doesn't count -- this is like the picnic table next to a hotdog stand -- twitter and FB are like stadiums containing hotdog stands.
A person can post a false russiaRussiaRussia conspiracy theories on twitter and FB all day and reach many orders of magnitude more people than any of us here can reach, but one false pizzagate conspiracy will get a person banned. This has the effect of bombarding people with one narrative. It has the effect of propaganda. It's poison.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday July 02 2020, @04:37AM (2 children)
It's poison.
Then don't drink it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 02 2020, @07:17AM (1 child)
I don't but I don't matter -- there are 100s of millions who do drink the poison. The next civil war starts on Twitter.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday July 02 2020, @03:35PM
They have to stop too. Prohibition only increases demand for more
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @05:56PM (4 children)
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Freeman on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:03PM (3 children)
Why don't you go find a hungry Polar Bear and see how equal you are. I'm thinking, he'll tell you just how equal he is to you. Right after he's done eating his fill.
Comparing animals to humans is a false equivalency. Unless you're a member of People Eating Tasty Animals.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Informative) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:09PM
Let me help you with the reference [wikipedia.org].
B3
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:11PM
Oh my, how funny that you think that quote has anything to do with animals!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 30 2020, @11:17PM
(groan)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @06:07PM (1 child)
> TASS
Have you seen the new rules on reddit after their most recent purge? You can invoke all the hatespeech and vile you want against a "majority". See white males.
The funny part is a cursory look at the "majority" demonstrates their bad faith enforcement. (Women are a majority but protected).
What's even funnier is that as SJWs parrot anti-racism. California remove racial discrimination protections. You know, to hate the "right" people.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:26PM
Sweet, another butt-hurt bigot :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2020, @08:08PM
Do you not see that you getting a visit from the FBI is the problem, not the President posting something on Twitter?