[Elyzabeth]

Is attacking freedom of speech !

"Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel's microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was."

Quite shocking!

Facebook decided not to permit postings on Facebook which were against immigration !

[ThirdTerm]

This is what I have been saying for some time and Facebook finally has done the right thing. For some reason, anti-immigration postings were allowed on the website but promoting xenophobia is suppose to be against Facebook's TOS. Hopefully, Pegida and EDL pages would also be terminated by Facebook, which has contributed significantly to far-right extremism in Europe. In Russia, you could be sent to a penal colony in Siberia for a year or two, if you set up a similar page aimed at xenophobic propaganda.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel has received assurances from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg that the company will combat racist comments on the Internet. http://www.dw.com/en/facebooks-zuckerbe ... a-18744036

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel's microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor -- at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history -- should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an "Initiative for civil courage online," the aim of which, it claims, is to remove "hate speech" from Facebook -- specifically by removing comments that "promote xenophobia." Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase "racist" posts from the site.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/05 ... atriotism/

[Harmattan]

You know what is even more frightening than a few corporations more and more controlling our opinions, year after year, through media concentration and editorial control (FB's instant articles, Google's AMP, etc)?

A democratic leader asking one of those corporate leaders to further control opinions.

Sounds like the acme of stupidity in my opinion.

[Frollein]

Anyone who thinks they can start a revolution against the elites via Facebook should be send to TT's Siberian gulag for being criminally stupid.

[AFAIK]

Obviously most CEOs are going to be pro-immigration because it grants them access to cheap and easily exploited labour. As much as tech companies like to hype up their services and claim that social media was an integral component of the Arab Spring I think people we be able to organise and disseminate their opinions just fine with these restrictions.

[Elyzabeth]

You know what is even more frightening than a few corporations more and more controlling our opinions, year after year, through media concentration and editorial control (FB's instant articles, Google's AMP, etc)?

A democratic leader asking one of those corporate leaders to further control opinions.

Sounds like the acme of stupidity in my opinion.

Spot on !

[marjy]

I wonder where you think Freedom of Speech might actually exist in the world?

The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

However it is not legally binding on UN members because it is only a Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a Treaty.

I assume your country has laws relating to slander, libel, defamation, or laws against incitement to hatred or violence?

Such laws exist (and can be exercised) because there is a jurisdiction to which they may be applied, which of course is not the case with the internet.

I assume you also have recourse under similar laws if you were libelled or defamed?

If we take your specific objection and replace the term "anti-immigration" with "anti-<whatever you might happen be>", such as <male>, <female>, <black>, <white>, <christian>, <muslim>, <straight>, <gay> etc. would you feel similarly moved to raise an objection?

Quite why you feel particularly aggrieved about Facebook is rather puzzling though.

You don't have a problem using this forum to express your opinion yet still abide by Forum Rule 3 do you?

We must all exercise some degree of self-control and self-censorship on a daily basis in our personal and social interactions.

It is largely this capacity for self-control that defines us as social and civilised animals.

There must be some point within your own moral compass at which you would draw the line and you would wish to censor? The promotion of terrorism? Sexual abuse? Bestiality? The Eurovision Song Contest? Fat people wearing hot pants?

On the subject of immigration, as it affects Germany and its people, I'm sure the German electorate will express their opinion on the matter (which is, after all, the only opinion of any import) at their next elections.

[marjy]

You know what is even more frightening than a few corporations more and more controlling our opinions, year after year, through media concentration and editorial control (FB's instant articles, Google's AMP, etc)?

No-one is controlling your opinions.

Only the ones you choose to express and how you might express them - including on this forum.

Such protestations suggest you might formulate your opinions based on what you read on the internet.

That's even more frightening than any FB "plot".

And editorial control has been in existence since the first hieroglyph was incised on the pyramids.

[mikema63]

The us constitution only protects you from the government limiting speech.

No such provision protects you from facebook.

Also, what frollein said.

[Harmattan]

No-one is controlling your opinions.

Tell that to advertisers, lobbyists and propagandists!

Ideas in our societies form an ecosystem: through communication seeds are formed and scattered. Some ideas will spread quickly, some ideas will spread slowly, some will disappear, some will become invasive, and there are cycles and eras.

Now come the medias: they are fleets of airplanes flying over continents and spreading millions of seeds at once. Trust me: they have a great power to shape your opinion and the ideas that reach you. If you don't believe it, then you are dangerously blind to how much you are manipulated.

One of those medias is named Facebook. 57% of 18-25 visit Facebook everyday to get news and information. Facebook claims that it chooses what to present them based on their personal networks, personalities, and how much they are paid by different companies. Only that?

Such protestations suggest you might formulate your opinions based on what you read on the internet.

Of course I do, just like you do. My opinions are based on everything I read and hear, like everyone else. And why would the Internet be worse? You think it is better to watch TV than to read an online newspaper? To read a forum rather than hear the same friends over and over? This is a very misplaced and absurd snobism.

[marjy]

My opinions are based on everything I read and hear, like everyone else.

I fully agree with you. My point, poorly expressed, being it's dangerous to rely on a single source of information and I don't presume you do.

One has to try be informed by as many sources as possible and formulate one's own opinion having listened to both sides of an argument or point of view. There are as many nuggets of truth in the Daily Mail as there are in the Socialist Worker. Equally, there's as much propaganda and misinformation. I recognise the danger in dismissing out of hand either publication as 'rubbish' - but of course, that depends on one's point of view.

What Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr termed the Inarticulate Major Premise (hotly denied by many judges and quietly acknowledged by many others) is that no-one can be truly objective about anything because each and every one of us is affected by our own life experiences when it comes to making to a value judgement.

And why would the Internet be worse?

Only in the context of relying upon a single information source such as Facebook, which of course holds true for any form of media. It would be interesting to know if FB was the only source of news and information for 57% of 18-25 year olds for example.

One could argue that anything provided for free holds, by very definition, no value. On the other hand, where payment is required (for a newspaper or television subscription service for example) people are generally only prepared to pay for something that already aligns with their view and opinion. You pays your money having already made your choice as it were.

This is a very misplaced and absurd snobism.

Not intended as such. I'd happily accept ageist though.

Thankfully I'm old enough not to feel shocked, outraged or moved to man the barricades just because Facebook prevents anti-immigration postings.

Neither do I regard it as an attack on freedom of speech.

Such postings are hardly likely to add to the total sum of human knowledge or quality of life for anyone, are they?

[Pants-of-dog]

Facebook has been limiting free speech for years.

There are, for example, no pictures of breastfeeding women allowed.

[killim]

First of all, Merkel did not talk about immigration. She talked about hate-speech. Currently the state-attorneys are prosecuting Facebooks General Managers and European Manager due to sustained hate-speech violations, which are against the German criminal code. Facebook promised to act and did not act. As far as I know this policy from Facebook changed around 2-3 months ago and they started a complain center in Germany staffed with German speaking agents from Arvato. However as much as they improved it is still not good enough. The problem for Facebook is that they showed with a (for European levels) very harsh anti-sexual content filters that they should be able to avoid hate speech sentences. If such a case ends up in court this can get very ugly both on a private and corporate level since Germany is a militant democracy.