Olives @olives@qoto.org

If Facebook does put value on freedom of expression though, then maybe they should re-assess their anti-nudity stance.

From what I've seen, he actually cares less about freedom of expression than the average progressive.

Now, different people might draw different lines, but it's hard for me to call someone who only has an interest in defending speech he personally supports the "fiercest defender of free speech".

It's not simply this example. There have been quite a few examples of this.

This guy talks about how much he loves free speech but anytime a free speech issue comes up, he errs on the side of censorship (when the speech is not "obviously good").

Facebook has the unenviable task of figuring out what to do with this account. Any decision will be difficult, and any will likely be criticized.

They're trying to draw a line of enabling political speech, while tackling content which they find troublesome. It is also likely they want some standard they can point to when dealing with accounts, rather than conjuring up decisions on the spot.

To be clear, that is not really what Facebook is saying here.

"But that does not mean there are no limits to what people can say on our platform. When there is a clear risk of real world harm — a deliberately high bar for Meta to intervene in public discourse — we act."

They are still saying they will act, if they deem that the situation demands it.

"In light of his violations, he now also faces heightened penalties for repeat offenses"

"The Board upheld the decision but criticized the open-ended nature of the suspension and the lack of clear criteria for when and whether suspended accounts will be restored"

The biggest issue the Board has is the lack of due process and established standards. The decision was fairly impromptu. This is a reasonable concern.

"Our updated protocol also addresses content that does not violate our Community Standards but that contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon. We may limit the distribution of such posts, and for repeated instances, may temporarily restrict access to our advertising tools. This step would mean that content would remain visible on Mr. Trump’s account but would not be distributed in people’s Feeds, even if they follow Mr. Trump. We may also remove the reshare button from such posts, and may stop them being recommended or run as ads."

You can agree with the decision, and you can disagree with it, it is nonetheless not as described in this post.

"I am a firm believer in free speech except when I am not."

While I won't argue that I am a fan of Trump, Louis appears to be cherry-picking quotes to misrepresent Facebook's decision / position here.
QT: https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron/112775955397787870

Remember when a politician who went on about "online safety" simultaneously made violent threats to journalists?

I think there is "harassment" (someone said something mean to me online), and then there is *harassment* and that is quite a bit different. Plus, this is a government official delving into the thorny area of speech.

From what I could see though, they received relatively few responses, even at the best / worst of times.

This was also an official who behaved *deliberately provocatively*, then they were upset about how people apparently responded to them.

While it's plausible that "harassment" is coming in in some other form, visible posts seemed fairly civil.

I remember when a wannabe internet censor complained about being "harassed" and there were like five or so replies to one of their posts which were critical.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112782400926642541

Interesting how it's always the harassment of public figures which specific politicians are most interested in.

While someone appears to have removed false positives from their scan database involving "cartoons", it remains unclear whether there are still ones involving realistic 3D renders (which could still lead to someone being wrongly accused, these are not a new phenomena).

They also use very specific technical language rather than outright saying that there are no, say, family photos.

One of the craziest ideas of 2019 was that some random charity (with ties to some really strange people) should be able to act as an unaccountable internet censor (is the government that accountable either?).

If you have a problem with that, well, you got to *think of the children*.

"Project 2025" is very disturbing.

It's annoying how the term "AI" can lump completely different technologies in with each other.

Good examples of this are things like predictive policing and the thing which generates text. Both are spoken of as being "AI".

https://reason.com/2024/07/10/cops-called-on-8-year-old-child-for-being-outside/ What do you think of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/09/uk-officials-fear-october-port-chaos-unless-eu-again-delays-biometric-plan
"UK government officials fear tailbacks and chaos at UK ports in three months’ time unless the #EU again delays plans to introduce a biometric travel registration scheme requiring facial and finger scanning."

"From 6 October all non-EU nationals will be required to enter biometric and fingerprint technology under a new European entry/exit system."
#privacy #FaceRecognition #ukpol