> have to say, from what me, @sheeraf and @ceciliakang are hearing....this is not going over super well.
> Zuckerberg spent probably 20-30 minutes delivering his reasons for the post staying up. now taking pointed and heated questions from employees directly
Mark's point was that the post did not break the policies the platform has and he explained in thorough detail why he believed this was the case. The Floyd video was an example of how one policy can be used for good while acknowledging it can also used for bad. I don't disagree that we should ignore our policies because someone posted something we did not like.
For what it's worth, he addressed that some policies do need work and change - specifically the ones about voting, elections, and misleading statements about these.
edit: 'oarabbus_ is right, as far as I can tell, about the Insurrection Act. Even if they weren't, I suppose it'd be foolish to imagine that the US presidency in 2020 is restrained by mere legislation, save to the extent to which it permits itself to be.
Why not? They sure do an amazing job making sure you don't see any female nipples.
Female nipples = Block at all costs and ban users
Incite violence = We're powerless. We won't do anything.
That being said, what you are saying isn't true. Exceptions to Posse Comitatus include "Federal troops used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case with the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots."
Should it be illegal for the President to send troops against citizens to restore order? Perhaps, yes. Is it illegal? Certainly not.
The more direct example of invoking the act in spite of opposition from states would be the enforcement of federal law law during the Civil Rights era.
Two good explainers on this:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/02/can-donald-tr...
https://time.com/5846649/insurrection-act-1807-donald-trump/
Yes, this information needs to stay out there. Stay informed. If this was some troll suggesting Trump move the military against the US, I could see you saying that should be pulled down.
This is the president, as much as I fucking hate him I want to know everything he says. Not because I agree but because to not know what he's saying handicaps my ability to mobilize against tyranny before it happens.
But if you as a platform control the content you are responsible for the content you publish. Which should be ok right? If it's fact checking and you get sued and the facts are correct, no problem. Well other than all the money you lose, but that's something we need to fix about suing people.
Deciding not to talk about something or not to restrict hosting certain posts is not the same thing as thinking they are ok.
[Obligatory disclaimer that I don't approve of everything he does]
Isn’t this at odds with your tagline:
HowTruthful helps you make better evidence-based decisions, and helps you communicate opinions effectively.
Communicate opinions effectively, unless you’re paying someone to enact your opinions, in which case fuck them.
What I mean is that the amount of clicks and interaction they generate can't be pocket-change I think.
Frecency of engagement with particular content producers on such platforms might tell you something useful though.