Melon Farmers Unrated

Facebook Censorship since 2020


Left wing bias, prudery and multiple 'mistakes'


 

Election notices...

Facebook announces that it will censor content to protect itself against being prosecuted under local laws


Link Here1st September 2020
Full story: Facebook Censorship since 2020...Left wing bias, prudery and multiple 'mistakes'
Facebook has announced changes to its Terms of Service that will allow it to remove content or restrict access if the company thinks it is necessary to avoid legal or regulatory impact.

Facebook users have started receiving notifications regarding a change to its Terms of Service which state:

Effective October 1, 2020, section 3.2 of our Terms of Service will be updated to include: We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.

It is not clear whether this action is in response to particular laws or perhaps this references creeping censorship being implemented worldwide. Of course it could be a pretext to continuing to impose biased political censorship in the run up to the US presidential election.

 

 

Offsite Article: Nipples, Facebook, and what our society deems decent...


Link Here18th April 2020
Full story: Facebook Censorship since 2020...Left wing bias, prudery and multiple 'mistakes'
Why there's a danger in allowing a single entity to influence what our society deems decent. By Katie Wheeler

See article from theguardian.com

 

 

Charting a Way Forward on Online Content Censorship...

Facebook seems to be suggesting that if governments are so keen on censoring people's speech then perhaps the governments should take over the censorship job entirely...


Link Here18th February 2020
Full story: Facebook Censorship since 2020...Left wing bias, prudery and multiple 'mistakes'

Today, we're publishing a white paper setting out some questions that regulation of online content might address.

Charting a Way Forward: Online Content Regulation builds on recent developments on this topic, including legislative efforts and scholarship.

The paper poses four questions which go to the heart of the debate about regulating content online:

  • How can content regulation best achieve the goal of reducing harmful speech while preserving free expression? By requiring systems such as user-friendly channels for reporting content or external oversight of policies or enforcement decisions, and by requiring procedures such as periodic public reporting of enforcement data, regulation could provide governments and individuals the information they need to accurately judge social media companies' efforts.

  • How can regulations enhance the accountability of internet platforms? Regulators could consider certain requirements for companies, such as publishing their content standards, consulting with stakeholders when making significant changes to standards, or creating a channel for users to appeal a company's content removal or non-removal decision.

  • Should regulation require internet companies to meet certain performance targets? Companies could be incentivized to meet specific targets such as keeping the prevalence of violating content below some agreed threshold.

  • Should regulation define which "harmful content" should be prohibited on the internet? Laws restricting speech are generally implemented by law enforcement officials and the courts. Internet content moderation is fundamentally different. Governments should create rules to address this complexity -- that recognize user preferences and the variation among internet services, can be enforced at scale, and allow for flexibility across language, trends and context.

Guidelines for Future Regulation

The development of regulatory solutions should involve not just lawmakers, private companies and civil society, but also those who use online platforms. The following principles are based on lessons we've learned from our work in combating harmful content and our discussions with others.

  • Incentives. Ensuring accountability in companies' content moderation systems and procedures will be the best way to create the incentives for companies to responsibly balance values like safety, privacy, and freedom of expression.

  • The global nature of the internet. Any national regulatory approach to addressing harmful content should respect the global scale of the internet and the value of cross-border communications. They should aim to increase interoperability among regulators and regulations.

  • Freedom of expression. In addition to complying with Article 19 of the ICCPR (and related guidance), regulators should consider the impacts of their decisions on freedom of expression.

  • Technology. Regulators should develop an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of technology in content moderation and allow internet companies the flexibility to innovate. An approach that works for one particular platform or type of content may be less effective (or even counterproductive) when applied elsewhere.

  • Proportionality and necessity. Regulators should take into account the severity and prevalence of the harmful content in question, its status in law, and the efforts already underway to address the content.

If designed well, new frameworks for regulating harmful content can contribute to the internet's continued success by articulating clear ways for government, companies, and civil society to share responsibilities and work together. Designed poorly, these efforts risk unintended consequences that might make people less safe online, stifle expression and slow innovation.

We hope today's white paper helps to stimulate further conversation around the regulation of content online. It builds on a paper we published last September on data portability , and we plan on publishing similar papers on elections and privacy in the coming months.

 

 

Too many governments defining online harms that need censoring...

Mark Zuckerberg pushes back against too much censorship on Facebook


Link Here2nd February 2020
Full story: Facebook Censorship since 2020...Left wing bias, prudery and multiple 'mistakes'
Mark Zuckerberg has declared that Facebook is going to stand up for free expression in spite of the fact it will piss off a lot of people.

He made the claim during a fiery appearance at the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Utah on Friday. Zuckerberg told the audience that Facebook had previously tried to resist moves that would be branded as too offensive - but says he now believes he is being asked to partake in excessive censorship:

Increasingly we're getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable, he claimed. We're going to take down the content that's really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point.

It kind of feels like the list of things that you're not allowed to say socially keeps on growing, and I'm not really okay with that.

This is the new approach [free expression], and I think it's going to piss off a lot of people. But frankly the old approach was pissing off a lot of people too, so let's try something different.




 

melonfarmers icon

Home

Index

Links

Email

Shop
 


US

World

Media

Nutters

Liberty
 

Film Cuts

Cutting Edge

Info

Sex News

Sex+Shopping
 


Adult Store Reviews

Adult DVD & VoD

Adult Online Stores

New Releases/Offers

Latest Reviews

FAQ: Porn Legality

Sex Shops List

Lap Dancing List

Satellite X List

Sex Machines List

John Thomas Toys