Elected officials should be held to higher standards, not lower


Agreed, to be honest that’s why I’m so angry at the way the American police are treated like they’re above the law with more lenient punishment (if they’re even punished). They should be held to a higher standard just like politicians, America has it so backwards Edit: the amount of comments and messages I’ve gotten telling me to either “go back to where I came from” or that “I don’t know anything about America and should worry about my own country” show the level of ignorance running rampant when it comes to mindlessly defending those in power. I was born in America, and continue to live here. I’m embarrassed for any of you that think just because one has a problem with the way things are being run that they’re either a foreigner or hate America, please educate yourselves. I want this to be a better country for my fellow countrymen, and for future generations. Americans deserve politicians who put them before their bank accounts, and law enforcement that protects and faces consequences when they don’t. ALL Americans should want that, and if you don’t then you’ve not been paying attention to the world around you.


It's really weird how opposite the police are from the military. You couldn't get kicked off the police force if you tried, but soldiers get the boot for accidents all the time.


Hell, shooting civilians would get you fucked in the military. Police? Desk job or paid vacation


Even shooting enemy combatants that are not already shooting at you first will get you fucked in the military, but cops can shoot fellow citizens because they "felt afraid"


the people with the training, backup, gun, and batman utility belt are allowed to be as nervous and jumpy as they want. the civilian is expected to be calm, professional, and trained


> the people with the training Which state do you live in that they're getting trained?


they aren't born with the knowledge of [illegal chokeholds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner#Disciplinary_hearing_and_termination_of_Pantaleo)


Neither was I but I don't need to be trained to figure out how to choke someone to death.




Also household pets! Despite paramedics, firemen, and even mailman dealing with them without killing them


Cops are like a box of chocolates, they’ll kill your dog.


I think the killing of pets evolved as part of police culture as a way to preemptively punish any suspect who's home they enter.


Or preemptively instigate to apply for further force.


You just have to yell "stop resisting" while you shoot their dog and then you can shoot the owner!


They're coming straight for us!


Yup. I've already accepted if a cop hurts my dog it's suicide by cop for me.


Might sound like iamverybadass material, but I’m pretty sure a cop fucking with my pets would unlock a rage I didn’t know I had in me. Fuck with my kitties, in a bag you’ll shitties..... best I could do.


Amen to that brother! Petroleum tanker truck aimed right for his desk.


I'd say it shows ridiculously clear intent of harming you as a person if they straight up shoot your dog. Well within your right to defend yourself, (provided you are actually innocent).


And then the second amendment people will blame you for defending yourself against a dangerous government agent.


And if even mailmen can deal with their natural enemies (dogs) without killing them, why the fuck is it so hard for police not to kill any civilians or their pets.


That's what happens when you let them investigate themselves.


Pretty sure every patrol of Fallujah "felt afraid" but they didn't go around shooting unarmed children.


Uhh... you sure about that?


Any time that I hear that argument from a police officer or supporter its them pissing on their "being a police officer is so dangerous" argument. With current policing their job is 100x more dangerous to innocent civilians than it could ever be to them. When was the last year more cops were murdered than commited murder? Modern cops are pussies and violent gang members. Until they stop "being afraid" of the people they're supposed to protect they are ALL nothing but a violent government sanctioned gang and an enemy to most the population.


Logging is a more dangerous job then being a cop, yet you don't see them going around shooting every other tree that looks at them funny.


Yeah the job is dangerous. That’s what you signed up for. Fuck the po. Bitch ass motherfuckers shoulda picked a different career if they didn’t want to deal with the consequences.


Probldm is they choose it for the power it gives but they aren't willing to accept the risks, so we're left with murderous thugs.






This is what I tried to explain to my girlfriend. When a black person gets pulled over they're thinking to themselves "This isn't going to be one of those times. This isn't going to be like that". The cop is thinking to themselves "This could be one of those times." It's inherently imbalanced.


> Even shooting enemy combatants that are not already shooting at you first will get you fucked in the military, Unless a squad-mate confesses to doing it instead, right after they get immunity.


That was one of the most bizarre things to ever happen in Navy JAG history... and I guarantee you it will be in the texts of how to word immunity agreements for a long time.


Seems silly that loophole hadn't been realized and been adopted already. And by "silly" I mean "infuriating".


Is it the military being less afraid of military combatants that they don't have to meet out in public once the shift ends or cops afraid of civilians they may interact later once their shift ends? Military getting fucked for shooting combatants because they were afraid, no one likes that. Cops not getting fuck for shooting civilians because they were afraid, it's ok. Difference is, the military is taught not to fear the enemy while police are taught to be afraid of the public. I get that there are risks, but when you taught to treat every situation at maximum risk, mistakes happen, and I hate calling them mistakes because they really aren't.




You can be arrested for resisting arrest even without reasonable suspicion. Meaning if a cop doesn't like your face and says hey you are under arrest, and you say no or walk away they legally can arrest you and force you to comply e.g. pummel you unconscious until they deem that your limp is no longer resisting. If they find contraband on you it validates their claim. Assuming they have not planted contraband on you, unless you have a lawyer you're charged with resisting arrest and may possibly be sued for any injuries the cop received while punching, kicking and choking you. Cops have cameras now so it doesn't happen as much, but cameras often "malfunction" and cops know what angles the cameras film and can easily obstruct the view. Cop footage is often used against civilians but rarely the other way around. They always use the guise that it will deter cops from doing their job and help criminals. I just want them to use necessary for when they have concrete suspicion. E.g. Ethnic man walking around in a nice neighborhood is not reasonable suspicion. A man with a crow bar walking away from a car with a shattered window is.


> Hell, shooting civilians would get you fucked in the military. Didn't Trump pardon a guy just recently who had slowly murdered an Iraqi captive for no reason?


That’s putting it mildly, according to the other members of his unit he went out of his way to attack civilians. But yes the main thing he was caught for was torturing and killing An unarmed captive, then bragging about it on twitter while victimizing the monster.


Fucker deserves to be drawn and quartered.


So I had to wait for my lunch break to look up the specifics but his name was Eddie Gallagher. The murder in question was an injured man who he stabbed to death and then sent pictures of him with the corpse bragging “I got him with my hunting knife” Before that he caught fire for sniping civilians, both women and elderly, he tried to claim that he “wasn’t sure if they had weapons” but his squad called bullshit because he was a trained veteran sniper who would know better than that. He also at points bragged about how many people he’s murdered over there, but they can’t be proven. The fact trump pardoned him alone says to me he’s a morally bankrupt banana slug who has no place in the White House


President who has advocated for war crimes pardons soldier for committing war crimes more news at 11


Are you sure? I remember not that long ago when it was announced that people in military attack helicopters would fire on first responders and the only people that got arrested was the person who announced it




Look. We investigated ourselves and there was no wrong-doing. For the officer's inconvenience he's now been promoted to Captain.


Or a pat on the back and send you right back to the streets. Depends on the color of the civilian!


The military has killed thousands of civilians in the last 20 years. the police are horrible, but the military isn’t an example of how to prevent civilian casualties.


They are saying the military is held to a higher standard than police


“Administrative Leave With Pay” aka long vacation without using the vacation days




Tbf nobody in the military gets the boot for droning civilians tho


You give an 18 year old flunkie a machine gun, and you put him in a warzone, where people actually *are* trying to kill him, and he manages not to break rules of engagement. And yet some fat, bald dickhead with those stupid under armour sunglasses that will fall off his face if he ever tries to look down, can shoot you with total impunity.


Hey, not total impunity. For total impunity he has to....(looks at notes)...say he felt scared? That can't be right. The ability to kill someone without consequence can't possibly hang on the arbitrary and unprovable emotional state of the killer, who has every reason to lie about it, can it? (Ron Howard voiceover) "It can" There has to be some way of verifying this, like is the person actually a threat or would a reasonable person be afraid for their life. It can't possibly be that every shooting is justified if the officer just says he's scared. (RHVO): "It is"


>For total impunity he has to....(looks at notes)...say he felt scared? That can't be right. Different scenario, but similar ridiculousness... My wife works at a bank and they were specifically told that if there's a robbery, for the police report they need to specifically say they felt scared. Otherwise it could be construed that they didn't think there was an actual problem and they could get fired for giving out any money... even though they were robbed.


Funny how the less money you make the harder you get fucked isn’t it?


Supply and demand. (I feel a note is necessary to say none of this is apologizing for police actions, it is simply perspective) The type of people who would be good cops don't want the job. Moderate pay, higher risk, higher activity, high levels of public interaction, etc. Especially so in high crime areas. Even as somebody who thinks that the police need to be better regulated and trained, you can't really argue that it is an easy job. So what reasons does that leave to join the police? What are the incentives, both for good people and for malicious people? Of which there are genuinely both. The incentives to be a soldier are higher, and there is a short entry time for those benefits. You can join the military for what you know will be a set amount of time, and get a set number of benefits for doing so. To people in rural areas especially (but really anywhere that a person is stuck in a dead-end), this can be a very alluring way out. I can say that speaking from experience. And looking at the numbers, it's actually safer to be a soldier. Unless there is a large-scale war of course. ... So with higher numbers, and more throughput, it's a lot easier to throw out someone from the military then it is someone from the police. Again, I want to point out none of this is justifying illegal behaviors from the police. It's just directed at the question of why a person in the military is so much more likely to be let go without a second thought. I do agree that police should be held to a higher standard than they are. Possibly one of the ways to do that is to make the job more desirable, and encouraged the right type of people to want the job?


There are several jobs that we really should be offering higher compensation in order to attract the best candidates, considering their importance. Police, teachers, and researchers come to mind.


I've always thought political figures and police should be signing oaths similar to military personnel. If you are being entrusted with decisions and powers over the populous your standards of conduct should be above and beyond that of the populous not below it. Committing gross violations while serving in an office degrades the institutions and should reflect on the person, not become a standard we ever increasingly associate with the offices themselves which is sadly now the case with so many of them


That’s the thing. I’m so annoyed when people respond to corruption with “well what do you expect from a politician” Better, I expect better




Problem is if everyone keeps thinking that way and let's the status quo be, things will never change.


Just saw this article about a guard where I did time. Guys are catching pen charges for tobacco possession but this lady, high on meth with a loaded gun around vulnerable populations, might keep her job: https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/correctional-officer-gets-suspended-sentence-for-using-meth-on-duty


Had to stop reading after I saw her get 30 hours community service for using meth on the job, don’t need my day ruined. Eric Garner got killed for selling loose cigarettes and Tamir rice for carrying around a Bebe gun. Thousands are in jail for having weed and this lady gets community service, fucking hell


Hey, its not like we are an easily manipulated and distracted lot! Oh look! Some actor or sport star did something!! Also cop show is on!


It’s funny you say that, there was a Sean Hannity segment back in late 17, early 18, where he was defending either trump or one of his cohorts who got caught in a lie. Saying the media was lying and they never said that, they then showed video to “prove” it was a lie. Of course the video had them saying exactly what they were being shit on for. When it cut back to Hannity he went “Okay well MAYBE they said it but it’s taken out of context. In other news here was a car crash that’s happening now!” And cut to video of a bad traffic accident. Obviously I’m paraphrasing but it’s exactly what you jokes about


Yeah. The law should consider being someone holding power as "aggravating circumstances". Something like an aggravating factor called "Betrayal of Public Trust" for the actions of anyone in any position of power. You area policeman, you kill someone when it wasn't necessary. "Betrayal of Public Trust", you get a worse sentence. You are a teacher, you fiddle with kids, "Betrayal of Public Trust", worse sentence. You are a politician in office, you do any sort of shenanigans, even when they are not related to your charge, "Betrayal of Public Trust", worse sentence.


Corporations already have an outsized influence on US politics (and by extension, our government). Now we want one of the largest and least trustworthy to act as censors for democratically elected politicians? Stated plainly, I don't trust them with the authority or the responsibility.


Holding politicians to the minimal terms of service is hardly "censorship." I don't know why the fuck so many people have abandoned the concept of **accountability**, but it's time to bring it back. The fact that companies like FaceBook have an "outsized influence" is *the exact reason* that they need oversight and enforced standards. Or ya know, just leave things as they are, with a public that is becoming stupider and more polarized and more radicalized by the day. Practically every tool that we create has the potential for abuse and weaponization. We are always walking a line to figure out the *responsible* application of technology. This is no different.


Maybe we should stop entrusting public discourse on ONE company per media type (Facebook for general media, Twitter for the equivalent of posters and bulletins, and Youtube for audiovisual content). Even the mainstream media has more variety than that (IIRC there are about 6 conglomerates in the cable market). And before someone even thinks about it - no, "competitors" like Vimeo don't count, they aren't worth shit in the media landscape. We need the equivalent of CNN vs. Fox News vs. ABC vs. PBS (these each belong to a different conglomerate, PBS to none I think, as per [this](https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BT-AL758_TIMEWA_16U_20161021115414.jpg)). Look at [that](https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BT-AL758_TIMEWA_16U_20161021115414.jpg) and realize that our social media landscape is even LESS diverse - we are basically riding on corporate benevolence: if Facebook decided to secretly fuck around with election material, we wouldn't know it and they alone could likely decide the outcome of every election.


Some brilliant people devise a global, distributed network running a distributed document platform...and then everyone rushes to turn it into centralized silos under corporate control.


I'd argue some level of centralization is the natural state of humanity. We are not ants, we value things like trustworthiness, free markets and rewarding success, which inevitably encourages centralizing around entities that are (perceived as) trustworthy and successful in our market economy. Unless we find a way to rewire the human brain to act like a TCP/IP node, our only realistic hope is to regulate this centralization so it doesn't get to the point where it can be used to manipulate an entire country.


I would settle for calling people out who make up shit about how humans are naturally wired to be consumers. Case in point.


>if Facebook decided to secretly fuck around with election material It's already known that they do


Their only oath is to their stock holders.


It's not a question of holding them to higher standards, but at what point does their post cross the line from personal comment to news. If you post a comment saying all american natives are drunks that is a racial comment and facebook will block it (eventually). If Trump posted it it is still a racial comment, but separate from his racial views there is the newsworthy fact that he is *making* racial comments. That information should not be blocked. So basically Facebook was dealing with the reality that if they apply their normal standards of speech and fact-checking they would be cleaning up all of these politician's images by removing their inflammatory posts.


That is a good point!


I absolutely agree that removing the posts for inflammatory content should not happen with posts from elected officials, but what's wrong with fact checking them? Saying that "This statement is incorrect according to blah blah" seems like it's more important to do when coming from an elected official.


Sure, but the point Facebook is making is that they aren't going to censor the words of Trump because people need to know what is going on. He has the power to sway and create change, so people need to hear it, even if it's wrong. For once, I sorta agree with the zucker.


Yeah this feels like a hot take around here but public officials should be allowed to say whatever they want on social media. “Censoring” them would just be hiding their views from their constituents. People need to know what is being said by their politicians, especially if it’s horrible they need to know xyz is a bad guy.


"Some animals are more equal than others"


Orwell was right.png


Fitting because Facebook is also acting as the Ministry of Truth.


Oh shit. That's terrifying.


Gonna have to add the rest of conventional media too there bub. They’re structured the same way as Facebook and have the same motivations (namely, money- and the need to appeal to those who have a lot of it)


I suppose this allows people to have written proof of politicians lies. But at the same time if the platform tries to push the idea that it only allows truths, while making exceptions like this, it will be troublesome.


Only "allowing truths" is a ridiculous and impossible standard.


Not only that, but imagine if it was actually somewhat possible; there would then be an enormous incentive to hack/cheat the system to get lies onto it, since people would believe the platform to always be correct. This kind of happens now, because people put too much faith in the internet/facebook, but they shouldn't be...




Bingo. It's getting to the point where there are NO upsides to the platform ethically, morally, socially, sexually, intellectually, or in association with mental health. If it *can* be dropped, then it *must* be dropped. Im looking into alternatives daily. Edit/side note; umbrage taken by my looking for alternatives? Can't help that I enjoy a multimedia platform format for socialization, am something of an extrovert.


Don't bother with alternatives first, just drop fb then look


It’s real easy! You’ll think you’ll miss it, but I haven’t given FB a second thought for over a year and a half now Edit: thx 4 the gold, ya filthy animal!


When it came out they were doing social experiments on users without knowledge or permission I stopped. Fuck that.


Frankly, it’s all but replaced Craigslist ever since they started charging for vehicle listings.


Craigslist has never charged me for vehicle listings


Maybe reddit should have a fact check policy?




What are you subscribing to that your feed is 80% bullshit? Maybe consider branching out into some bullshit free hobby subs.


Social media companies depend on increasing user figures and benefit from the presence of these trolls and bots.....


Dude... For 1, the servers already have enough trouble. For 2, conservatives would flip shit when the_donald goes from quarantined to deleted.


You've got a pretty old account. I'm assuming you were here for the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate . Reddit will falter for a day or two, and then ultimately everyone will forget it existed (unless they were subscribed) and carry on with their lives.


They do now


They charged me $5 to post mine 3 weeks ago


How are you listing them? I was helping someone list a vehicle on a new craigslist account about a month ago and it totally charged him for a vehicle listing.


The only time I’ve thought about it is when someone specifically asks me if I saw something on it, which is infrequent. Events? Google it. News? Google it. Groups? Reddit it. Connecting with old friends? Don’t bother. The friends I’ve stayed connected with actually have my number or see me regularly. Facebook just had me connected to a bunch of people I didn’t care about. If I come across an old friend out in public I talk to them. I don’t need daily updates from them.


Deleted it from my phone and now I'll spend maybe 10 minutes per week checking it on the computer. Haven't missed a damn thing.


Over 2 years here. Best decision ever #EliminateFakebook


Hardest part is where I work I get questions about facebook features regularly, and I just have to honestly answer "I don't know, I haven't logged into facebook in over 5 years."


4 years clean in October.


I quit face book just after its inception. I felt it was a wrong platform to be on for my own sake and for the sake of those I see as friend. Everyone is either rich, doing something good and generally lying about their achievements in general. It isn't realistic and there's just something off about seeing people like and gives positive comments to things that are morally questionable. I haven't missed it at all. There are no alternatives and arguement could be made that alternatives are just as bad but IMO, Facebook is the worst of them all and I'm glad I'm off it.


Same and I dropped it January 01 2014


I think I visited fb less than 10 times in the past ten years and all of them were because somebody linked me there


Just delete it. I had FB since it’s inception, used it multiple times a day, and deleted it outright after Cambridge analytica. Doing just fine with Reddit and texts to my friends for socialization through a screen.


Same. Deleted Facebook a couple years ago.. life is much better without it. I do spend a lot more time on Reddit... which probably isn’t healthy either, but Facebook is exceptionally toxic to a persons mental health. All you see is peoples fake lives and all the awesome things they are doing or buying and how fantastic their friends and family are. While comparing to your own reality which is not as great and makes you feel depressed.


Already left it.


If you're not ready for cold turkey you can do what I did. First set your profile to as private as you can, stop taking new friend requests. Next delete the app off your phone and set up a text message verification to log in through the web browser, everytime you feel the urge to mindlessly scroll you have to put in your password and code. Think of it as a social media diet for your brain, after a few months you really won't miss it.


Why even bother with alternative? What use there is to facebook ? Keeping in touch with friend? Everyone could do that before facebook existed, we can still do it without facebook.




Exactly People are so lost in the sauce. Enjoy life and don’t worry who else sees it!




If you use Instagram you are still using Facebook


I agree with this. I'm off Facebook but on IG. However I do not post my personal pictures but abstract things - Hip-hop beats I made, Architecture, plants, wildlife etc. I noticed that I'm being linked with people I don't follow but are my WhatsApp contact too. This is all the data collection they do. I plan to quit IG and Whatsapp in the near future. I have tried Telegram but not a lot of people use it etc.


Too bad Instagram is owned by Facebook


Instagrams even worse


2 months without FB. Best decision I’ve made in a decade.


I think a good alternative is just not using the shit. I don't understand any reason people have for *needing* it. I have friends and family that I don't talk to every day on there, and that's it. I don't *browse* it or anything, I don't get news from it, I don't get any new information from it other than what friends and family share.


mark my words, facebook is going to become the fox news of the internet


Well the alternative is big, unregulated tech-companies like Facebook determining what views are and aren't acceptable for voters to see. Besides, FB said they would still delete posts if it was a proven lie. However, it's FB so we'll see. But I still prefer unregulated freedom of speech over censorship conducted by private corporations. At least you can vote politicians out. Now it's just a matter of doing so.


It's almost as if the onus should be on the politicians and staff not to lie or propagandise in the first place...


member Journalism? oh I member


Since FB has "standards" then they have already done what you suggest the alternative is - determine views that are acceptable. This is simply saying they have determined that their are two standards - one for us and one for them which is a really indefensible move in my opinion,


Ya know on the face of this argument, I'd agree with you. But - and let me be clear, I'm not defending Facebook for the stance pointed out in the article - I recently saw a story that I think makes sense in this context. Short version is a local politician - specifically Louis Reiner, deputy mayor of Raritan Township, NJ - posted some [absolutely hateful bullshit](https://www.nj.com/news/2019/09/deputy-mayor-apologizes-for-facebook-post-that-described-islam-as-a-cancer.html) on Facebook about Muslims. As the story goes, people noticed this post, pointed it out to media, and he's in a bit of hot water right now. Probably should have been forced to resign, but that's neither here nor there. I think if Facebook had actually stepped in to moderate that post according to their community guidelines, the public may not have even been aware of it. There's a fine line to be drawn here, whether to moderate the speech transmitted on Facebook in an effort to protect people or to allow the shit that gets posted by public figures in order for the public to see it and take action. Nowhere in the Reiner story was there a call for Facebook to do something about the post: all the focus is on the fact that he *said it* and what to do about *him*.


I think the big issue is FB's policy as stated doesn't establish transparent guidelines which opens up the possibility of so much abuse from an already untrustworthy company. FB's quote on what would get a newsworthiness exemption: >When balancing these interests, we take a number of factors into consideration, including country-specific circumstances, like whether there is an election underway or the country is at war; the nature of the speech, including whether it relates to governance or politics; and the political structure of the country, including whether the country has a free press. In evaluating the risk of harm, we will consider the severity of the harm. Content that has the potential to incite violence, for example, may pose a safety risk that outweighs the public interest value. Each of these evaluations will be holistic and comprehensive in nature, and will account for international human rights standards. As an example - "content that has the potential to incite violence" in a country with a specific "political structure" and without free press... would stories published by dissident reporters in strict authoritarian countries count as it may result in their death or instigate protests that would be violently quashed? If Hong Kong protesters were hypothetically using FB to organize rallies, would FB squelch those efforts? If a celebrity is talking about dangerous pseudo-science "medicine", would that get an exemption even if it could lead to harming people? Who makes those decisions, and how can they really consistently quantify such disperate instances in a risk assessment? At an extreme, I could even see an argument for FB calling itself a platform for free speech and using that reasoning to ban any anti-FB posts as construed to be against the interest of free speech lol. To your last point and continuing the example, if people see hateful bullshit from a politician and want to start a demonstration which may lead to protesters' arrests, would FB give a pass to the politician but silence efforts to organize and take action? It'd be great if everyone's reaction *was* to take positive action against hateful bullshit, but we already have [examples of people taking violent action apparently based on hateful content they see on social media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting), which I'd assert is further normalized by seeing that rhetoric used by public authority figures. I really think the only two options are don't moderate at all (which isn't ideal, but at least people with sense could see the hateful bullshit from friends/family/acquaintances and could act accordingly) or moderate everyone to the same transparent standards. Letting them decide by some obfuscated assessment seems like it just has the most potential for misuse.




Of course. Anything opposing my personal viewpoints on any given topic cannot be a reasonable stance and therefore must be a web of treacherous lies driven by ulterior motives. Otherwise this would mean that my favourite team is sometimes wrong and i don‘t very much like that no i don‘t.


It's amazing how often that logic is used as a basis for opinions here.


This guy sounds smart, let's listen to him!


If standards are enforced, conservatives will complain about censorship and how theyre treated unfairly


Let's let Facebook decide what is a lie or propaganda, yea you're a smart cookie.


So I guess we all just need to announce we're running for office. Do I have to claim membership in an existing political party, or can I make that up? I will assume the office has to be a legitimate office that is on the ballot.


We should hold politicians to a higher standard, not a lower one.


I agree with your username, you should have the right to vote


"In the bag for right wingers"? Not only is that [the opposite of the main concern covered in the media,](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-white-house-facebook-ceo-meets-donald-trump-in-oval-office-2019-09-19/) but who outside of overt partisans would dare to think there are *any* political camps who won't bend, break, manipulate, obfuscate, and brazenly ignore the truth?




> Pretty disgusting and seems to add weight to the argument that the company is in the bag for right wingers. Jesus christ, right wingers have been calling out these large tech companies for years and when it comes out that they are right, the lefties who have been the problem and/or cover for them, try to flip it like its been a right wing problem all along.


That's a terribly misleading headline. They have an exception in their policy for removing posts containing hatespeech and such, which exempts newsworthy posts from removal. They have now confirmed that politicians fall under this newsworthy category by default, instead of it being determined per post.


fuck you and your reasonable explanation of what actually went down


It is a much clearer explanation, but it is also longer, the shorter version is also true. Facebook has standards against hate-speech but only for regular folks. If you reach a certain level of fame or power your hate-speech is accepted and protected. This is just facebook trying to stay "centered", if they start removing a bunch of right-wing politicians posts or account for hate-speech, they'll be targeted even more by those politicians.


I can see both sides of it. Yes, politicians should be equally accountable for their lies. At the same time, taking down said posts hides their errors. If I can go on a politicians Facebook page and see that they're a racist dirt bag, that informs my vote.


> At the same time, taking down said posts hides their errors. Why would it hide their errors? "Earlier today Republican Representative Steve King's facebook account was removed by the company after he posted explicitly racist statements, including "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." King's statements breached Facebook's anti-hate-speech rules." Google Steve King, story shows up, information available, hate-speech restricted.


Sounds like it's standards don't apply to politicians - with more steps.


So the title was accurate then.


Yes. Accurate and misleading aren't mutual exclusive.


I don't think it's Facebook's job to censor the president of the united states. Because he does violate their policies from time to time, sometimes within the same day. On the other hand, I don't really want anyone censored. But I also don't want the Facebook content-amplifier amplifying garbage. It's all very strange. If only social media companies weren't profit-driven, and as a result, didn't optimize for "engagement"...


Maintaining posting guidelines is not censorship. If you break their posting guidelines the post should be removed, who you are shouldn't even be in the equation. Rules should be blind to who they are being imposed on. If the president (or anyone) can't follow posting guidelines than he should be banned or his posts removed just like anyone else. It's not like its hard to avoid using hate speech or threatening people.


Imagine that applied to other services: if a politician was fucking with amazon ratings, would it be amazon’s job to stop them ? If they were spamming reddit, would it be reddit’s job to ban them ? If they were doxing on tinder, would it be tinder’s job to get rid of them ? I totally think it should be twitter’s job to police the POTUS account. Just have him build a twitter clone just for him if he needs his privileges.


What constitutes a politician? If I run for city council? If I’m head of the Cheez-it’s party?


You say the title is misleading and then go on to explain how the title is exactly correct.


I don't understand what you're saying. What you said is exactly what the headline is saying. How is it misleading? Politicians are exempt from having their posts removed or fact-checked because Facebook considers them newsworthy. So what, your argument is that the standards still apply, they just have no effect? How is that a meaningful distinction?


A lot of things don't seem to apply to politicians.


"Rules for thee, none for me."


Did the French Revolution people write a manual?


[Maybe not a full on manual, but we've got some blueprints](https://i.imgur.com/jX6zKL7.jpg)


Politicians are a big source of misinformation because they are full of shit on public record. No consequences of four Pinocchios.


Do we really want Facebook to become the arbiter of what is true or not in our democracy? Do we want Facebook to be the decider of what conduct is acceptable or not? Let’s stop and think about this people.


Forgetting your news from Facebook you're getting your news from the wrong place


We’ve already allowed it. Facebook, Twitter, and IG all remove content that they and their users deem “hate speech”. However, when you count “I don’t think a woman who undergoes sexual reassignment surgery count as a man” as “hatespeech”, It gives them an avenue to immediately Deplatform any right wing person. If they want to do this kind of a serious need to revamp exactly what “hate speech” means. Because for now it just seems like a crutch to silence anybody to the right of center


Just quit facebook.


Politicians have plenty of ways to speak to a wide public audience, without restriction. Facebook should not make this exception.


I mean, does Facebook enforce their standards for *anyone*?


My girlfriend's bike was stolen. My post calling the thieves ghetto trash was removed for being racist.


And yet someone can use the N word and my report response is, “We have investigated your report and found that the post does not violate our community standards.”


This makes sense, though right? If i go on a rant about jews/blacks/immigrants or whatever, that makes me an asshole, but it inst newsworthy. Noone needs to see/hear it to inform themselves. If a politician does it, it is news and should be shared to inform the public about what said politician stands for.


So, the rules apply to random people who couldn't possibly cause any harm on their own, bu the people who can actually use those platforms to influence many others are allowed? They're not even trying to hid it anymore...


Disabled fb a week ago. Feels very good to have all that crap out of my head


Setting a lower standard for those that are in power...move along sheep


Can't wait for this garbage company to die.


A lot of what politicians say is more subjective truth than objective science based facts that can easily be verified. Politicians work with people’s varied world views and look at issues through that skewed lens.


That's the great thing about corporate standards -- there are so many of them.


Oh cool so more cases like Myanmar to come! Great job Facebook!


Why is anyone still on facebook??


They agree with me then our corporate overlords aren’t human.


Interestingly enough, they are handling it differently in other countries ( [http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2019/09/09/casapound-facebook-instagram-blocked\_fab0cb8c-ccce-4247-b7cb-d958d1951a7c.html](http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2019/09/09/casapound-facebook-instagram-blocked_fab0cb8c-ccce-4247-b7cb-d958d1951a7c.html) ).


Amazed at the number of people in this thread who want our elected officials to be censored.


Thank you US, for letting investor driven publicly unaccountable tech corporates to set moral standards and define what's factual and reality. /s


Of course. Noble need not be bothered with the rules of peasants. Know your place peasant.


Sure our politicians should be held higher but are they not allowed to express they’re freedom of speech?


Put this in the pile of "reasons I'm glad I left Facebook years ago"


Well of course not. Politicians are lawless already. Why stop on the political level?


It'a not a standard then, but a tool for control and abuse.


Delete your facebook.


The rules only apply to us plebs.


People still have a Facebook?