"(...) made some decisions that were “significant setbacks for civil rights"
Which civil rights? Whose? Is the claim that you have to shut people up in order to protect people's feelings, or is it that you have to protect the dim witted from dangerous ideas? Is it that people are herd animals who will inevitable follow whoever signals the most followers, so we need to prevent bad people from signalling? This particular case isn't one of bot spam, its a real person making real(ly dumb) statements.
Facebook's obsession with free speech is one of the only good things about the company. I said it in another thread: they should be boycotted, but not for this.
edit: sorry for the formatting, its just cutting my words in half if they are at the end of a line for some reason
This is SJW right-speak: vague words that can mean anything to anyone interpreting them at the time.
There are no hard and fast rules because the language doesn't allow for it. It's always shifting and getting hard to comply with as more and more radical people gain a foothold in culture. Each new person decides the previous one didn't have enough control and _therefore_ more control is needed because _obviously_ the previous generation was evil.
Which civil rights? Whose? Is the claim that you have to shut people up in order to protect people's feelings, or is it that you have to protect the dim witted from dangerous ideas? Is it that people are herd animals who will inevitable follow whoever signals the most followers, so we need to prevent bad people from signalling? This particular case isn't one of bot spam, its a real person making real(ly dumb) statements.
Facebook's obsession with free speech is one of the only good things about the company. I said it in another thread: they should be boycotted, but not for this.
edit: sorry for the formatting, its just cutting my words in half if they are at the end of a line for some reason