The Wall Street Journal: Facebook Employees Pushed to Remove Trump’s Posts as Hate Speech

[777Sloan]

.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

【Some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s posts on Facebook have set off an intense debate inside the social media company over the past year, with some employees arguing certain posts about banning Muslims from entering the U.S. should be removed for violating the site’s rules on hate speech, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision to allow Mr. Trump’s posts went all the way to Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, who ruled in December that it would be inappropriate to censor the candidate, according to the people familiar with the matter.】

http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-remove-trump-posts-as-hate-speech-1477075392

 

[MrSpikey]

What's the issue here?

As a private organization, Facebook can set whatever rules they like, and deny access to anyone they like. There's no expectation of free speech rights there, just as there isn't here.

 

[Moral Orel]

What's the issue here?

As a private organization, Facebook can set whatever rules they like, and deny access to anyone they like. There's no expectation of free speech rights there, just as there isn't here.

Might be because some people are dumb enough to get their news from Facebook, so editing out Trump's hate speech is seen to some as "journalism having a liberal bias". As ridiculous as that is...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You don't have to use FB if you don't like their rules.

 

[DaisyDay]

A lot of organizations game FB. Good for Zuckerberg for making the correct ruling in this case.

 

[wing2000]

Might be because some people are dumb enough to get their news from Facebook, so editing out Trump's hate speech is seen to some as "journalism having a liberal bias". As ridiculous as that is...

Sadly, people these days get their news from a lot of dumb places.

 

[Cearbhall]

Private website. I don't care. If you rely on Facebook for all your news, that's not their problem.

 

[aieyiamfu]

What's the issue here?

As a private organization, Facebook can set whatever rules they like, and deny access to anyone they like. There's no expectation of free speech rights there, just as there isn't here.

No expectation of free speech is not correct, I do not expect my words to be censored on a medium such as Facebook or I would not continue to use it. I despise Trump and all he stands for but if others wish to post his drivel I support that.

 

[MrSpikey]

No expectation of free speech is not correct, I do not expect my words to be censored on a medium such as Facebook or I would not continue to use it. I despise Trump and all he stands for but if others wish to post his drivel I support that.

That's your choice as a consumer to use it or not.

You don't have the expectation of free speech there in that they are required to provide you a platform. They aren't.

 

[Moral Orel]

I hope everyone noticed that they didn't actually censor Trump at all. This headline might as well have read, "Nothing happened out of the ordinary at Facebook today". I guess we're commenting on, "what if?".