Facebook staff walking out

the douchebag in me would tell them all to bugger off, and close down the company. he does not need it.
Wanna bite the hand that feed you, that hand is attached to a foot that can kick you out.
 
JurgensBeMe said:
CEO are under no pressure to bow to employee demands. You are free to quit at any time, although I don't think Facebook has to search too hard for tech talent.
Click to expand...
That must be why they go out of their way to retain staff.

Shaun108 said:
Just goes to show that a Degree doesn't mean common sense or morals.
Click to expand...
We've been saying that for ages.

Flarsiep said:
the douchebag in me would tell them all to bugger off, and close down the company. he does not need it.
Wanna bite the hand that feed you, that hand is attached to a foot that can kick you out.
Click to expand...
Doesn't he?

He may not need any specific individual, but that's why group action is an effective measure. All companies need their employee group.
 
IMO Zukk is right this time. Censoring people sets a dangerious precident. El' Trump should be able to be held responsible for anything he says which requires there be a record. The same should be applied to everyone. No-one should be censored, no matter how heinous you consider the drivel they may spout.

The whole point of freedom of speech is to be able to say things that others dont want to hear, not to protect only saying nice things. Being able to disagree on ANY topic while being held responsible for what you say go hand-in-hand. You can't pick and choose depending on the situation or who is saying it.

Facebook is not a publisher - they are a public forum. If FB decides to censor one person, then they must moderate EVERYONE else that uses the site - big and small. All people need to be treated the same.
 
noxibox said:
That must be why they go out of their way to retain staff.


We've been saying that for ages.


Doesn't he?

He may not need any specific individual, but that's why group action is an effective measure. All companies need their employee group.
Click to expand...

IF he wants to keep the company, then yes he need the folks.
But, does he need the money? Nope. therefore, do he need the company? Nope.
So close the company, big bugger all of you, no more facebook.
Off to Hawaii to enjoy his mansion and rest of his life.
 
“Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric"

And I have a visceral negative reaction to your bug eyes, Mark.
P.S. At least he doesn't seem to be cucking out.
 
konfab said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
ieArKLD-_400x400_1_.jpg
 
“I’ve been struggling with how to respond to the president’s tweets and posts all day,” Zuckerberg posted last week.

I wish I had this guy's fscking problems.
 
agentrfr said:
IMO Zukk is right this time. Censoring people sets a dangerious precident. El' Trump should be able to be held responsible for anything he says which requires there be a record. The same should be applied to everyone. No-one should be censored, no matter how heinous you consider the drivel they may spout.

The whole point of freedom of speech is to be able to say things that others dont want to hear, not to protect only saying nice things. Being able to disagree on ANY topic while being held responsible for what you say go hand-in-hand. You can't pick and choose depending on the situation or who is saying it.

Facebook is not a publisher - they are a public forum. If FB decides to censor one person, then they must moderate EVERYONE else that uses the site - big and small. All people need to be treated the same.
Click to expand...


Would you still stand with this point of view if someone ran a smear campaign of a friend/family member?
For example it was an out-right lie that your son/daughter molested someone
The rest of their lives is followed by pages and pages of false accusations, whenever they apply for a job
and go on a date?

Should lying be allowed with anonymity, even though its completely false?


Think its an interesting debate...just not very clear cut
 
agentrfr said:
The whole point of freedom of speech is to be able to say things that others dont want to hear, not to protect only saying nice things. Being able to disagree on ANY topic while being held responsible for what you say go hand-in-hand. You can't pick and choose depending on the situation or who is saying it.
Click to expand...

Here is 1 point of view that touches on it
en.wikipedia.org

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
 
bchip said:
Would you still stand with this point of view if someone ran a smear campaign of a friend/family member?
For example it was an out-right lie that your son/daughter molested someone
The rest of their lives is followed by pages and pages of false accusations, whenever they apply for a job
and go on a date?

Should lying be allowed with anonymity, even though its completely false?


Think its an interesting debate...just not very clear cut
Click to expand...

Wait...did The Orange Don accuse someone of molestation?
 
bchip said:
Would you still stand with this point of view if someone ran a smear campaign of a friend/family member?
For example it was an out-right lie that your son/daughter molested someone
The rest of their lives is followed by pages and pages of false accusations, whenever they apply for a job
and go on a date?

Should lying be allowed with anonymity, even though its completely false?


Think its an interesting debate...just not very clear cut
Click to expand...

I really thought that was for the courts to decide, not some random muis stoter on the platform.
 
Oldfut said:
I really thought that was for the courts to decide, not some random muis stoter on the platform.
Click to expand...

In theory yes...in practice the politicians are 20 years behind the curve
and once the idea has been decided...which court?
If I post a tweet in Malaysia on a Romanian server to a person in the US, which court should take this?

If you were the owner of a platform that was being used for (eg) child abuse, corruption, etc
would you really stand back, wipe your hands and say ...its not my problem?

Australia has started putting some rules in
www.abc.net.au

Barrister launches court action to unmask Google reviewer she suspects is rival lawyer

Barrister Zarah Garde-Wilson launches legal action in the Federal Court to force technology behemoth Google to unmask an anonymous reviewer, who she claims has destroyed her reputation.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
bchip said:
Would you still stand with this point of view if someone ran a smear campaign of a friend/family member?
For example it was an out-right lie that your son/daughter molested someone
Click to expand...
Yes I would still hold this point of view. Claiming something that is known to be false is committing slander/libel and you can sue them for it. You can't go around ala Musk and claim this oak is a pedo for the lulz - it's why Musk gave up in the end as he was in the wrong.
Nothing should ever be censored; while at the same time you need to be accountable to what you say.
Should lying be allowed with anonymity, even though its completely false?
Click to expand...
If a claim is anonymous, it holds very little substance. Any claim may be used as a reason to start an investigation, but innocence must be presumed if/until verifiable evidence of guilt is found.

For example, if you claimed anonymously that someone raped you, then it doesn’t mean anything. But if you publicly claimed someone raped you, then there at least deserves to be an investigation. If you are found to be telling the truth then the rapist can be punished. If you were lying about the rape then you are responsible for the repercussions of a false accusation.

I guess the tricky bit is making a claim that you cant certainly prove even if it is true (or at least you believe it to be true)
 
agentrfr said:
Yes I would still hold this point of view. Claiming something that is known to be false is committing slander/libel and you can sue them for it. You can't go around ala Musk and claim this oak is a pedo for the lulz - it's why Musk gave up in the end as he was in the wrong.
Nothing should ever be censored; while at the same time you need to be accountable to what you say.
Click to expand...

I think this is the key to it though...in this world there is no accountability
and then throw in the mix anonomity of the internet.

agentrfr said:
If a claim is anonymous, it holds very little substance. Any claim may be used as a reason to start an investigation, but innocence must be presumed if/until verifiable evidence of guilt is found.
Click to expand...
If you look at how much Mob justice has happened with Whatsapp forwarding we know that
people are quicker to believe lies than the truth.
Some of these lies can cause mass destruction (like cyberbulling, murders, suicides) no matter how ridiculous the lie.
How many kids were unjustly cyber-bullied because nobody really cares about the source.

SA is a very good example at the moment to test the 2 sides of allowing freedom of speech.
Are you happy with the idea that the ANC can state absolute lies, as they should have freedom of speech?
You would be arguing that the whole Bell Potinger, causing racial discord, is completely fine
because of freedom of speech
 
Anonymity & Freedom of Speech ->

- Helps those telling the truth hiding from attackers/dictators/persecutors/authoritarians
- Also Helps those with hidden and nefarious agendas

Like a coin, cant have the heads without tails
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X