> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing.
Moral policing? This article is about the opposite-- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters.
The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around their filters. Hence changing "muslims" to "migrants."
Not much evidence is given for the claim, but it's there.
Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.
Plenty of things have been popular and then gone out of style.
Perhaps the answer is to make the concept of social networks no longer cool; or even make them undesirable. I think it's pretty clear they are not, anyways.
I use whatsapp, line, email and photo sharing services that allow me to easily share and communicate thoughts and media with exactly who I want. It's more personal, not addictive, creates better relationships, and helps me focus more on who I am rather than how others perceive me. And of course I don't have to use facebook and be a part of all its oft-criticized problems.
For hundreds of millions of people Facebook is the messaging system. There's postal, telephone, email, FB messaging. It's also the most used. I think you need to come up with solutions that assume it, or an equivalent, will continue to be a principle and primary means of communication for billions of people.
This still reinforces that they do act as "moral police" and are practicing selectively enforcement by mandate. That is not a reasonable communications policy for anything of any scale or importance.
Facebook should not be tampering with and editorializing private communications or the public square, which they have become.
Only after being pressured by the government. The problem is that the pressure needed to be applied in the first place. “Weak” people (i.e. those not backed by powerful organisations) have no recourse.
Moral policing? This article is about the opposite-- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters.
The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around their filters. Hence changing "muslims" to "migrants."
Not much evidence is given for the claim, but it's there.