Live Breaking News & Updates on ஆபத்தானது தனிநபர்கள்|Page 3
Stay updated with breaking news from ஆபத்தானது தனிநபர்கள். Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Over the past few weeks, as protests in and in solidarity with Palestine have grown, so too have violations of the freedom of expression of Palestinians and their allies by major social media companies. From posts incorrectly flagged by Facebook as incitement to violence, to financial censorship of relief payments made on Venmo, and the removal of Instagram Stories (which also heavily affected activists in Colombia, Canada, and Brazil), Palestinians are experiencing an unprecedented level of censorship during a time where digital communications are absolutely critical. The vitality of social media during a time like this cannot be understated. Journalistic coverage from the ground is minimal owing to a number of factors, including restrictions on movement by Israeli authorities while, as the New York Times reported, misinformation is rife and has been repeated by otherwise reliable media sources. Israeli officials have even been caught spreading misinformation on social media. ....
Rich Lowry It is said that medieval scholastic philosophers debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If so, they didn’t have anything on the amorphous and tendentious deliberations of Facebook regarding who is allowed to post on its social network, most pertinently the former president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. On January 7, the day after the Capitol riot, Facebook blocked Trump from posting indefinitely. It then kicked the matter to its oversight board saying, “You decide.” On Wednesday, the board replied, “No, no – you decide.” If Facebook had set out to demonstrate that it has awesome power over speech in the United States, including speech at the core of the nation’s political debate, and is wielding that power arbitrarily, indeed has no idea what its own rules truly are or should be, it wouldn’t have handled the question any differently. ....
Rich Lowry: Facebook’s speech policies are absurd If Facebook just wanted to say that Trump is often noxious and dishonest in his social media postings, that d be understandable. But this would put it in the inherently subjective and highly contentious business of deciding which politicians are worthy and truthful, and which are not. Read Article Rich Lowry It is said that medieval scholastic philosophers debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If so, they didn’t have anything on the amorphous and tendentious deliberations of Facebook regarding who is allowed to post on its social network, most pertinently the former president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. ....
Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck We have no use for Donald Trump, but even less for the arrogant lefty twit, Mark Zuckerberg, who joined a conspiracy of Silicon Valley Robber Barons on January 6th to ban a then sitting president of the United States from their social media platforms. Yes, we know they are private companies. So they can do anything they damn will please, including thanking the Donald for the $160 million of ads his campaign bought from Facebook in 2020 by kicking him off the platform. But this isn’t really about free speech narrowly; it’s about the malign societal impact of free money from the Fed and the manor in which the vastly overvalued companies in the tech space have enabled the callow wokesters who run them to subordinate profit-maximization to left-wing virtue-signalling. ....