Sounds like an issue with their work force. Without placing my tin foil hat on they need to hire more people to moderate and clean TOS breaking content.
puts tinfoil hat on
Meta is purposefully allowing far right militias to organize because a libertarian/conservative hellscape would mean their corporation becomes one of the largest fiefdoms.
Not condoning it, but all I can think is how terrible Facebook is for "coordinating" stuff like this. I mean, if FB or the feds wanted to find out who these people are, track them down or something, they can do that pretty easily. People who do stuff like this aren't too bright, though. So not surprised, I guess.
It's not even "tracking down". It's public information that is easily searchable. It should be easy to stay 2 steps ahead of these groups planning things out in the open.
Yeah, something like Reddit or lemmy would be way better. Make a relatively obscure community with a dog whistle as a name. Anonymous, minimal moderation, and an amount of control to keep the group think in.
On Facebook... So there's a clear trail of who is planning what and who is agreeing to go along. People with long histories of posting far right content, so when they inevitably cry "but a leftist plant orchestrated all this" there is evidence to the contrary.
Care saying "far right." On Lemmy some of the users will tell you that the Democratic party is "far right."
You don't need to agree with what they post but it should be protected under free speech. This isn't China
I also think people these days can't stand seeing anything they don't agree with. All people see is the stuff tailored to them and there is no discomfort
And why is it always "we have to respect other people calling for the erasure of the rights of minorities"? Do you have any idea how frustrating and tiresome that is, as a minority?
Racism is still free speech which sucks but the alternative is high censorship and fear
This is incorrect, and only serves those who target marginalized groups.
I wanna make it very clear that the conclusion that restriction of hate speech is a slippery slope for freedom of speech is not a given or universally held position
Even countries that don't have limits for hate inducing speech towards marginalized groups, with reference to the importance of freedom of speech, rarely have complete freedom of speech.
As an example, the US limits to freedom of speech include "fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
The claim that intolerance to intolerance is dangerous, only serves the spread of intolerance.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such,[13] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.
They’re not easy to eliminate, they’re armed, & the military & police are mostly on their side, which is why they’re allowed on Fb in the first place, & they’re hell bent on eliminating me and all my friends & loved ones
Even though these people are more that to anyone, including society at large, Capital Hill and the feds themselves, they leave them alone, still thinking they are in control of these groups: compare and contrast how they are treated and then how BLM, antifa, and college students protesting genocide are treated.