> Once the BBC alerted Facebook's parent company, Meta, the groups were removed.
> The rules of the very large group state: "Use code words for everything". It adds: "Do not use the c word, v word or b word ever" (covid, vaccine, booster). It was created more than a year ago and has more than 250,000 members.
> "It was people giving accounts of relatives who had died shortly after having the Covid-19 vaccine", he said. "But instead of using the words "Covid-19" or "vaccine", they were using emojis of carrots.
> The platforms have already come under fire for failing to block or remove emojis of monkeys and bananas when posted as a racist gesture on the accounts of black footballers.
> If the Online Safety Bill comes into law in the UK, the tech giants will face steep penalties for failing to identify and quickly removing harmful material on their platforms. But there are concerns that tools currently in use are not good enough to cope with the sheer volume of content that is posted, and the nuance and cultural differences that can cloud meaning.
Tldr: BBC boasts of asking Facebook to remove a group of 250,000 who shared vaccine injury stories. In the article it equates people who believe they were injured with racists. Then makes the argument that the government will be able to fine corporations if they are not more proactive in suppressing this content.
What exactly is the crime here? Can people not have unsanctioned opinions online?
> The rules of the very large group state: "Use code words for everything". It adds: "Do not use the c word, v word or b word ever" (covid, vaccine, booster). It was created more than a year ago and has more than 250,000 members.
> "It was people giving accounts of relatives who had died shortly after having the Covid-19 vaccine", he said. "But instead of using the words "Covid-19" or "vaccine", they were using emojis of carrots.
> The platforms have already come under fire for failing to block or remove emojis of monkeys and bananas when posted as a racist gesture on the accounts of black footballers.
> If the Online Safety Bill comes into law in the UK, the tech giants will face steep penalties for failing to identify and quickly removing harmful material on their platforms. But there are concerns that tools currently in use are not good enough to cope with the sheer volume of content that is posted, and the nuance and cultural differences that can cloud meaning.
Tldr: BBC boasts of asking Facebook to remove a group of 250,000 who shared vaccine injury stories. In the article it equates people who believe they were injured with racists. Then makes the argument that the government will be able to fine corporations if they are not more proactive in suppressing this content.
What exactly is the crime here? Can people not have unsanctioned opinions online?