There’s a big issue around censoring disinformation, but currently Facebook is actively promoting and pushing the video of hamas beheading a baby, and this video auto plays.
This is the result of facebook’s content promotion algorithm, and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument, especially when it’s just trolls and terrorists intentionally promoting it to cause trauma.
It is not too much to ask for Facebook to block that - they have no problem blocking media that violates copyright, so the only reason this is still happening is because they don’t actually care. Hell maybe it drives engagement.
Alternatively if they can’t guarantee they’re not good Ng to auto play a baby being beheaded, they can just turn off autoplay and blur all videos. That approach also means there’s no censorship threat, if that’s important to you.
I think suggesting that the human beings working at Facebook are so devoid of humanity that they'd readily leave that sort of content online to drive engagement or just flat out don't care is pretty unfair and unreasonable thing to suggest I think.
Sure yeah go ahead and demonise FAANGS for stuff you don't agree with, but suggesting "they" (the real human beings working there) are leaving baby beheading videos up to drive some engagement metric is just a demonisation too far IMO.
Firstly, I want to say I agree with you. If what you're saying is correct, it seems insane to me they'd allow that given I don't believe nudity is even allowed on Facebook?
However, I'm not sure this is actually what the EU has a problem with? Showing the factually accurate and horrific things Hamas is doing is obviously not pro-Hamas or hateful. Major media orgs here in Europe are doing very similar things with the exception that they're blurring the content.
So I don't believe this content is illegal or hate speech? The first thing that comes to mind, is that back when the UK was in the EU a lot of media orgs here were publishing uncensored images of a dead child who drowned while seek refuge in Europe.
> ... and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument,
Strong disagree. That kind of content is very effective at changing attitudes and shifting political pressures, which is the core purpose of first amendment protections. I completely understand not wanting to see it, but disagree with preventing others from choosing to see and share it.
The idea that content that is "clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video" is justification for censorship is backwards, since that content has particularly large potential to drive change.
This is the result of facebook’s content promotion algorithm, and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument, especially when it’s just trolls and terrorists intentionally promoting it to cause trauma.
It is not too much to ask for Facebook to block that - they have no problem blocking media that violates copyright, so the only reason this is still happening is because they don’t actually care. Hell maybe it drives engagement.
Alternatively if they can’t guarantee they’re not good Ng to auto play a baby being beheaded, they can just turn off autoplay and blur all videos. That approach also means there’s no censorship threat, if that’s important to you.