Just wow. This is another reason why we need open source and decentralized systems

Can anyone justify being on that site anymore?

1 Like

The point is, the name has been already outed a month ago, nor has it been validated. meanwhile Zuck is blasting TikTok for censorship in China. It’s another case of big tech deciding the facts for you, and plain censorship.

1 Like

And anyone is surprised by this because?..

1 Like

Not a matter of surprise, but people should be aware of this, not be putting up with this, and stop using them.
Many people are actually supporting their continued censorship.

Imagine if the telephone, or cell phone companies were listening on your phone calls, then delaying the conversations in order to determine what you both were saying, then inserting a BEEP every time they did not like a word, or words you were saying, How about they cancelled your service because of things you said, or people they did not want you calling?

I have even heard people mention their own videos marked PRIVATE are being deleted off YouTube…

1 Like

It is legally not allowed to publish the names of Whistleblowers. Everybody has the legal obligation to prevent crimes, if (s)he can. So do not confuse preventing crimes with censorship.
Do I as Dutchman have to lecture a Trump worshiper about US law?


#1) It’s not illegal in the US, and #2) It has not been confirmed as the “whistle-blower”

At the risk of being assumed to be a Trump supporter or whomever the flavor of the month is i’ll dare to say human rights are not optional no matter who they assist.

I owe millions of people at least that much.

1 Like

Which rights are you referring to?
Right of person who shared information to keep their private data or right of everyone else to know their private data?

1 Like

All rights are hierarchical, the reason I linked the Bill of Rights is because it’s among the most fundamental.

Any human has a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However once information enters the public domain (as is the case here) attempting to sensor it requires removing the right of speech from several magnitudes more people.

Even if we don’t consider hierarchy compared to additional rights we still have a math problem.

1 Like

I really don’t see your logic here. If the information isn’t confirmed, isn’t it even more reason to protect the name from people who might want to do something bad?

I’m gonna take one step back and start by saying – I don’t know much about what exactly happen so if I get somethings wrong, please correct me. I care about what Facebook did in this case not about whole whistleblower affair.

From what I understand, information was shared not by a public personality (like politician) but private individual and their identity aside from the fact they had access to this information doesn’t really impact anything of importance to the case.

On the other hand keeping it secret is very important for the individual in question. Not that Facebook removing it will change much, since information is available elsewhere, but given all the bad things Facebook did and continues doing, how is this the one which gets people call it “the nightmare”?

The information is already leaked. It has been published in various places, and still being used on some other platforms. It’s like trying to keep the water in a cracked dam at this point.

Anyway, they are suppose to be a neutral third party, not a censorship board.

The thing is, I don’t see how this is censorship or how the fact that it’s available elsewhere makes a difference.

For a censorship part – this information isn’t (as far I can tell) of any importance to general public, but also at the same time sharing it might violate privacy of person in question. If someone stops me from leaking your medical history, that’s not censorship it’s protecting your rights. In case of whistle-blowers this protection is even more important.

As for information being available elsewhere – I don’t get your stance either. Are you saying removing this information is censorship because it can be found somewhere else or that there’s no point to remove it since it’s available elsewhere?

1 Like

Unless something is illegal, then they should not be censoring anything: period.

From a rights perspective it doesn’t matter how or why the information entered the public domain nor does it matter how important it is or what the impact will be.

Once the cat’s out of the bag it becomes a fundamental human right to be able to speak about it. It’s up to the individual to make the judgement call. If this wasn’t the case people like William Binney and Edward Snowden would have never been heard.

Where this gets muddy is almost 100% of communication occurs on someone else’s property (rented or otherwise), sort of like saying the wrong thing at a dinner party or holding a protest inside a mall.

In this case that’s Facebook’s servers so they have the right to quash speech because it’s on their property. So what’s the problem?

I submit that much like a friend who forgot their boarding pass or a surprise pregnancy, sometimes responsibility is thrust upon us unfairly but that doesn’t make it ok to shirk it. Mark Zuckerburg whether intentioned or not (and i’d argue it was intentioned) has created property on which more people than any other time in history are speaking to each other in one place. If anyone in the World has the responsibility for protecting free speech it’s him.

1 Like

Lots of problems. US and State government agencies have pages on sites like that. That is then akin to making it a public square. Many courts have made rulings in this area. FB could be violating the law, specifically in California where they are located which allows this.

Let’s follow this logic for a little:

  • Criticizing the government in China is illegal, therefore it’s fine for Facebook to censor it.
  • Selling peoples data is legal, therefore it’s fine for Facebook to share this information.

Sorry, but I don’t see how blindly following what’s “legal” instead of what’s “good” makes any sense.

There’s one thing I disagree here with and that’s importance of certain rights over the others. As you mentioned before, rights are hierarchical and I consider right of private person to have their data protected over right to share that information. How or if the information got out makes no difference to me because rights don’t stop being rights after being abused.

This is whole new topic, so I won’t go too deep into it. It makes perfect sense for owner of the platform to dictate the rules (like what can and can’t be posted), but when platform in question is as big as Facebook it does becomes problematic and I don’t really have a good solution for it. I think it’s one of biggest problems with relaying on huge platforms too much.

“Blindly” following? LOL. Facebook is located in the USA, not China, In addition, Facebook is blocked in China.

And how does that change my point? Don’t just pinpoint slight error in my post, instead think what’s actually important to the argument and the discussion.

What “error” in your post? It’s an error on the wrong side of what’s right.

just a friendly reminder about legality