CDZ An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg

[Tilly]

If you walk into a shop or a cinema you expect the owners to maintain a level of security for its customers.

I don’t believe that you are overly concerned about security and the safety of the public, as you are outraged at the idea of banning masks ie the burqa in any public spaces, even though crimes and terrorism have been carried out by those wearing them, and even though three burqa clad women were convicted of planning terrorism only last week in the UK.

You’ve also expressed your approval of violence conducted against women and elderly men, so I really can’t see how you are genuinely concerned over security and peoples safety - unless you approve of the people in question.

In this case, the ‘victims’ were not forced to use the social media in question, so the solution is quite simple. You really can’t protect people from words, ideas and beliefs on the internetz.

 

[FA_Q2]

These people realize that they don’t have to advertise themselves on Fakebook, don’t they? It’s a pretty simple solution... How stupid are they? If they think people are stalking them through their use of Fakebook,”Quit using it!”

I disagree.

If I'm stalking you every time you leave your house I am the problem, not you leaving your house.

And stalking is illegal.

Posting crap online is not nor should it be.

An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg from the parents of a Sandy Hook victim

Dear Mr Zuckerberg,

Our names are Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa. We are the parents of Noah, who on 14 December, 2012, at the age of six, was gunned down in his classroom at Sandy Hook elementary school. Since that day, we, as well as the parents, family, and friends of the 25 other victims, have been embroiled in a constant battle with social media providers, including Facebook, to protect us from harassment and threats.

Almost immediately after the massacre of 20 little children, all under the age of seven, and six elementary school teachers and staff, the attacks on us began. Conspiracy groups and anti-government provocateurs began making claims on Facebook that the massacre was a hoax, that the murdered were so-called “crisis actors” and that their audience should rise up to “find out the truth” about our families. These claims and calls to action spread across Facebook like wildfire and, despite our pleas, were protected by Facebook.

I cant imagine anything worse than losing your child. Apart from being told that it didnt happen.

Is this a free speech issue ?

I dont believe it is. I think that victims are entitled to some protection. The cranks that believe these things are free to think whatever crap they believe in and set up their own platforms to share their poison.
That is freedom of speech.

I think that facebook should spend some of its profits to protect the victims of slaughter.

Stay off of social media....

Simple as that.

Why should they have to ? Social media is an integral part of our lives these days.

The general point that you seem to keep missing is that they DO NOT HAVE TO. It is a decision - do they want to participate in that forum or not. Forcing everyone else to conform to your sensitivities is simply wrong no matter how hard you dig to find the most despicable examples of online trolls.

The other point worth while is that facebook is not the only social media platform either. If they do not like the way facebook is run then they should go to another social media platform. One that is more geared to what they are looking for.

I understand perfectly the point that you are making. I disagree with the thinking behind it.

These people are victims and are entitled to protection.

Well, no they actually are not. No business is under any obligation to provide you with 'protection.'

They are not singers or actors upset about a bad review.

These sites are now mainstream places of business and they have a duty of care to their customers.

If you walk into a shop or a cinema you expect the owners to maintain a level of security for its customers.

So if some idiot started banging into my trolley and accusing me of faking the murder of my kids I would expect them to be removed from the building at the least. Why should online be any different ?

You may expect that. They are not required to do so. The entire reason that you have come to expect this is because, in general, businesses would remove said person. They are not doing so because it is required or they are obligated to - they are doing so because if they did not it would cause customers to not come to their business.

Want them to change then do STOP USING THEM. They will change or another company will rise that will cater to that need.

It does look like these tech giants are starting to wake up to their responsibilites. Those that dont risk becoming the lairs of loons and racists. And that is bad for the bottom line.

Exactly, they respond when it effects their bottom line. That does not confer an imply obligation' or that anyone's 'entitled' to something.