This is such a strange response. First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue regardless of how the terrorists respond.
> Terrorists don't go around killing people for banning them from forums.
It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do (especially when used as a rebuttal to someone expressing concern for real people who have been put in this situation).
I don't have any experience interacting with terrorists, but growing up in a poor education system in the southeastern U.S., I've witnessed my fair share of gang activity. I have seen incredible confrontation/violence erupt as a consequence of amazingly trivial actions.
It does not seem far fetched to me that an extremist group would possess the potential to respond dispraportionately to a perceived act of disrespect or aggression. Given the circumstances, it's hard to find a charitable interpretation of why you would suggest otherwise.
>First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue
Agreed, but it’s not an issue because they’re going to get killed by terrorists. I’m objecting to the dishonest framing, not trying to argue that this isn’t an issue.
>It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do
Your assumptions seem at least as arrogant.
>I don't have any experience interacting with terrorists
I used to know this kid called Junaid, at some point he was relatively normal. He became less and less normal though, and eventually got in trouble with the law over some silly hacks. He fled the UK to Syria and joined ISIS.
In Syria I watched him wave around guns on skype for a couple of years until he was placed at the top of the US kill list and eventually got incinerated.
Why are you continuing to hammer away with the Reddit style comments? You might have a good point, but now you are acting like an argumentative ass.
This isn't some sort of internet pissing contest with people you don't know and will never meet; that is literally any other online forum that I've seen. This is a forum to discuss issues with people who are interested in them. You are purposefully diluting the conversation, and for what? The lolz?
Credible or not, you need to compensate for the fact that you've terrified someone for the rest of their lives and made them understandably fearful of making a living.
No it's not. Your example is not reasonable. The fear of a plane landing on top of you is pretty generic, and the risks are well-known and well-understood to who work closer to planes. The one here is quite reasonable, entirely a result of Facebook screwing up, and not something that's supposed to come with the job the way it did. I outlined these for you and completeness's sake, but they should have been fairly obvious, so I'm not going to entertain more unreasonable comparisons.
I guess we just disagree, as I see it both of these are equally reasonable.
This is pretty weird though, all kinds of people regularly make far more impactful decisions than issuing facebook bans without having to hide their names.
> Terrorists don't go around killing people for banning them from forums.
It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do (especially when used as a rebuttal to someone expressing concern for real people who have been put in this situation).
I don't have any experience interacting with terrorists, but growing up in a poor education system in the southeastern U.S., I've witnessed my fair share of gang activity. I have seen incredible confrontation/violence erupt as a consequence of amazingly trivial actions.
It does not seem far fetched to me that an extremist group would possess the potential to respond dispraportionately to a perceived act of disrespect or aggression. Given the circumstances, it's hard to find a charitable interpretation of why you would suggest otherwise.