[twitch-chat]

Disclosure that I work @ FB.

Mark's point was that the post did not break the policies the platform has and he explained in thorough detail why he believed this was the case. The Floyd video was an example of how one policy can be used for good while acknowledging it can also used for bad. I don't disagree that we should ignore our policies because someone posted something we did not like.

For what it's worth, he addressed that some policies do need work and change - specifically the ones about voting, elections, and misleading statements about these.

[throwanem]

So, the president can call for military action against American citizens, inside the borders of the United States, in direct contravention of US law (the Posse Comitatus Act), and that's okay? Because you're making it sound like that's totally okay, and I think that adds up to a tiny bit more than "someone posted something we did not like".

edit: 'oarabbus_ is right, as far as I can tell, about the Insurrection Act. Even if they weren't, I suppose it'd be foolish to imagine that the US presidency in 2020 is restrained by mere legislation, save to the extent to which it permits itself to be.

[oarabbus_]

To be clear, I 100% disagree with any use of military action within the States against American citizens.

That being said, what you are saying isn't true. Exceptions to Posse Comitatus include "Federal troops used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case with the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots."

Should it be illegal for the President to send troops against citizens to restore order? Perhaps, yes. Is it illegal? Certainly not.

[bjtitus]

To be clear, the 1992 Los Angeles rights invoked the Insurrection act AT THE REQUEST of the state which is markedly different than Trump's proposal.

The more direct example of invoking the act in spite of opposition from states would be the enforcement of federal law law during the Civil Rights era.

Two good explainers on this:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/02/can-donald-tr...

https://time.com/5846649/insurrection-act-1807-donald-trump/

[brlewis]

What you're describing does not sound like Facebook's jurisdiction.

[throwanem]

Facebook isn't a court and thus has no jurisdiction.

[brlewis]

Right, Facebook is not a court, police force, or anything else with legal jurisdiction. Assuming the problem is that Trump is issuing an orders to the military that are illegal, that's not a problem that Facebook can police. The President can likely find another means of issuing illegal military orders that bypasses Facebook.

[landryraccoon]

> that's not a problem that Facebook can police.

Why not? They sure do an amazing job making sure you don't see any female nipples.

Female nipples = Block at all costs and ban users

Incite violence = We're powerless. We won't do anything.

[koheripbal]

Except that there are laws against showing nipples to minors. There is no law about showing an (even unlawful) presidential order to the public.

[cheesecracker]

Is the military receiving its orders via Facebook now? That WOULD be newsworthy.

[waheoo]

Dont be silly, they use twitter.

[edanm]

> So, the president can call for military action against American citizens, inside the borders of the United States, in direct contravention of US law (the Posse Comitatus Act), and that's okay?

Deciding not to talk about something or not to restrict hosting certain posts is not the same thing as thinking they are ok.

[bargl]

So the president, MOVES military against American Citizens and we're all like???? Why is this happening??? That's why information is powerful. I'd personally rather people get mad that he said it and he then does nothing than for him to take action.

Yes, this information needs to stay out there. Stay informed. If this was some troll suggesting Trump move the military against the US, I could see you saying that should be pulled down.

This is the president, as much as I fucking hate him I want to know everything he says. Not because I agree but because to not know what he's saying handicaps my ability to mobilize against tyranny before it happens.

[throwanem]

I don't give Facebook's executives the benefit of the doubt in thinking that's why they're leaving it up, but I'd have a very hard time arguing that you're wrong.

[bargl]

I can't really argue with you there. This is one of those situations where the path paved to hell is paved with good intentions in my mind. I don't want Trump saying shit like this, but if any government official is saying something shitty I want to know.

[pas]

Twitter put a big sticker on it. FB could do the same. Put it behind a click-this-to-see-bad-stuff warning thing. Provide context, etc. The option is not a binary between completely hide/silence/ignore the "most powerful man in the world" or support and just enable him even more.

[bargl]

I can get behind this but then that specific content wouldn't fall under section 230. IANAL I'm not sure I'll let them fight over it.

But if you as a platform control the content you are responsible for the content you publish. Which should be ok right? If it's fact checking and you get sued and the facts are correct, no problem. Well other than all the money you lose, but that's something we need to fix about suing people.