[richardv]

I've stopped reporting anything these days. The report system isn't there to actually do anything... at least not in the disciplinary sense.

It's there exclusively to make the people who are reporting things feel like they have some solution to things they disagree with.

----

I recently reported two separate comments on Facebook.

The first comment was on startup investor's profile picture after he announced that he was getting married to his long term boyfriend/partner (about two weaks ago). The polite version of the comment basically went along the lines of saying that he would be "judged by allah" for his sins and should die.

The second person was a friend who commented on a picture of several football supporters and one of the guys had a turban on. The comment said "I see a dirty terrorist".

So I kicked my 'friend' (who was really just an associate anyway) from my list and reported to Facebook...

Both of these reports came back saying that after reviewing they haven't broken any rules...

Apparently the Facebook staff who run the review proceedures are the same folks who leave comments on the cesspool over at YouTube...

[GauntletWizard]

And if they were to enforce your rules, next week we'd have a fantastic article blasting Facebook for "Suppression of an Open Forum". We, as a society, took a hard stance long ago: People can say what they want, regardless of how much you whine and complain. Nobody has to listen, and Twitter still has a "block" button, but when you get your knickers in a twist you're usually giving the trolls what they wanted.

The other option is for those marginalized groups to be completely silenced. You can't have it both ways. "Community Standards" that are just your standards lead to tyranny.

From a profit standpoint: Is Facebook really going to give up the 17% of US voters who think Obama is a dirty muslim just because it offends you?

[steveklabnik]

> People can say what they want, regardless of how much you whine and complain.

This is not true. "Fire in an movie theatre," etc.

[hfsktr]

People like to think that you can say whatever you want online but even there you can't.

Any search combination of: Facebook + teen/jail/sentence gives a pretty good idea. I'd only seen a couple on HN front page but it's apparently there are a lot of examples that don't make it that far(1).

For your fire example there are others that have to do with inciting violence or putting others in danger. I am sure there are more examples.

(1) without reading them all it could be just linkbait or misinformation

[true_religion]

Whilst its true that you can't say anything you want, should it really be up to any corporation to determine if saying X or Y is immoral?

If someone has said something that's illegal (e.g. threatining), then there's legal consequences for that. If anything, we shouuld beg the police to become more proactive. Currently, the stance on most crime involving computers is 'meh, its too hard to catch them unless they're on facebook using their real names'.

[hfsktr]

I think that unless it's actually illegal then it is up to the corporation. Corporations express opinions (morality) all the time (eg, Chick-fil-A/gay marriage, Abercrombie & Fitch/fat people).

So if FB/Reddit/Twitter/$NextThing decided that anyone who ever posted anything about $topic gets banned. If people wanted to use it they would understand that and could decide not to.

If my ISP started filtering things that I could access though that would probably get a different reaction from me.

As to the policing...some of the articles I pulled up when I did those searches were ridiculous and I'd prefer if police didn't waste time and resources on them. Of course there will be someone who thinks it's completely within reason.

Short version: I don't care if $corp censors it's platform based on whatever it wants. I do care if ISP/government censor. Personally I find so little offensive I have to wonder if I'm broken, normal, or just incredibly tolerant.

(sorry feels like I just said a lot of nothing)

[fnordfnordfnord]

First world problems. I agree it isn't always fun to share the world with racists, bigots, and religious fanatics; but I am skeptical of the utility of hiding offensive speech. It might be better to let everyone see what they are.

Also, making trivial moderation requests takes time away from moderators who might be dealing with the really terrible things happening on the intnernet: https://theinternetoffendsme.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/the-re...

[MartinCron]

I am skeptical of the utility of hiding offensive speech

I share that, but I am also really seduced by the idea of interacting in a space free of that kind of toxic garbage. The same way I prefer to go to restaurants that don't allow smoking.

If there's an appropriate place for offensive speech, I'll prefer to not be there. Maybe instead of "flag as abusive" the interaction should be nudging people into their appropriate cesspools.

[steveklabnik]

This is actually one of the reasons /b/ still exists: if /b/ went away, they'd just post all over the rest of 4chan, and at least all the toxic waste can just be concentrated in one place.

[MartinCron]

That's exactly what I was thinking. "appropriate cesspool" is a pretty transparent /b reference.