| "Races larger questions" was in the original (which is still in my browser tab). "Euphimism" does not appear, instead the awkward phrase "sanitized term" is used. The "conclusion" is not a conclusion, but apparently the main point. It's not addressed until the very end. The article reads roughly Support->Vaguely Related Idea->Announcement of Unrelated Item->Argument. It's all over the place. 1. The article is about censorship and you're castigating Facebook for something else entirely.
2. Twitter, specifically, seems to provide much less information. The information you personally are expecting is, in some cases, information that should be protected, or that may be legally protected through court order or statute. If Facebook must publish this information, the EFF should be both specific in its criteria and consistent in its application of judgment of whether the criteria has been met. This particular article is neither specific nor consistent. It does a poor job of comparing Facebook to other social media. It does a poor job of even mentioning where Facebook gets it right. It uses poor examples of where Facebook gets it wrong. > The criteria of "It's better than competitor X" is not a criteria, it's a comparison. But claiming competitor X is good and competitor Y is bad, while providing evidence of the opposite is at best inconsistent. > how do you define "3rd party"? This cannot be a serious question. But if you want to play semantic games, how it is defined in the Facebook ToS is what is relevant. > This requires proof. What is Facebook's process in proving "guilt"? Does it require proof? It may be entirely at Facebook's discretion, which is also reasonable. In any case, it should not be difficult to prove that a Facebook user account showing changes was not legally changed by an inmate with no official/legal internet access. Your statement implies there was no proof, which you do not substantiate and the article neither argues nor implies. > How do you define "likely"? If you are running a website and frequently get emails about the same violation of your ToS, setting up a reporting form makes a lot of sense. Are you suggesting Facebook did this "just because" or for nefarious reasons? > This is an offtopic non-argument. Hardly. The linked article demands nebulously defined and sometimes inconsistent amounts of transparency. > Your argument here... Has been mischaracterized by you. |