Facebook has been pro trumper this entire election cycle. I take anything fuckerberg says with a grain of salt.

Removing rules about vilification of ANYONE, ANY GENDER, ANY NATIONALITY and ANY RELIGION should be the rule, if they're looking to create civil discourse. I'm assuming these content rules will apply to ''open'' groups and that ''private'' groups will continue as they are today?

I got thrown in Facebook jail by using the term stupid americans. Facebook is only safe to share pics. Of your cats, puppies and food. Any kind of serious discussion is fair game for someone to take offense to and report you

Information has always been controlled by the rich and the powerful.

As if Conservatives didn't start all this shit in the first place.
They cry for censorship more than any other group.
They cry when censored more than any other group.
When the world is silent and about as content as it's possible to be given human nature that silence will be broken by an authoritarian demanding more strife because people can't be good without being harassed by "authority."
But who was beating cops to death?
We've let them spew hate for 50 god damned years.
It's time someone shut them up when they're visiting web sites.
They can say anything they want, but not as if their concerns are actually as valid as they pretend they are. It's like being at work, you can believe anything you want, but if you insist on lying about your politics and accusing people you know nothing about of pedophilia and voter fraud without proof it become a put up or shut up situation.
If you have something then show it, otherwise shut up or we will shut you up.
Aggressive grievance against such a policy just makes Conservatives look even more cult like, if that's even possible.

It is risible and really hypocritical to ask questions on free speech or censorship in this site, which is more censored and puritan than the religious puritans we eschew. Here, a post with some expletives or artful nudity that is not pornographic and only posted in private groups, ergo not exposed to those who do not want to see them, are always erased or censored, and we worry about other sites who don't do this??? Please.

It is their ball park, they make the rules and hire the umpires. While I might disagree with how they enforce their rules (there is no consistency) I have to agree that it is their rule, their site and their idiots. This is perhaps the best example of a libertarian organization as you can finds. Next to no government oversight and the marketplace deciding rules and changes.

The Facebook AI got on to me once and said I could not post the same things repeatedly the way I was doing. It was not allowed I was told. My protest response was that I am doing no more than they do daily and they left me alone after that. My activist posts and replies are probably generating them money.

The AI system that flags comments is flawed because it can not decern humor, context, or alternatemeanings & uses of words. Then the human reviewers a biased, hypersensitive and/or "woke" pansies who want to be victims. These flaws shut down conversations without cause.

The latest out of Australia:
Below " should be an eye-opener for people who think we live in a country with a free media. Above are just some of the battles that I have had on a regular basis since I set up my website in 2011. Other battles have included Kerry Stokes running off to court many times to get suppression orders against my articles and articles that are still blocked today about Capilano Honey even though there is no legal basis for it because I had the suppression orders lifted. I have written to Google numerous times to let them know the suppression orders have been lifted but they ignore me.

You don’t have to live in China or Russia to be on the end of government censorship as the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter will censor for government around the world including Australia’s federal government led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison."

[kangaroocourtofaustralia.com]

I use neither.

In USA doesn't the R.I.C.O. law cover what fbuk is proposing?

"While RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past 37 years, prosecutors have used it to attack many forms of organized crime: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments and even politicians."

[justia.com]

[reclaimthenet.org]
"According to the new proposals, it is not as wrong to spew “hatred” directed towards men, whites, Americans, and Christians than it is to do the same against US-minority groups."

International law does not, as far as I'm aware, discriminate by making levels of human rights violations less serious. In other words incarceration in a five star hotel because you are Chinese is treated as the same violation as beheading for not bowing to Allah.

And, No, imo, they are simply 'bending the knee' to the whims, wills and whines of the Politicians, etc, and the like rather than standing up and being counted.

I was recently admonished by a woman for having used the definite article before someone's self described disability to distinguish them from other participants in an event. As I said if there is only one agnostic T shirt in a crowd of xtian message T shirts what is discriminatory in calling the wearer "the agnostic"?

The world's inhabitants are becoming more and more stupid as well as beige in their desire for anonymity. I only have to look at this or any post on this site to see that there are usually ten times the number of visitors to the number expressing their opinions on the subject matter. As Billy Connolly said "beige people".