Support NeoGAF

[PBalfredo]

Seeing as how Trump is trying to backpedal the language used (but not the meaning behind the statement) I'm glad it's being left up as proof that he wanted to ban Muslims.

 

[collige]

Ignoring the Zuckerberg Thiel situation (which came after this event anyway), this is pretty much a lose-lose for FB. But the benefits of removing that one particular post don't see to outweigh disadvantages imo.

 

[-sdp]

I can't comprehend how someone would actually want censorship.

 

[duckroll]

I feel it is extremely important that Zuckerberg did acknowledge that the comments qualified as hate speech. This distinction is important. He is not excusing it, he is not spinning it (like you can argue he might have with the Thiel comments), he is simply saying that yes, it is an exception to their rules, but as a major US Presidential Candidate, unfortunately what he says has impact and relevance even if it is fucked up, and censoring it on a major social media platform is not something you do lightly. It is a fair response which I can understand.

 

[KHarvey16]

I can't comprehend how someone would actually want censorship.

It's censorship, but there are no free speech implications since Facebook is not a government entity and they can allow or disallow whatever they like. It would be like getting banned from here and I don't think most would argue for abolishing bans.

I think this is ultimately the more correct decision but there are certainly defensible arguments to be made for the other way.

 

[Macam]

Zuck was right.

Inviting Trump to SNL or Jimmy Fallon is one thing. But Facebook is an more or less an open platform and this would be some disturbing censorship.

If there's one thing Facebook isn't, it's an open platform. That's a one way street.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Seeing as how Trump is trying to backpedal the language used (but not the meaning behind the statement) I'm glad it's being left up as proof that he wanted to ban Muslims.

That was my initial take on it. Censoring that shit might even help Trump get moderate votes.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

It's not like it would accomplish anything. It might be even better so you can identify people who agree with these policies and mute/block them.

I agree with Hycran, better by far for people to know who said these things.

 

[Byakuya769]

I prefer to see what presidential candidates are saying. Besides, censoring Trump allows him to deny stuff he said later on.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Seeing as how Trump is trying to backpedal the language used (but not the meaning behind the statement) I'm glad it's being left up as proof that he wanted to ban Muslims.

Agreed.

 

[Stinkles]

Even if you ignore freedom of speech, banning him on Facebook would only empower and amplify the thing you rightfully hate.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

As a muslim, I agree with Zuckerberg. That post should stand as an important reminder what a piece of shit Trump's presidential candidacy is.

This is sort of his social media version of Mein Kampf

 

[Staccat0]

I kinda think it's better to shine a light on racism than cover it with a sheet, but it's a tough call. Bad is bad.

 

[cornerman]

I think it should stay. People need to be able to see that he said it; if for no other reason than to fact check him. It's a view into a man who wishes to lead the free world. If it was Joe schmoe, then maybe you take it down.

 

[norinrad]

I'm with him on this. I often feel we go too far with certain things that we do not allow room for other things.