Thread

1. ElProlactin · 1790239566 · focus · HN ↗

   This hypocrisy is not at all surprising. The modus operandi for these people has been rules for thee, but not for me for quite a while now.

   1. Almondsetat · 1790240173 · focus · HN ↗

      Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself

      1. ElProlactin · 1790240915 · focus · HN ↗

         This person was not trespassing on Meta property and nothing indicates that he was harassing employees who refused to be interviewed. It is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.

         You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.

         And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).

         Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.

         1. pino83 · 1790248725 · focus · HN ↗

            But we are talking about Meta removing content from their own website, right?

            In contrast to what people think, Facebook IS NOT public infrastructure.

            If Meta removes some content from Meta website, and you don't like that, it's a you problem, right?

            1. fn-mote · 1790250312 · focus · HN ↗

               > Facebook IS NOT public infrastructure

               They want protection from liability and also editorial control?

               Regardless of the legal status, it seems clear that when massive companies refuse to allow the media they own to publish a dissenting opinion, we’re not headed towards a ~~more~~ democratic society.

               1. pino83 · 1790253825 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's clear. But with using Facebook for public discourse, you flushed all ideas about democratic societies down the toilet. Democratic societies should have their public discourse in public places. Not in commercial walled gardens owned by some US maniacs.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.