Post arguing for separation of church and state gets pulled by Facebook

[SecularMotion]

[div id="container" style="float:left; padding-right:20px; width:180px; height:180px"]
[div id="container" style="display:inline"]Earlier this week, an administrator for a private Facebook group called “Winchester, MA Residents” received a notification from Facebook that a comment made on the group’s site had been removed.

The comment was made beneath a controversial post about a local high school not using the pledge of allegiance, but what was unusual was that the comment in question neither incited violence nor was it harassing—in fact it seemed quite measured in its tone.

”Yeah that’s an unfortunate conflation of government and religion,” the commenter wrote. “I’m in favor of removing all references to god from all governmental documents and instruments, including our legal tender.”

In the notification to the group administrator, Facebook said only that the post had been removed because it didn’t "follow the Facebook Community Standards.”

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/post-arguing-for-separation-of-church-and-state-gets-pulled-by-facebook/

[Hepburn]

1. I was asked at a meeting to lead the Pledge of Allegiance and I declined.

I will not under any circumstances say "under gawd" in that recital. McCarthyism is disgusting and this is a remaining vestige.

Facebook can stick it as far as I am concerned. I totally agree with the poster -- all references re god should be and need to be removed.

[Yorktown]

2. Facebook is a bit like DU: it reacts to alerts

Alerters being people who can't accept to see their precious views challenged.

Does it ring a bell?

[AtheistCrusader]

3. It wasn't pulled by Facebook, it was pulled by an algorithym.

Because that poster has enough dickheads in his friends list, or in the list of people he or she shared it with, to catch enough Alerts and trip the 'delete' feature.

It has an appeal process.

[Lordquinton]

4. Regardless of what pulled it, Facebook is responsible

If they are lazy and write bad algorithms to do their work, it's still them at fault.

It's a setup that assumes guilt in a system easily exploited. YouTube used to be that way with DMCA claims until they criminalized false claims (the one good thing in that law)

[AtheistCrusader]

6. It's not a bad algo.

They adjust thresholds if people consistently get blocked by bullshit alerts, and they appeal. But there's a process, and appealing it is part of that process.

Facebook couldn't function without that feature. It would be crippled with insincere alerts, or it would be completely unmanaged. Choose your poison.

[Fumesucker]

7. I spent years on Usenet much of which is completely unmoderated

I found it more fair than DU either with mods or with the jury system, if some asshole attacked you it was possible to attack them back without getting sanctioned for it.

Facebook isn't something I do but I've never found anywhere with what I consider truly fair moderation, it's always biased.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Unbiased and quality moderation either doesn't exist, or isn't free.

More or less. Look at what happens in wiki wars, editing articles from various viewpoints. Same problem.

[edhopper]

5. Facebook is not the Government

and does not have to abide by any free speech principles. They can allow and disallow any posts they choose.