agreed. i think this is also a crime against humanity. this also fits the technical definition of genocide according to the UN convention against genocide,
Article 2, section B of the Convention defines genocide as: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
if the subset of humanity that agrees to a culture of truth and facts, is the considered group, then this is technically genocide, because it does mental harm to this group.
i, personally, do not lend any credence to the authority of the UN, but i will use any tool that i can to defend my natural rights, at least until it comes into conflict with those rights.
you may well be correct. i am sure they will try to absolve themselves of any responsibility they can. i'm not sure that internationally operating corporations can grant themselves immunity from international law or convention by contract. that would be a good thing to know. i wonder who can be held responsible if the "fact checkers" are shown to be the cause of personal or financial injury, by being wrong or deceiving with intent.
agreed. i think this is also a crime against humanity. this also fits the technical definition of genocide according to the UN convention against genocide,
Article 2, section B of the Convention defines genocide as: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
if the subset of humanity that agrees to a culture of truth and facts, is the considered group, then this is technically genocide, because it does mental harm to this group.
i, personally, do not lend any credence to the authority of the UN, but i will use any tool that i can to defend my natural rights, at least until it comes into conflict with those rights.
Since Facebook is a voluntary service I'm not sure it would fall under that.
that's the point. it is not fully voluntary or consensual, if it is offered under a deception. consent without knowledge is not consent.
I am sure somewhere in the TOS it removes them from liability of any information on the site posted by users.
you may well be correct. i am sure they will try to absolve themselves of any responsibility they can. i'm not sure that internationally operating corporations can grant themselves immunity from international law or convention by contract. that would be a good thing to know. i wonder who can be held responsible if the "fact checkers" are shown to be the cause of personal or financial injury, by being wrong or deceiving with intent.