11 ms·

I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Faceb

by mabbo 10y ago

I'm torn. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that the government can't put you in prison or punish you for saying or believing what you do. Facebook aren't the government, they're a private entity and don't have to host anything they don't like- including hosting photos that they don't like. It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. And on the other hand: it's the only garden. If your friends are in that garden, they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. Facebook's created a 'with us or not with us' distinction that has a very sharp boundary. And it's worked- they've won the social network wars. A billion people are on it. The question is, as the social network champions does Facebook have to have to public's interests in mind or just their own bottom line profit margin? As a public company, the shareholders will fire their leadership if they don't choose the bottom line. As the major social network of the world, the public will denounce them for actions like this.

auntienomen 10y ago
FB is controlled by Zuckerberg. He's the only shareholder that counts for determining what the company does. This is on him.
- 2close4comfort 10y ago
  Controlled by dude that if not for this would be living in his parents basement trolling on the internet somewhere or working for Google.
LeanderK 10y ago
i also thought about that. But a society sets the rules businesses operate in, that ranges from environmental laws to other regulations. I think its perfectly valid to also set anti-censorship rules if the society think its valid.
- refurb 10y ago
  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not say something. It would require a constitutional amendment for the gov't to come in and start demanding things from Facebook.
  - LeanderK 10y ago
    well, i don't know if thats the case in good ol'merica. But i don't think there are major obstacles to introduce such law in germany/europe. We already have media-laws and special press-laws (which regulate how stories must be published, for example we have a "journalistic duty of care" which amongst other things mandates that unconfirmed statements must be marked as such. The law follows the codex of the German Press Council).
jfoster 10y ago
Facebook are the defacto government of online social activities. No other entity comes close, and they have compared themselves to countries before when emphasizing how large their userbase is.
wepple 10y ago
I'd argue there's a very undefined grey line where companies cross over from just being a small scrappy startup doing something with tech to being a significant influencer of the public with a significant degree of control and impact. At that point it's in the interest of the general public to no longer treat them entirely as a private walled-garden enterprise but as something bigger. We saw with the Microsoft antitrust case, the government stepping in where a business had grown to the point where it had a dangerous level of control and influence financially; I'm not sure if there's a social equivalent?
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Well, something to consider: during the time that the US Constitution was being written, the most common site to exchange information (usually pamphlets) was the local tavern or coffee house. Sure, if the proprietor was being a prick you could always bring your friends to the shop across the street. But that environment influenced the founders' ideas about how information is exchanged and debated, and it's the format the law of the land was written for. Facebook is a global coffee house. Everyone can be there at the same time. But that also means it is very hard to use an alternative, especially as Facebook buys relevant competitors of information exchange like Instagram and WhatsApp. Suddenly, we are in a situation where more people can connect than ever before, but for the vast majority of people, because of convenience and the lack of tenable other options, there is hardly any other choice. Other social networks that simply tried to clone Facebook never got off the ground because everyone was already on Facebook. I would truly love to close my account and leave but it's hard to stay in touch with friends from outside the United States, especially if Instagram and WhatsApp are out of the question. Given Facebook's overwhelming presence in modern daily life, it is necessary to regulate what it can or cannot do for the benefit of the common citizens. The degree of regulation will always be debated, and rightly so, but to pretend that a private entity of immense social might is free to do as it pleases is to willingly give away power and authority from the state, and in a democracy, from the people themselves. EDIT: wow, downvoted to hell for this one. It would be so fascinating if just one person could describe what makes my view so wrong.
- barrkel 10y ago
  You're quite right. Democracy and consumerism don't always push in the same direction, but when they conflict, democracy has more moral legitimacy. Arguing in favour of democracy does mean limiting some people's opportunity to make money. That can make it an unpopular view. (Independent of regulatory capture and governmental corruption, of course. The point being that the people are in charge, not what they do with their wallets, because otherwise we end up with an oligopoly.)
- csharp 10y ago
  I suspect information exchange and debating, was not meant to be enforced on private property during the constitution's writing. If I owned a tavern, I do not suspect the founding father's intent was for me to allow whatever kind of debate/information exchange to take place in my establishment. If anything, I suspect the opposite to be true. If I own a coffeeshop today, I would have the right to restrict what is hung on my walls (e.g. advertisements, local events), and what is announced (i.e. someone loudly giving an announcement) to my patrons. I may not be able to control small group conversation though. That being said, posting something publicly to Facebook is greatly different than DMing a person / group of friends. If Facebook deleted the image sent from one friend to the other, this would be a different conversation. I think your analogy and inspection of the constitution's intent, even further justifies that Facebook has right to do what they did.
bjt 10y ago
The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that. I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.
- nekopa 10y ago
  I believe the fine article states that she reposted the image.
  - EnFinlay 10y ago
    It was unclear to me if the criticism post and the reposting of the image were separate or together.
- greggyb 10y ago
  The PM's post included the photo. > Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines. > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    That doesn't say the post included the photo.
    - greggyb 10y ago
      > > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland..., > > > shared the iconic image ....
      - deleted 10y ago
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. I hear this a lot and wonder what people did before social media, and before FB was around. It's the same thing. I closed my account probably 5 years ago and don't miss a thing. My friends are on FB, but I still know what's going because they use multiple platforms, we text and we still use email - so not having FB isn't a deal breaker. The downside to this is people have lost the ability to effectively communicate with each other. If the only way you have to communicate with your friends and family is FB, then this is the onset of the decline of Western Civilization.
falcolas 10y ago
It's worth noting that the freedom of expression is generally believed to apply more broadly than just to governments. For example, from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. It's my opinion that Facebook is impeding on that right, and that it's going to come back to bite them at some point. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- mabbo 10y ago
  Sarcastically, I ask you: I would like to express myself by spray-painting swastikas on the side of your house. Is that protected? I would expect not, but that means there's a line somewhere. Where is it?
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Sure as hell not even close to that famous photo.
  - ivan_gammel 10y ago
    Border line is the existence of service contract. If I allow anyone write anything legal on the wall of my house (the service I offer), I cannot restrict "anyone" to "white male", "anything legal" to "something I'll decide later what" etc.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Who says Facebook lets you post anything legal? Their terms of service surely restrict things like this?
      - ivan_gammel 10y ago
        I'm answering generic question. Regarding Facebook, their terms of service are questionable from this point, because they restrict protected freedom of speech.
sp332 10y ago
We need a Magna Carta for corporations.
- btown 10y ago
  And, being written by corporations, it could allow corporations to sue countries if they don't like their IP laws or enforcement policies... oh, wait... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...
wslh 10y ago
> It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. That is not what happens in a monopoly. We have old laws but the spirit of monopoly fighting is that they can't do whatever they want.
bbctol 10y ago
Social networks pose a really interesting problem to the usual capitalist model, where competition (y'know, theoretically) ensures the best outcomes for consumers over the long run. If you build a definitely better automobile than General Motors, even only slightly, you can compete and bring the price down/quality of life up for the customer. If you build a definitively better social network than Facebook... no one cares. They're only on Facebook because their friends are. You need to vastly exceed their experience before they'd even consider it. When the normal checks of a single business dominating a field fail, we need to find new solutions, especially when that field is communication. We don't want a future in which Facebook is non-democratic, but everyone gets their media from it and can't see a good reason to leave. I would hope that over the long term, we figure out public ownership of social media, and enshrine control and understanding of the systems that bring you information as an important right.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Social networks pose a really interesting problem to the usual capitalist model I wouldn't call the network effect so much a "really interesting problem" but more like "one of the many well known failure modes in the fantasy that market effects lead to the 'best' outcomes for any definition of 'best' that isn't tautologically defined as whatever market effects cause to happen."
vivekd 10y ago
I understand that facebook is free to decide what content it hosts. But I think deleting a post by the prime minister of Norway is extremely disrespectful to the people of Norway. I am shocked by their behaviour and won't be using their service until they apologize.
castratikron 10y ago
It's similar to having the right to assemble peacefully in pseudo-public spaces like malls. But I would say the argument for freedom of speech on someone else's website is weaker than that; it's easy to just go to another website and say something there instead. Well, at least it's easy today. If Facebook succeeds at establishing a Facebook-only internet in parts of the world like India and Africa, then you might have a real reason to enforce that freedom, since those users wouldn't have any other choice.
droopybuns 10y ago
It is not the only garden though. I use Path with my family for photo sharing. Everything else gets put on my blog. I find Facebook usage to be a tell for personal insecurity. It's ok- everyone is insecure in their teens. But when you get past 35, if you are still a heavy Facebook user, it indicates personal problems.
rndgermandude 10y ago
We regulate lots of things already to stop private entities from roaming free and against the interest of the general population. So just playing the "but it's their walled garden" card does not cut it for me. For me the question is whether facebook has a significant influence on the population or not. I think they already do when it comes to News, more so than traditional news organizations even. On top of that, they claim to provide an open space for exchange and even discussion. Personally, I'd therefore like to see facebook being regulated to the point where they cannot simply refuse "service" to people of certain completely legal opinions discussing legal topics, same as they and other businesses should not be allowed to refuse service for certain classes of people.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Instead of meddling in the extant gardens, we should make it simple for people to move to one with better rules. The current state of copyright and tech access law makes that inordinately difficult. If we update these laws, it will be much simpler for competitors to challenge the lumbering incumbents like Facebook and Twitter, and then it won't matter so much what Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey want to allow or disallow. The free exchange format the internet offered is threatened by walled gardens becoming the home of 99% of online activity. Even something like Google struggles in light of this, since they aren't allowed to get in and make intelligent calculations about the popularity of online resources (which used to be roughly determinable by links mined out from the open internet). We are in trouble here.
MildlySerious 10y ago
My question is, is there an actual conflict of interest between the two? (In this specific case) I would think that getting denounced by the public would also be bad for said bottom line. Wouldn't it be in Facebooks best interest to cater to the public as much as possible?
dredmorbius 10y ago
"Freedom of expression" isn't specific to government-protected or limitations on government-censorship actions. It's a general principle. It's also not generally protected. Specific legal structures protecting speech rights are government grants, within those legal constructs. The legal doctrine of the US First Amendment free speech tradition is that it is a broad, but not absolute, limit on government prior suppression of speech rights. It specifically doesn't apply to private individual or corporate limitations on speech. The history of free speech protections in the US is complex and surprisingly recent. It wasn't until 1919 that Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court dissent laid the basis for what would become seen as a very broad free-speech protection. Note that as a dissent, his views didn't carry at the time. It wasn't until further cases in the 1930s and 1960s that the present regime of protected speech -- protected from government interference -- fully came into being in the US. See: http://www.worldcat.org/title/great-dissent-how-oliver-wendell-holmes-changed-his-mind-and-changed-the-history-of-free-speech-in-america/oclc/811597495 http://www.worldcat.org/title/great-dissent-how-oliver-wende...

by mabbo 10y ago

auntienomen 10y ago

FB is controlled by Zuckerberg. He's the only shareholder that counts for determining what the company does. This is on him.

2close4comfort 10y ago
Controlled by dude that if not for this would be living in his parents basement trolling on the internet somewhere or working for Google.

LeanderK 10y ago

i also thought about that. But a society sets the rules businesses operate in, that ranges from environmental laws to other regulations. I think its perfectly valid to also set anti-censorship rules if the society think its valid.

refurb 10y ago
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not say something. It would require a constitutional amendment for the gov't to come in and start demanding things from Facebook.
- LeanderK 10y ago
  well, i don't know if thats the case in good ol'merica. But i don't think there are major obstacles to introduce such law in germany/europe. We already have media-laws and special press-laws (which regulate how stories must be published, for example we have a "journalistic duty of care" which amongst other things mandates that unconfirmed statements must be marked as such. The law follows the codex of the German Press Council).

jfoster 10y ago

Facebook are the defacto government of online social activities. No other entity comes close, and they have compared themselves to countries before when emphasizing how large their userbase is.

wepple 10y ago

I'd argue there's a very undefined grey line where companies cross over from just being a small scrappy startup doing something with tech to being a significant influencer of the public with a significant degree of control and impact. At that point it's in the interest of the general public to no longer treat them entirely as a private walled-garden enterprise but as something bigger. We saw with the Microsoft antitrust case, the government stepping in where a business had grown to the point where it had a dangerous level of control and influence financially; I'm not sure if there's a social equivalent?

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Well, something to consider: during the time that the US Constitution was being written, the most common site to exchange information (usually pamphlets) was the local tavern or coffee house. Sure, if the proprietor was being a prick you could always bring your friends to the shop across the street. But that environment influenced the founders' ideas about how information is exchanged and debated, and it's the format the law of the land was written for. Facebook is a global coffee house. Everyone can be there at the same time. But that also means it is very hard to use an alternative, especially as Facebook buys relevant competitors of information exchange like Instagram and WhatsApp. Suddenly, we are in a situation where more people can connect than ever before, but for the vast majority of people, because of convenience and the lack of tenable other options, there is hardly any other choice. Other social networks that simply tried to clone Facebook never got off the ground because everyone was already on Facebook. I would truly love to close my account and leave but it's hard to stay in touch with friends from outside the United States, especially if Instagram and WhatsApp are out of the question. Given Facebook's overwhelming presence in modern daily life, it is necessary to regulate what it can or cannot do for the benefit of the common citizens. The degree of regulation will always be debated, and rightly so, but to pretend that a private entity of immense social might is free to do as it pleases is to willingly give away power and authority from the state, and in a democracy, from the people themselves. EDIT: wow, downvoted to hell for this one. It would be so fascinating if just one person could describe what makes my view so wrong.

barrkel 10y ago
You're quite right. Democracy and consumerism don't always push in the same direction, but when they conflict, democracy has more moral legitimacy. Arguing in favour of democracy does mean limiting some people's opportunity to make money. That can make it an unpopular view. (Independent of regulatory capture and governmental corruption, of course. The point being that the people are in charge, not what they do with their wallets, because otherwise we end up with an oligopoly.)
csharp 10y ago
I suspect information exchange and debating, was not meant to be enforced on private property during the constitution's writing. If I owned a tavern, I do not suspect the founding father's intent was for me to allow whatever kind of debate/information exchange to take place in my establishment. If anything, I suspect the opposite to be true. If I own a coffeeshop today, I would have the right to restrict what is hung on my walls (e.g. advertisements, local events), and what is announced (i.e. someone loudly giving an announcement) to my patrons. I may not be able to control small group conversation though. That being said, posting something publicly to Facebook is greatly different than DMing a person / group of friends. If Facebook deleted the image sent from one friend to the other, this would be a different conversation. I think your analogy and inspection of the constitution's intent, even further justifies that Facebook has right to do what they did.

bjt 10y ago

The PM didn't post the photo. Someone else did. The PM posted a criticism saying Facebook should "review its editing policy". And then Facebook deleted that. I can concede that there could be good reasons to pull the photo. But I don't see good reasons to pull the PM's post. I don't like any organization having so much power to make criticism about itself disappear.

nekopa 10y ago
I believe the fine article states that she reposted the image.
- EnFinlay 10y ago
  It was unclear to me if the criticism post and the reposting of the image were separate or together.
greggyb 10y ago
The PM's post included the photo. > Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines. > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland...,
- pritambaral 10y ago
  That doesn't say the post included the photo.
  - greggyb 10y ago
    > > Solberg was one of a string of Norwegian politicians who shared the iconic image after Facebook deleted a post from Tom Egeland..., > > > shared the iconic image ....
    - deleted 10y ago

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> they can't share with you, interact with you, etc, without you also being inside. I hear this a lot and wonder what people did before social media, and before FB was around. It's the same thing. I closed my account probably 5 years ago and don't miss a thing. My friends are on FB, but I still know what's going because they use multiple platforms, we text and we still use email - so not having FB isn't a deal breaker. The downside to this is people have lost the ability to effectively communicate with each other. If the only way you have to communicate with your friends and family is FB, then this is the onset of the decline of Western Civilization.

falcolas 10y ago

It's worth noting that the freedom of expression is generally believed to apply more broadly than just to governments. For example, from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. It's my opinion that Facebook is impeding on that right, and that it's going to come back to bite them at some point. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

mabbo 10y ago
Sarcastically, I ask you: I would like to express myself by spray-painting swastikas on the side of your house. Is that protected? I would expect not, but that means there's a line somewhere. Where is it?
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Sure as hell not even close to that famous photo.
- ivan_gammel 10y ago
  Border line is the existence of service contract. If I allow anyone write anything legal on the wall of my house (the service I offer), I cannot restrict "anyone" to "white male", "anything legal" to "something I'll decide later what" etc.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Who says Facebook lets you post anything legal? Their terms of service surely restrict things like this?
    - ivan_gammel 10y ago
      I'm answering generic question. Regarding Facebook, their terms of service are questionable from this point, because they restrict protected freedom of speech.

sp332 10y ago

We need a Magna Carta for corporations.

btown 10y ago
And, being written by corporations, it could allow corporations to sue countries if they don't like their IP laws or enforcement policies... oh, wait... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...

wslh 10y ago

> It's a walled garden, and it's their walled garden, and if you don't like it you're welcome to leave. That is not what happens in a monopoly. We have old laws but the spirit of monopoly fighting is that they can't do whatever they want.

bbctol 10y ago

Social networks pose a really interesting problem to the usual capitalist model, where competition (y'know, theoretically) ensures the best outcomes for consumers over the long run. If you build a definitely better automobile than General Motors, even only slightly, you can compete and bring the price down/quality of life up for the customer. If you build a definitively better social network than Facebook... no one cares. They're only on Facebook because their friends are. You need to vastly exceed their experience before they'd even consider it. When the normal checks of a single business dominating a field fail, we need to find new solutions, especially when that field is communication. We don't want a future in which Facebook is non-democratic, but everyone gets their media from it and can't see a good reason to leave. I would hope that over the long term, we figure out public ownership of social media, and enshrine control and understanding of the systems that bring you information as an important right.

forgottenpass 10y ago
Social networks pose a really interesting problem to the usual capitalist model I wouldn't call the network effect so much a "really interesting problem" but more like "one of the many well known failure modes in the fantasy that market effects lead to the 'best' outcomes for any definition of 'best' that isn't tautologically defined as whatever market effects cause to happen."

vivekd 10y ago

I understand that facebook is free to decide what content it hosts. But I think deleting a post by the prime minister of Norway is extremely disrespectful to the people of Norway. I am shocked by their behaviour and won't be using their service until they apologize.

castratikron 10y ago

It's similar to having the right to assemble peacefully in pseudo-public spaces like malls. But I would say the argument for freedom of speech on someone else's website is weaker than that; it's easy to just go to another website and say something there instead. Well, at least it's easy today. If Facebook succeeds at establishing a Facebook-only internet in parts of the world like India and Africa, then you might have a real reason to enforce that freedom, since those users wouldn't have any other choice.

droopybuns 10y ago

It is not the only garden though. I use Path with my family for photo sharing. Everything else gets put on my blog. I find Facebook usage to be a tell for personal insecurity. It's ok- everyone is insecure in their teens. But when you get past 35, if you are still a heavy Facebook user, it indicates personal problems.

rndgermandude 10y ago

We regulate lots of things already to stop private entities from roaming free and against the interest of the general population. So just playing the "but it's their walled garden" card does not cut it for me. For me the question is whether facebook has a significant influence on the population or not. I think they already do when it comes to News, more so than traditional news organizations even. On top of that, they claim to provide an open space for exchange and even discussion. Personally, I'd therefore like to see facebook being regulated to the point where they cannot simply refuse "service" to people of certain completely legal opinions discussing legal topics, same as they and other businesses should not be allowed to refuse service for certain classes of people.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Instead of meddling in the extant gardens, we should make it simple for people to move to one with better rules. The current state of copyright and tech access law makes that inordinately difficult. If we update these laws, it will be much simpler for competitors to challenge the lumbering incumbents like Facebook and Twitter, and then it won't matter so much what Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey want to allow or disallow. The free exchange format the internet offered is threatened by walled gardens becoming the home of 99% of online activity. Even something like Google struggles in light of this, since they aren't allowed to get in and make intelligent calculations about the popularity of online resources (which used to be roughly determinable by links mined out from the open internet). We are in trouble here.

MildlySerious 10y ago

My question is, is there an actual conflict of interest between the two? (In this specific case) I would think that getting denounced by the public would also be bad for said bottom line. Wouldn't it be in Facebooks best interest to cater to the public as much as possible?

dredmorbius 10y ago

"Freedom of expression" isn't specific to government-protected or limitations on government-censorship actions. It's a general principle. It's also not generally protected. Specific legal structures protecting speech rights are government grants, within those legal constructs. The legal doctrine of the US First Amendment free speech tradition is that it is a broad, but not absolute, limit on government prior suppression of speech rights. It specifically doesn't apply to private individual or corporate limitations on speech. The history of free speech protections in the US is complex and surprisingly recent. It wasn't until 1919 that Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court dissent laid the basis for what would become seen as a very broad free-speech protection. Note that as a dissent, his views didn't carry at the time. It wasn't until further cases in the 1930s and 1960s that the present regime of protected speech -- protected from government interference -- fully came into being in the US. See: http://www.worldcat.org/title/great-dissent-how-oliver-wendell-holmes-changed-his-mind-and-changed-the-history-of-free-speech-in-america/oclc/811597495 http://www.worldcat.org/title/great-dissent-how-oliver-wende...