6 ms·

If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. I don't agree with Facebook's p

If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. I don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.

sp332 10y ago
I don't think this is a given. When Facebook is many people's main communications platform and source of news, censoring Facebook is, effectively, censoring communication and news. Since they have such power to affect our societies, they should have some obligations.
- electic 10y ago
  Disagree. It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy. As suggested, you can use something else that lines up with what you believe and frankly, if a lot more people do that, there will be another viable rival to Facebook. Vote with your clicks.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    "It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy" I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
    - electic 10y ago
      I think you nailed it right there. People have not hit those "limits" and are okay with what they see on the platform. Since there is no decent, the people are OK with Facebook's handling of cleaning content.
      - sp332 10y ago
        [Assuming you mean "dissent".] I see plenty of complaining about what Facebook doesn't allow... like the article we're referring to for example. I even see some on Facebook, especially about the breastfeeding policy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorsh...
  - sp332 10y ago
    There are consumer protection laws that prevent companies from abusing their customers even through "agreements". http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/
    - electic 10y ago
      This has nothing to do with what the OP said. The discussion is about what is allowed on FB and what is not allowed on FB. The article you linked to is talking about data collection policies.
- shiftpgdn 10y ago
  Exactly! The more people that leave the platform for somewhere else the less control that Facebook has over communications. Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
- az0xff 10y ago
  It will be interesting to see how this fact will come up in legislative discussions. Has it happened before -- that so many people ended up relying on a single corporations that the corporation needed to take on special obligations?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jimmytidey 10y ago
  I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible. With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness). I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly. This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK). Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so. (Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
  - austinheap 10y ago
    You can download an archive of your Facebook data already. What "real APIs" would you like the government to "compel" this private corporation to add?
    - sp332 10y ago
      You can't download most of the data facebook collects about you. This guy tried, and it was a legal battle. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook "The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
    - jimmytidey 10y ago
      By real APIs I mean ones with sufficient durability and access to data to allow third parties to provide innovative products based on them. The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it. At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy. I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
flurdy 10y ago
Facebook are free to do as they please within the law. And people are free to complain about it within the law. Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
- msl09 10y ago
  >Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw). Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though. Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities. If I really care, I call.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Lacking a "public" internet, users are always going to have their expression beholden to the standards of some private entity. Even if you self-host, your ISP reserves the right to define their own idea of "abuse". Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere. The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.
z4chj 10y ago
> If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Why not just tell users that Facebook does not endorse or condone any specific user content? No one blames Verizon if someone uses a racist insult on the phone...there is precedent for users grasping how a common carrier works. Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I see this comment a lot. Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does. It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that. And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
- MBCook 10y ago
  > But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
  - raarts 10y ago
    People did not leave MySpace because they were annoyed, but because something better came along that didn't annoy them as much.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I know some people were annoyed at how bad the usability/design was as people customized things. But people have left other services because they didn't like the changes that the site decided to make. Digg is a very obvious example.
ashwinaj 10y ago
Totally agree! I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  >I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'. Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed. Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? Which were equally bullshit.
danjoc 10y ago
>If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies. >Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren. [1]http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/ http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/
- briandear 10y ago
  Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook. Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace. You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking. How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one. Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
  - danjoc 10y ago
    >Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court. >Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence. >There's no patent on social networking. This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
UweSchmidt 10y ago
Disagree. Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply. I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
soufron 10y ago
You could say the same for TV or Newspaper. Still, they have obligations. People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.

sp332 10y ago

I don't think this is a given. When Facebook is many people's main communications platform and source of news, censoring Facebook is, effectively, censoring communication and news. Since they have such power to affect our societies, they should have some obligations.

electic 10y ago
Disagree. It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy. As suggested, you can use something else that lines up with what you believe and frankly, if a lot more people do that, there will be another viable rival to Facebook. Vote with your clicks.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy" I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
  - electic 10y ago
    I think you nailed it right there. People have not hit those "limits" and are okay with what they see on the platform. Since there is no decent, the people are OK with Facebook's handling of cleaning content.
    - sp332 10y ago
      [Assuming you mean "dissent".] I see plenty of complaining about what Facebook doesn't allow... like the article we're referring to for example. I even see some on Facebook, especially about the breastfeeding policy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorsh...
- sp332 10y ago
  There are consumer protection laws that prevent companies from abusing their customers even through "agreements". http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/facebook-germany-antitrust/
  - electic 10y ago
    This has nothing to do with what the OP said. The discussion is about what is allowed on FB and what is not allowed on FB. The article you linked to is talking about data collection policies.
shiftpgdn 10y ago
Exactly! The more people that leave the platform for somewhere else the less control that Facebook has over communications. Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
az0xff 10y ago
It will be interesting to see how this fact will come up in legislative discussions. Has it happened before -- that so many people ended up relying on a single corporations that the corporation needed to take on special obligations?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jimmytidey 10y ago
I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible. With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness). I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly. This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK). Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so. (Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
- austinheap 10y ago
  You can download an archive of your Facebook data already. What "real APIs" would you like the government to "compel" this private corporation to add?
  - sp332 10y ago
    You can't download most of the data facebook collects about you. This guy tried, and it was a legal battle. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-versus-facebook "The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
  - jimmytidey 10y ago
    By real APIs I mean ones with sufficient durability and access to data to allow third parties to provide innovative products based on them. The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it. At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy. I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.

flurdy 10y ago

Facebook are free to do as they please within the law. And people are free to complain about it within the law. Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.

msl09 10y ago
>Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion). I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw). Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though. Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities. If I really care, I call.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

Lacking a "public" internet, users are always going to have their expression beholden to the standards of some private entity. Even if you self-host, your ISP reserves the right to define their own idea of "abuse". Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere. The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.

z4chj 10y ago

> If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Why not just tell users that Facebook does not endorse or condone any specific user content? No one blames Verizon if someone uses a racist insult on the phone...there is precedent for users grasping how a common carrier works. Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I see this comment a lot. Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does. It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that. And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?

MBCook 10y ago
> But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
- raarts 10y ago
  People did not leave MySpace because they were annoyed, but because something better came along that didn't annoy them as much.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    I know some people were annoyed at how bad the usability/design was as people customized things. But people have left other services because they didn't like the changes that the site decided to make. Digg is a very obvious example.

ashwinaj 10y ago

Totally agree! I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.

RandomOpinion 10y ago
>I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'. Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed. Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? Which were equally bullshit.

danjoc 10y ago

>If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies. >Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren. [1]http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/ http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/

briandear 10y ago
Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook. Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace. You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking. How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one. Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
- danjoc 10y ago
  >Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court. >Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence. >There's no patent on social networking. This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
  - Dylan16807 10y ago

UweSchmidt 10y ago

Disagree. Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply. I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.

soufron 10y ago

You could say the same for TV or Newspaper. Still, they have obligations. People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.