7 ms·

Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and

by kinkdr 10y ago

Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules. If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.

larsiusprime 10y ago
The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-means-of-communication/ http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...
- pixl97 10y ago
  In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
  - kinkdr 10y ago
    It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
    - pixl97 10y ago
      People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
      - wiz21 10y ago
        They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
    - wiz21 10y ago
      100% agree with you. If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB. And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.
BlackFly 10y ago
Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American. Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color. The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no longer strictly speaking a "private" organization: you open yourself up to be regulated by the governments of those people you invite into your service. When you operate what can be argued is very close to a natural monopoly, you have even more duties.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems. A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    No, a better solution is regulation. A personal solution that can be put into action immediately is switching to an open alternative.
    - RaleyField 10y ago
      Unless it's a bad regulation and you a left without a choice because everyone is regulated.
    - aikah 10y ago
      Companies shouldn't be regulated for their speech or censorship policies. Enough with regulations. If you disagree with Facebook policies stop using it and use a competing service. Period. Enough with entitlement.
    - iThrowA1 10y ago
      We censor censorship cause censorship is bad
  - deleted 10y ago
wslh 10y ago
Currently, there are no alternatives to Facebook. Is your mother using Diaspora? Full stop.
RottenHuman 10y ago
That might be true, but imagine you phone company or E-Mail provider is ploughing through the content of your messages or even actively filtering your phone calls and is deciding what you can communicate and assumes control over whom you are able to reach. It might be perfectly legal, you still would not want that to happen and people expressing their concerns should never be shrugged off with the simplistic attitude of "but they are allowed to do that". A lot of things which are allowed for a company is still not the right thing and should be called out.
FabHK 10y ago
That (essentially libertarian) defence doesn't hold a lot of water. Even an American COMPANY is subject to rules, which in turn are designed/evolved to satisfy objectives - they're not immutable natural law. Even Milton Friedman conceded that government intervention was justified in the case of externalities or natural monopolies. Social networks are, by virtue of the network effect, arguably natural monopolies, and in that sense, could be considered a utility. As such, they might have to be regulated more tightly than ordinary small companies.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  I was not trying to defend FB, but rather suggest that people should use open alternatives, as problems like this will always be there with FB. PS: I just meant to put emphasis on the company, not shout.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Ah ok, fully agree on that people should explore alternatives... (I'm trying to get people on Signal and Wire, instead of Skype/Whatsapp/FacebookMessenger/Viber/...) As someone has highlighted above, though - there is the coordination problem, that everyone (or at least most people) would have to migrate. (But then - it's happened: Friendster, orkut, ...)
- RaleyField 10y ago
  It's not like you can't run two social networks concurrently. That's how Facebook replaced its competition, they weren't the first one. And thus far having Facebook account is not really a necessity so why should government intervene?
- wiz21 10y ago
  So I guess censorship is not something American companies are forced to avoid. They can use it if they wish (newspapers don't show all the information they haven they regularly hides some of it)
freshflowers 10y ago
Since when is it normal for a mainstream COMPANY (since you feel it's worth shouting about this must be the crux of your argument) to interfere with how people use its products based on fundamentalist ideologies? It's not something people should expect the happen, and in most civilized countries, we protect consumers against such unreasonable interference. Because we live in actual democracies, not in someones libertarian wet dream. If Facebook promoted itself as the platform for Christian fundamentalist conservatives, fine. At least that would be honest, and give people a clear choice up front.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  Apologies for the shouting, I just wanted to put emphasis on the company. Maybe asterisks would have been more appropriate. I think I didn't put my point across very well, I by no means meant to defend FB. My point was really that problems like this will always arise when the people give so much power to a single company. Hence my suggestion to switch to an open alternative.

by kinkdr 10y ago

larsiusprime 10y ago

The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-means-of-communication/ http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...

pixl97 10y ago
In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
  - pixl97 10y ago
    People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
    - wiz21 10y ago
      They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
  - wiz21 10y ago
    100% agree with you. If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB. And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.

BlackFly 10y ago

Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American. Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color. The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no longer strictly speaking a "private" organization: you open yourself up to be regulated by the governments of those people you invite into your service. When you operate what can be argued is very close to a natural monopoly, you have even more duties.

kinkdr 10y ago
Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems. A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  No, a better solution is regulation. A personal solution that can be put into action immediately is switching to an open alternative.
  - RaleyField 10y ago
    Unless it's a bad regulation and you a left without a choice because everyone is regulated.
  - aikah 10y ago
    Companies shouldn't be regulated for their speech or censorship policies. Enough with regulations. If you disagree with Facebook policies stop using it and use a competing service. Period. Enough with entitlement.
  - iThrowA1 10y ago
    We censor censorship cause censorship is bad
- deleted 10y ago

wslh 10y ago

Currently, there are no alternatives to Facebook. Is your mother using Diaspora? Full stop.

RottenHuman 10y ago

That might be true, but imagine you phone company or E-Mail provider is ploughing through the content of your messages or even actively filtering your phone calls and is deciding what you can communicate and assumes control over whom you are able to reach. It might be perfectly legal, you still would not want that to happen and people expressing their concerns should never be shrugged off with the simplistic attitude of "but they are allowed to do that". A lot of things which are allowed for a company is still not the right thing and should be called out.

FabHK 10y ago

That (essentially libertarian) defence doesn't hold a lot of water. Even an American COMPANY is subject to rules, which in turn are designed/evolved to satisfy objectives - they're not immutable natural law. Even Milton Friedman conceded that government intervention was justified in the case of externalities or natural monopolies. Social networks are, by virtue of the network effect, arguably natural monopolies, and in that sense, could be considered a utility. As such, they might have to be regulated more tightly than ordinary small companies.

kinkdr 10y ago
I was not trying to defend FB, but rather suggest that people should use open alternatives, as problems like this will always be there with FB. PS: I just meant to put emphasis on the company, not shout.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Ah ok, fully agree on that people should explore alternatives... (I'm trying to get people on Signal and Wire, instead of Skype/Whatsapp/FacebookMessenger/Viber/...) As someone has highlighted above, though - there is the coordination problem, that everyone (or at least most people) would have to migrate. (But then - it's happened: Friendster, orkut, ...)
RaleyField 10y ago
It's not like you can't run two social networks concurrently. That's how Facebook replaced its competition, they weren't the first one. And thus far having Facebook account is not really a necessity so why should government intervene?
wiz21 10y ago
So I guess censorship is not something American companies are forced to avoid. They can use it if they wish (newspapers don't show all the information they haven they regularly hides some of it)

freshflowers 10y ago

Since when is it normal for a mainstream COMPANY (since you feel it's worth shouting about this must be the crux of your argument) to interfere with how people use its products based on fundamentalist ideologies? It's not something people should expect the happen, and in most civilized countries, we protect consumers against such unreasonable interference. Because we live in actual democracies, not in someones libertarian wet dream. If Facebook promoted itself as the platform for Christian fundamentalist conservatives, fine. At least that would be honest, and give people a clear choice up front.

kinkdr 10y ago
Apologies for the shouting, I just wanted to put emphasis on the company. Maybe asterisks would have been more appropriate. I think I didn't put my point across very well, I by no means meant to defend FB. My point was really that problems like this will always arise when the people give so much power to a single company. Hence my suggestion to switch to an open alternative.