4 ms·

First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly

First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.

komali2 10y ago
OOh, juicy controversial comment. I hope some people take the time to read it instead of passing over it because it's slightly greyed out. I for one don't agree that reddit and facebook have a "duty" to remain uncensored. If Breitbart is allowed to be overtly pro-Conservative while claiming to be the only "real" news source, reddit and facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. All the other news agencies do it, what makes facebook so special?
r2dnb 10y ago
>Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue. >This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country. Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening.
- morgante 10y ago
  > I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. They're not policing what you share with your friends, just what you can do on their platform. They are under no obligation to provide infinite reach for whatever drivel you want to share. If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, that bar has the right to kick you out if they feel like. It's their bar. If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else. There's even an alt-right social network you'll fit right in on. > The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. They're completely open about it. They've posted multiple stories about how they're addressing this, will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0] > Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. No, it does not. The Bill of Rights restrains what the government can do, it has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do. Do you also think Smith & Wesson should be required to provide free guns, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution? [0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/ http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/
  - r2dnb 10y ago
    >It has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do. My point was that we should pay attention as "citizens" because Freedom of Speech is / may be concerned. I wasn't trying to build a legal case with references accurate enough to be received by a judge. This is a about "Freedom of Speech" is the only thing I was trying to say. >If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else You're ignoring my point on the fact that FB is not a corporation like another. According to you Microsoft could have gotten away with : "People can use another OS" in the 90s, but this is not how things worked out. We need to respect law and understand why this kind of laws have been put in place. We paid a huge price before understandind why we needed them, repeating history will be expensive. I can understand your point, I hope you could understand mine too even if you disagree. Finally >Will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0] Thanks, this is interesting. Let's see how it turns out.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
DrScump 10y ago
This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Agreed. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want In the U.S., you do. "Real" media do it all the time. There are laws against making slanderous or libelous statements against individuals and entities, but every American has the right to say, "the moon landings were faked and greens are smarter than libertarians" if they want.
- morgante 10y ago
  You dropped the most important part of that quote: "to millions of people." You're free to go on any street corner and rant about the moon landings. Facebook just isn't under any obligation to give you a platform to reach millions of people with that.
  - DrScump 10y ago
    Even Facebook readers can post such things, and Facebook staff can remove it if they choose. Otherwise, you are seeking prior restraint. Typically, an individual lacks the reach to make statements visible to "millions" of Facebook feeds, unless they are celebrities.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Sure, but my point is that Facebook is no under obligation to allow you to post that stuff and is free to remove it whenever they feel. They could delete Breitbart's page tomorrow if they felt like it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.

komali2 10y ago

OOh, juicy controversial comment. I hope some people take the time to read it instead of passing over it because it's slightly greyed out. I for one don't agree that reddit and facebook have a "duty" to remain uncensored. If Breitbart is allowed to be overtly pro-Conservative while claiming to be the only "real" news source, reddit and facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. All the other news agencies do it, what makes facebook so special?

r2dnb 10y ago

>Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue. >This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country. Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening.

morgante 10y ago
> I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. They're not policing what you share with your friends, just what you can do on their platform. They are under no obligation to provide infinite reach for whatever drivel you want to share. If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, that bar has the right to kick you out if they feel like. It's their bar. If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else. There's even an alt-right social network you'll fit right in on. > The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. They're completely open about it. They've posted multiple stories about how they're addressing this, will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0] > Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. No, it does not. The Bill of Rights restrains what the government can do, it has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do. Do you also think Smith & Wesson should be required to provide free guns, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution? [0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/ http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/
- r2dnb 10y ago
  >It has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do. My point was that we should pay attention as "citizens" because Freedom of Speech is / may be concerned. I wasn't trying to build a legal case with references accurate enough to be received by a judge. This is a about "Freedom of Speech" is the only thing I was trying to say. >If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else You're ignoring my point on the fact that FB is not a corporation like another. According to you Microsoft could have gotten away with : "People can use another OS" in the 90s, but this is not how things worked out. We need to respect law and understand why this kind of laws have been put in place. We paid a huge price before understandind why we needed them, repeating history will be expensive. I can understand your point, I hope you could understand mine too even if you disagree. Finally >Will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0] Thanks, this is interesting. Let's see how it turns out.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

DrScump 10y ago

This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Agreed. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want In the U.S., you do. "Real" media do it all the time. There are laws against making slanderous or libelous statements against individuals and entities, but every American has the right to say, "the moon landings were faked and greens are smarter than libertarians" if they want.

morgante 10y ago
You dropped the most important part of that quote: "to millions of people." You're free to go on any street corner and rant about the moon landings. Facebook just isn't under any obligation to give you a platform to reach millions of people with that.
- DrScump 10y ago
  Even Facebook readers can post such things, and Facebook staff can remove it if they choose. Otherwise, you are seeking prior restraint. Typically, an individual lacks the reach to make statements visible to "millions" of Facebook feeds, unless they are celebrities.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Sure, but my point is that Facebook is no under obligation to allow you to post that stuff and is free to remove it whenever they feel. They could delete Breitbart's page tomorrow if they felt like it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.

dragonwriter 10y ago