4 ms·

I think the concern here is that it was private.

bjl 9y ago
Nothing on FB is private, which these kids just learned the hard way. Can't say I feel too bad for them given the content of their posts.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Kind of scary that nothing on facebook is ever private. High school or parents should start teaching kids about online privacy...and financial literacy. FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private. However some people bring jokes from 4chan and b/ into the workplace. High school and college students probably have a harder time drawing the line between facebook and the classroom.
  - bjl 9y ago
    >FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private. They were allowed to post it, nothing stopped them. Its just that after they did Harvard made the (IMO reasonable) decision to revoke their acceptance.
pc86 9y ago
Why? People are totally within their rights to share these things in public or in private. Private institutions, including Harvard, are totally within their rights to rescind admissions offers because of it.
- weberc2 9y ago
  And private individuals are well within their rights to point out that Harvard's actions are inconsistent with their purported values of free speech.
  - pc86 9y ago
    Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And from a legal perspective free speech just means the government can't punish you for protected speech. Individuals and entities are free to discriminate based on your protected speech all they want.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.
      - YCode 9y ago
        It is somewhat hypocritical. Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit: > We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear. Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy: > the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,” One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox. [1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-2017-free-speech-ed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...
        weberc2 9y ago
        I assumed all along that the reason for their unacceptance was the "speech which displays a lack of maturity", but this is also inconsistent with the value of free speech. Even though their official view on free speech might be deliberately vague, this doesn't seem to be the attitude displayed by the Harvard community who (in my observation) have taken a more traditional and Berkeleyan philosophy. Even if Harvard's action isn't hypocritical, it's still permissible and reasonable to criticize them for behaving in a manner incongruent with the value of free speech, even though they believe restricted speech is free speech.
chc 9y ago
Wasn't this stuff posted on a general group page for that year's Harvard students? That doesn't exactly sound like a private gathering where the school has no interest.
Pharylon 9y ago
So? If the University caught them saying the same thing in a "private" real life conversationthey'd be kicked too. Putting hate speech in the internet doesn't make it magically more private.
YCode 9y ago
Forcing new members to post obscene content to the main chat I think was their damnable offense here. Both the main and offshoot were technically private chats, but the people in the main chat didn't sign up for that kind of behavior. It's the difference between playing Cards Against Humanity with a few people and walking around school telling other students your most obscene card combos as jokes.
wyldfire 9y ago
"Private" seems to have a very different meaning in 2017 from what it did in 1987, e.g. I think that people are mistaken when they believe that they can have private electronic conversations. Even in-person conversations are mildly suspect. If you're a part of a social media group where you don't know every single person in the group, or you are not certain whether newly invited members of the group can see old messages, you should assume this content will get published by a news agency. "How would it look to my boss, my parents and all my friends and family if they were to read what I'm about to write?" We can mull about technical solutions to this problem and social solutions too. But as frustrating as it is, I believe that this is a net benefit to society. We've rooted out a lot of corrupt individuals with this same sea of audio/video sensors. We must now adjust to the reality that our electronic conversations have a very high likelihood of being leaked.
wvenable 9y ago
If it was really private, the school wouldn't have heard about it and this would never have happened. If I call you names in private, and someone tells you, you'd be well within your right to be upset about it.
DanBC 9y ago
It wasn't just private. > The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group.

bjl 9y ago

Nothing on FB is private, which these kids just learned the hard way. Can't say I feel too bad for them given the content of their posts.

kelukelugames 9y ago
Kind of scary that nothing on facebook is ever private. High school or parents should start teaching kids about online privacy...and financial literacy. FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private. However some people bring jokes from 4chan and b/ into the workplace. High school and college students probably have a harder time drawing the line between facebook and the classroom.
- bjl 9y ago
  >FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private. They were allowed to post it, nothing stopped them. Its just that after they did Harvard made the (IMO reasonable) decision to revoke their acceptance.

pc86 9y ago

Why? People are totally within their rights to share these things in public or in private. Private institutions, including Harvard, are totally within their rights to rescind admissions offers because of it.

weberc2 9y ago
And private individuals are well within their rights to point out that Harvard's actions are inconsistent with their purported values of free speech.
- pc86 9y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And from a legal perspective free speech just means the government can't punish you for protected speech. Individuals and entities are free to discriminate based on your protected speech all they want.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.
    - YCode 9y ago
      It is somewhat hypocritical. Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit: > We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear. Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy: > the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,” One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox. [1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-2017-free-speech-ed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...
      - weberc2 9y ago
        I assumed all along that the reason for their unacceptance was the "speech which displays a lack of maturity", but this is also inconsistent with the value of free speech. Even though their official view on free speech might be deliberately vague, this doesn't seem to be the attitude displayed by the Harvard community who (in my observation) have taken a more traditional and Berkeleyan philosophy. Even if Harvard's action isn't hypocritical, it's still permissible and reasonable to criticize them for behaving in a manner incongruent with the value of free speech, even though they believe restricted speech is free speech.

chc 9y ago

Wasn't this stuff posted on a general group page for that year's Harvard students? That doesn't exactly sound like a private gathering where the school has no interest.

Pharylon 9y ago

So? If the University caught them saying the same thing in a "private" real life conversationthey'd be kicked too. Putting hate speech in the internet doesn't make it magically more private.

YCode 9y ago

Forcing new members to post obscene content to the main chat I think was their damnable offense here. Both the main and offshoot were technically private chats, but the people in the main chat didn't sign up for that kind of behavior. It's the difference between playing Cards Against Humanity with a few people and walking around school telling other students your most obscene card combos as jokes.

wyldfire 9y ago

"Private" seems to have a very different meaning in 2017 from what it did in 1987, e.g. I think that people are mistaken when they believe that they can have private electronic conversations. Even in-person conversations are mildly suspect. If you're a part of a social media group where you don't know every single person in the group, or you are not certain whether newly invited members of the group can see old messages, you should assume this content will get published by a news agency. "How would it look to my boss, my parents and all my friends and family if they were to read what I'm about to write?" We can mull about technical solutions to this problem and social solutions too. But as frustrating as it is, I believe that this is a net benefit to society. We've rooted out a lot of corrupt individuals with this same sea of audio/video sensors. We must now adjust to the reality that our electronic conversations have a very high likelihood of being leaked.

wvenable 9y ago

If it was really private, the school wouldn't have heard about it and this would never have happened. If I call you names in private, and someone tells you, you'd be well within your right to be upset about it.

DanBC 9y ago

It wasn't just private. > The founders of the messaging group demanded that students post provocative memes in the main group chat to gain admittance to the smaller group.