4 ms·

This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just blo

This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just block it. On the other hand if they do moderation people complain about censorship. There is no actual way for them to win here

shallot_router 9y ago
Yep. People complain about the "adpocalypse" and censorship from YouTube and Facebook, but they're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. That said, I think they should always err on the side of free speech wherever possible.
pjc50 9y ago
If they go completely free speech then nobody will be able to read anything over all the spam, and the servers will be confiscated for possession of child porn in a few days.
- watty 9y ago
  I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I'm not sure, a lot of people seem to want speech free beyond even American norms. And "legal where?" is an important question.
rhizome 9y ago
They're already doing moderation, though: Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed.
- propogandabot 9y ago
  >Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed. This is a joke right? Try making the following groups on Facebook and see which is removed: White Power - Remove All Blacks Black Power - Remove All Whites There's a reason it's this way, mostly a valid one depending on how libertarian you lean re: freedom of speech, but your representation is just ridiculous. White people aren't evil, get over it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- timthelion 9y ago
  It has gotten to the point where an American anarchist writing that they want to travel to Yemen to fight imperialism is considered a terrorist and censored, but a white supremacist person saying we should "shoot all those monkeys in St. Lewis" is considered sacred free speech.
fleitz 9y ago
There's lots of ways for them to win. For the most part people just complain, it's a couple cycles of bad PR and then a very large segment of the internet goes back to enjoying the walled garden.
musage 9y ago
We already have the complaints about censorship. What we don't have is sensible moderation.
snakeanus 9y ago
Which is why federated solutions like GNUSocial, NNTP or email win here as moderation can be applied per-node.
- syrrim 9y ago
  Facebook could do the same thing if they wanted. Have the default be heavily censored, have option to disable aspects of it as the user desires. I presume they don't because they don't consider it a catch 22. Having people cry censorship doesn't matter to them, whereas they think hordes would leave or be forced off by governments if they didn't moderate sufficiently.

shallot_router 9y ago

Yep. People complain about the "adpocalypse" and censorship from YouTube and Facebook, but they're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. That said, I think they should always err on the side of free speech wherever possible.

pjc50 9y ago

If they go completely free speech then nobody will be able to read anything over all the spam, and the servers will be confiscated for possession of child porn in a few days.

watty 9y ago
I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.
- pjc50 9y ago
  I'm not sure, a lot of people seem to want speech free beyond even American norms. And "legal where?" is an important question.

rhizome 9y ago

They're already doing moderation, though: Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed.

propogandabot 9y ago
>Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed. This is a joke right? Try making the following groups on Facebook and see which is removed: White Power - Remove All Blacks Black Power - Remove All Whites There's a reason it's this way, mostly a valid one depending on how libertarian you lean re: freedom of speech, but your representation is just ridiculous. White people aren't evil, get over it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
timthelion 9y ago
It has gotten to the point where an American anarchist writing that they want to travel to Yemen to fight imperialism is considered a terrorist and censored, but a white supremacist person saying we should "shoot all those monkeys in St. Lewis" is considered sacred free speech.

fleitz 9y ago

There's lots of ways for them to win. For the most part people just complain, it's a couple cycles of bad PR and then a very large segment of the internet goes back to enjoying the walled garden.

musage 9y ago

We already have the complaints about censorship. What we don't have is sensible moderation.

snakeanus 9y ago

Which is why federated solutions like GNUSocial, NNTP or email win here as moderation can be applied per-node.

syrrim 9y ago
Facebook could do the same thing if they wanted. Have the default be heavily censored, have option to disable aspects of it as the user desires. I presume they don't because they don't consider it a catch 22. Having people cry censorship doesn't matter to them, whereas they think hordes would leave or be forced off by governments if they didn't moderate sufficiently.