3 ms·

That’s a truism, boring to hear every time we discuss actions of companies, as if they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want. It’s also clearly irrelev

That’s a truism, boring to hear every time we discuss actions of companies, as if they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want. It’s also clearly irrelevant. We aren’t discussing what’s legal, but about what’s good for business, or about what’s moral. If I think facebook’s actions are immoral, I couldn’t give a fuck about Facebook’s internal priorities, shareholders or whatever.

paulie_a 9y ago
I agree with you but also I am more curious of the motivation for even doing anything. If anything it seems safer and easier to do nothing instead of taking action.
- bad_user 9y ago
  This wouldn't be the first time that Facebook censors content based on bullshit reasons. For example at one point they censored the famous "napalm girl" picture, saying that it's "difficult to create a distinction" between that one and pictures of nude children [1]. Well, then don't freaking censor pictures of nude children, it shouldn't be Facebook's job to police content, especially in the position that they are in. When it comes to censoring content, in most cases censorship is wrong. The only instances in which I tolerate censorship is hate speech, but even then I don't want Facebook to decide what is or isn't hate speech. Based on my experience of reporting posts and comments with textbook hate speech, I can tell you they are doing a pretty bad job. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-accused-abusing-power-napalm-girl-vietnam-war-image-a7233431.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mark-zuckerberg-fac...
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Why is it OK to censor "hate speech"?
    - bad_user 9y ago
      Because my country's Constitution grants free speech, while outlawing hate speech and libel in the same article [1]. You'll see this in the constitution of many European countries and whether that's good or not, that's a matter of debate. But what matters is that we are talking about the law and Facebook's censorship goes against the rights provided by my country's Constitution. Yes, they are a private entity and it's their property to do with it as they wish, but given their near monopoly on social media, at this point they should be punished for censoring content like this, just like how Google was fined for promoting their own services in search results. [1] http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2s0sba30 http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2s...
ryandrake 9y ago
"XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." is one of those thought terminating cliches that one uses when one wants to try to derail any discussion about corporate ethics and governance, stakeholders vs. shareholders, discrimination, abuse of customers, etc. It pretty much adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact detracts from it.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Not necessary. It's also to remind people that it's not a public service, and that they should not expect anything from it. You should not put anything important on FB, because "XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." and doesn't have your best interest at heart.
  - bad_user 9y ago
    > they should not expect anything from it Companies are actors in society, just like people and need to behave. First of all companies need to operate within the law of the countries they operate in; otherwise they can always GTFO. But even further than that, much like how people can be dicks and do damage within the boundaries of the law, companies can do that too and the most effective way to counteract that is to ... (1) criticize their actions, as a warning to others, we have free speech after all and (2) marginalize them, which in the case of companies basically means voting with your wallet, or eyeballs, depending on scenario I basically do not care about Facebook not being a public service de jure, when they are a de facto one because of their near monopoly, therefore I expect them to operate on different standards than companies that only have a couple of thousands users. And it's my right to have such expectations, regardless of their legal status.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      That's not what I mean. I agree with your point, I'm just saying that people tend to use company services like they can count on them. The reality is that they have an agenda, and they will do whatever they can get away with to follow their agenda, not yours. As such, and given our imperfect society, you should not expect anything from them and assume they will mess up. I'm not trying to exonerate them from responsibilities, nor saying we should not act to improve things. I just point out their nature and how we should take it in consideration in our decision process.
tehlike 9y ago
Is it though? "facebook should have done this, zuck should have done that, why would facebook do these". It clearly sounds irrelevant when you think facebook as a corporation, which is something people clearly forget.

paulie_a 9y ago

I agree with you but also I am more curious of the motivation for even doing anything. If anything it seems safer and easier to do nothing instead of taking action.

bad_user 9y ago
This wouldn't be the first time that Facebook censors content based on bullshit reasons. For example at one point they censored the famous "napalm girl" picture, saying that it's "difficult to create a distinction" between that one and pictures of nude children [1]. Well, then don't freaking censor pictures of nude children, it shouldn't be Facebook's job to police content, especially in the position that they are in. When it comes to censoring content, in most cases censorship is wrong. The only instances in which I tolerate censorship is hate speech, but even then I don't want Facebook to decide what is or isn't hate speech. Based on my experience of reporting posts and comments with textbook hate speech, I can tell you they are doing a pretty bad job. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-accused-abusing-power-napalm-girl-vietnam-war-image-a7233431.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mark-zuckerberg-fac...
- jstanley 9y ago
  Why is it OK to censor "hate speech"?
  - bad_user 9y ago
    Because my country's Constitution grants free speech, while outlawing hate speech and libel in the same article [1]. You'll see this in the constitution of many European countries and whether that's good or not, that's a matter of debate. But what matters is that we are talking about the law and Facebook's censorship goes against the rights provided by my country's Constitution. Yes, they are a private entity and it's their property to do with it as they wish, but given their near monopoly on social media, at this point they should be punished for censoring content like this, just like how Google was fined for promoting their own services in search results. [1] http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2s0sba30 http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2s...

ryandrake 9y ago

"XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." is one of those thought terminating cliches that one uses when one wants to try to derail any discussion about corporate ethics and governance, stakeholders vs. shareholders, discrimination, abuse of customers, etc. It pretty much adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact detracts from it.

sametmax 9y ago
Not necessary. It's also to remind people that it's not a public service, and that they should not expect anything from it. You should not put anything important on FB, because "XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." and doesn't have your best interest at heart.
- bad_user 9y ago
  > they should not expect anything from it Companies are actors in society, just like people and need to behave. First of all companies need to operate within the law of the countries they operate in; otherwise they can always GTFO. But even further than that, much like how people can be dicks and do damage within the boundaries of the law, companies can do that too and the most effective way to counteract that is to ... (1) criticize their actions, as a warning to others, we have free speech after all and (2) marginalize them, which in the case of companies basically means voting with your wallet, or eyeballs, depending on scenario I basically do not care about Facebook not being a public service de jure, when they are a de facto one because of their near monopoly, therefore I expect them to operate on different standards than companies that only have a couple of thousands users. And it's my right to have such expectations, regardless of their legal status.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    That's not what I mean. I agree with your point, I'm just saying that people tend to use company services like they can count on them. The reality is that they have an agenda, and they will do whatever they can get away with to follow their agenda, not yours. As such, and given our imperfect society, you should not expect anything from them and assume they will mess up. I'm not trying to exonerate them from responsibilities, nor saying we should not act to improve things. I just point out their nature and how we should take it in consideration in our decision process.

tehlike 9y ago

Is it though? "facebook should have done this, zuck should have done that, why would facebook do these". It clearly sounds irrelevant when you think facebook as a corporation, which is something people clearly forget.