4 ms·
... and therefore they should be the ones that decide the case?! I'm not sure I follow. Every large corporation makes money off people using their services for
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
... and therefore they should be the ones that decide the case?! I'm not sure I follow.
Every large corporation makes money off people using their services for illegal purposes, that's not exactly a reason to give them powers to decide legal cases against their customers, is it?
- vertex-four 9y agoActually... the most obvious case where large corporations make money off people using their services for illegal purposes - banks - require the bank to shut down the account if it appears the customer might be doing something dodgy. So there's definitely precedent.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoReally, that's not exactly true. Normally, they only have to report suspicious behaviour. Many banks also choose to close accounts that they perceive as risky, and that in some ways is similar to this case, and for the same reason equally problematic.
- thesimon 9y ago>powers to decide legal cases against their customers Facebook is free to do whatever they want on their platform. There are no legal cases involved.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoWhich is why noone said there was. This is what is known as an analogy.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago> It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. Your words.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoYes, thanks, but I am aware of the analogies I use. Are you actually confused about the fact that Facebook is not actually a court, and thus by definition whatever Facebook does is not actually a "criminal case", and that thus my point is not about whether or not what Facebook does would be referred to by a legal scholar as a "criminal case", but about whether it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case, in all respects except for exactly the detail that it is handled by Facebook and not by a court, which is exactly the problem that I am pointing out?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoI'm not confused about the fact that Facebook is not a court and does not have the ability to impose a criminal sentence, and the ensuing criminal record.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoOK, so what is unclear about my words then?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoNothing. I just don't agree that if "it quacks like a criminal case, it walks like a criminal case, therefore, it is a criminal case", because is handled by Facebook and not by a court. What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago> What's Facebook going to do? Fine you? Sentence you to Community Service? Send you to jail? Limit your ability to speak in public. > Maybe the crux of the matter is that I don't believe people have a constitutional right to be able to post to on Facebook. That is correct. But you have a constitutional right that the state does not prevent you from speaking in public (with relatively narrow exceptions), which includes the right that the state does not pressure/incentivise other people or corporations to limit your ability to speak in public. The fact that Facebook is allowed to prevent you from speaking does not mean that the state is allowed to tell them to stop you from speaking.
- icebraining 9y agoBut Facebook is not doing whatever they want - they are doing whatever they believe they need to do to avoid violating the law.