6 ms·

Censorship is wrong, it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Totally unbiased? Correct, that's impossible. Unbiased enough to approximately block calls for violence from all sides? That's realistically possible.
- spork12 8y ago
  What do you define as "unbiased enough"?
- stale2002 8y ago
  Explicit calls to violence are already against the law. We have good laws that cover these situations already.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Sure, if you call for violence on FB, they can arrest you after the violence has already been triggered. That's good, if it keeps you from being able to do it again. It's better to keep it from happening the first time, though.
    - spork12 8y ago
      "after the violence has already been triggered" no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.
        stale2002 8y ago
        What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
        LMYahooTFY 8y ago
        The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  They don't say they are blocking calls to violence. They say they are going to block anything could that lead to violence, which could be anything. Anything that could potentially get anyone angry about anything could theoretically "lead to" violence as a result - that's what makes this policy so absurd.
pcunite 8y ago
Exactly, FB is book burning. If they want to stop organization on their platform that is one thing, but to stamp out opinions is something else.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Exactly, FB is book burning. No, FB is (to continue the use of book-centered metaphors) choosing not to distribute certain books through its book distribution network.
martin1975 8y ago
1+1=2 is allegedly an unbiased both fact and opinion.
- spork12 8y ago
  Not in another universe within the multiverse which may or may not exist. If there are an infinite number of universes a universe must exist where 1+1 is anything you would like it to be. "The Idiocracy Universe"
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Censorship is wrong Censorship of one's own platform is a central element of free speech. > it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion. That's true, but doesn't support the preceding claim.
- spork12 8y ago
  True, "censorship is wrong" is my own personal opinion, and I agree with you in that censorship of your own platform is practicing free speech.
- LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  The debate again, goes to the platform and a determination as to whether or not they've become something of a "common carrier". ISPs can make the same argument against Net Neutrality.

Totally unbiased? Correct, that's impossible. Unbiased enough to approximately block calls for violence from all sides? That's realistically possible.

spork12 8y ago
What do you define as "unbiased enough"?
stale2002 8y ago
Explicit calls to violence are already against the law. We have good laws that cover these situations already.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Sure, if you call for violence on FB, they can arrest you after the violence has already been triggered. That's good, if it keeps you from being able to do it again. It's better to keep it from happening the first time, though.
  - spork12 8y ago
    "after the violence has already been triggered" no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      I think you miss my point. I make a post on FB calling for all right-thinking citizens to beat up spork12. I get arrested after the post has been made on FB, and after it has been read by too many people. Sure, I've been arrested. But you can't make people un-read it. How many people read it and think I was right, and will try to put my suggestion into action? Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        What you described is a good theoretical example of an explicit call to violence, and nobody would have any problem with illegal speech such as that being removed. In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing. There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Sure, but you're arguing a [edit: different] aspect of this than spork12 was. To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one. Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
        LMYahooTFY 8y ago
        The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The problem still remains that you're ceding authority to a private body to determine a threshold of "potential for violence". No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
They don't say they are blocking calls to violence. They say they are going to block anything could that lead to violence, which could be anything. Anything that could potentially get anyone angry about anything could theoretically "lead to" violence as a result - that's what makes this policy so absurd.

pcunite 8y ago

Exactly, FB is book burning. If they want to stop organization on their platform that is one thing, but to stamp out opinions is something else.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Exactly, FB is book burning. No, FB is (to continue the use of book-centered metaphors) choosing not to distribute certain books through its book distribution network.

martin1975 8y ago

1+1=2 is allegedly an unbiased both fact and opinion.

spork12 8y ago
Not in another universe within the multiverse which may or may not exist. If there are an infinite number of universes a universe must exist where 1+1 is anything you would like it to be. "The Idiocracy Universe"

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Censorship is wrong Censorship of one's own platform is a central element of free speech. > it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion. That's true, but doesn't support the preceding claim.

spork12 8y ago
True, "censorship is wrong" is my own personal opinion, and I agree with you in that censorship of your own platform is practicing free speech.
LMYahooTFY 8y ago
The debate again, goes to the platform and a determination as to whether or not they've become something of a "common carrier". ISPs can make the same argument against Net Neutrality.