3 ms·

Why? Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other

by bena 8y ago

Why? Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? I'll give you that a corporation with the goal of providing accurate information to people should have a higher standard of publishing information that is correct. But if, say, Heinz, wanted to say that people in China can't drive or that the Holocaust is a fiction, why is it the company's responsibility to get that right? Their responsibility is baked beans and ketchup. Like lmm, this article made me more sympathetic to Facebook. And that the NYT is sort of glossing over things. I'd like to hear their policy on "fake news" and all that. I applaud Facebook for defending InfoWars in this instance even though they disagree with them. I applaud Facebook for defending Holocaust deniers even though they disagree with them. It is the absolute hardest thing in the world to defend the worst when they've done nothing wrong. We glorify people who say things like "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". But when it comes time to actually put that sentiment into action, we waffle. Only allowing speech we agree with is not allowing speech to be free. Freedom must include the freedom to be stupid or it is no freedom at all.

pwned1 8y ago
My downvoted to hell comment below is meant to point this out. I've been noticing large media companies, like NYT and even a New Yorker article I read this morning, subtly advocating in favor or limits on free speech, as though they (or people they agree with) should be arbiters of truth and virtue. The parent article even expands the idea of articles that should be banned into the realm of "conspiracy theories." To say that the article is simply reporting on the issue is false. There's a clear bias in the language of the article in favor of suppressing unpopular speech.
atomical 8y ago
> Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? Their goal isn't to connect people. That sounds like something Zuckerberg would say. Their goal is to make money from their users data. Facebook is responsible because they have algorithms which show and hide items in the news feed. If they merely showed what was posted without any sophisticated algorithms I think they could claim some innocence. Facebook doesn't care about freedom. They care about not pissing off their conservative user base and losing them to other sites, like Gab, or perhaps Chinese clones that Zuckerberg is worried about.

by bena 8y ago

pwned1 8y ago

My downvoted to hell comment below is meant to point this out. I've been noticing large media companies, like NYT and even a New Yorker article I read this morning, subtly advocating in favor or limits on free speech, as though they (or people they agree with) should be arbiters of truth and virtue. The parent article even expands the idea of articles that should be banned into the realm of "conspiracy theories." To say that the article is simply reporting on the issue is false. There's a clear bias in the language of the article in favor of suppressing unpopular speech.

atomical 8y ago

> Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? Their goal isn't to connect people. That sounds like something Zuckerberg would say. Their goal is to make money from their users data. Facebook is responsible because they have algorithms which show and hide items in the news feed. If they merely showed what was posted without any sophisticated algorithms I think they could claim some innocence. Facebook doesn't care about freedom. They care about not pissing off their conservative user base and losing them to other sites, like Gab, or perhaps Chinese clones that Zuckerberg is worried about.