4 ms·

Censorship isn’t a bad thing if it isn’t a government doing it. Facebook has no power to tell you what is or isn’t appropriate to write on your blog, they can’t

by cirgue 8y ago

Censorship isn’t a bad thing if it isn’t a government doing it. Facebook has no power to tell you what is or isn’t appropriate to write on your blog, they can’t stop you from writing a book or from publishing an article via any other medium that isn’t their platform. You have a right to say whatever the hell you want to, you don’t have any right to other people’s help in disseminating that point of view.

bjt2n3904 8y ago
You are correct, that no one can require Facebook to share their point of view. However, no one is claiming that right! (And certainly not me!) What I am saying, is that this quagmire the article references is a direct result of Facebook trying to decide what is "hate speech", and bad for society. It's best for them to not to try.
ravenstine 8y ago
It's bad for society if the media the people need to effectively express their first amendment rights is preventing them from doing so. In which case freedom of speech loses its meaning. Why even have it if businesses can take over the channels of communication and limit them for profit gains? What kind of principle is that to stand for?
- perl4ever 8y ago
  You're choosing to comment on HN, and compared to many forums, it has rather heavy handed restrictions on what's acceptable. That's something I (and presumably others) find appealing much of the time. Doesn't mean it's perfect, but that doesn't mean what it needs is more laissez faire. The thing I don't like about Facebook is not that it may restrict people acting badly, but that it shows you all the worst posts of people you know, in order to create engagement. What I would like is for all non-objectionable posts from my friends to appear in chronological order. Facebook's algorithms seem to have an emergent behavior in which they synthesize a toxic persona by selecting the posts which get the most reaction from everything a friend posts. Except when you go to a friend's page to see everything they posted recently, you get a very distorted view on your own feed. I don't think Facebook has come to terms with the monster they've created.
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    If HN was the equivalent of Facebook, or Google, or the phone company, I would agree with you. But it's nothing close to a de facto communication channel for personal and business use; it's an industry forum. Your expectation of Facebook is very unrealistic, at least for now, because who is to say what is and isn't objectionable? Although I can't really make much more of a comment than that since I just don't see that many toxic posts from friends on Facebook. If my friends were really that toxic, I'd probably not be friends with them or at least just block them. Facebook already supports a chronological feed. It just has to be turned on by the user, and it seems to untoggle itself after a while. But it's there, and that's what I tend to use. I otherwise just don't befriend toxic people, although I've blocked a few people who just post repetitive crap I don't agree with. Everyone has the tools to control their feed right in front of them, but they're not using them either because they don't know they're there or because they're afraid they'll miss that one meme post from their otherwise toxic friends.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      As far as I know, the chronological setting has to be reset every time. As far as blaming people for the toxicity of what appears, I don't think that's right. Salt is toxic in large quantities, essential in small amounts. Systematically placing it in wounds adds a whole new dimension. Context has a huge effect on the meaning of events. Suppose someone made a video of dozens of brief instances where you were at your worst, and sent it to everyone you know. That would not be the truth about who you are, or your fault. Selecting one of 10 or 100 posts for how intense a reaction it gets, is creating a toxic narrative, and the emergent result of the algorithms is not to be blamed on the source of the data. Systematically manipulating the context of interactions with people is an incredibly destructive, harmful thing to do - traditionally, it's the bread and butter of tactical politics, but Facebook has brought it to ordinary people.
bena 8y ago
I'd say that not all censorship is technically bad. If I start a forum for discussing a particular subject, then disallowing discussion of other subjects is technically censorship but not bad per se, because it keeps the focus of the forum where it should be.

by cirgue 8y ago

bjt2n3904 8y ago

You are correct, that no one can require Facebook to share their point of view. However, no one is claiming that right! (And certainly not me!) What I am saying, is that this quagmire the article references is a direct result of Facebook trying to decide what is "hate speech", and bad for society. It's best for them to not to try.

ravenstine 8y ago

It's bad for society if the media the people need to effectively express their first amendment rights is preventing them from doing so. In which case freedom of speech loses its meaning. Why even have it if businesses can take over the channels of communication and limit them for profit gains? What kind of principle is that to stand for?

perl4ever 8y ago
You're choosing to comment on HN, and compared to many forums, it has rather heavy handed restrictions on what's acceptable. That's something I (and presumably others) find appealing much of the time. Doesn't mean it's perfect, but that doesn't mean what it needs is more laissez faire. The thing I don't like about Facebook is not that it may restrict people acting badly, but that it shows you all the worst posts of people you know, in order to create engagement. What I would like is for all non-objectionable posts from my friends to appear in chronological order. Facebook's algorithms seem to have an emergent behavior in which they synthesize a toxic persona by selecting the posts which get the most reaction from everything a friend posts. Except when you go to a friend's page to see everything they posted recently, you get a very distorted view on your own feed. I don't think Facebook has come to terms with the monster they've created.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  If HN was the equivalent of Facebook, or Google, or the phone company, I would agree with you. But it's nothing close to a de facto communication channel for personal and business use; it's an industry forum. Your expectation of Facebook is very unrealistic, at least for now, because who is to say what is and isn't objectionable? Although I can't really make much more of a comment than that since I just don't see that many toxic posts from friends on Facebook. If my friends were really that toxic, I'd probably not be friends with them or at least just block them. Facebook already supports a chronological feed. It just has to be turned on by the user, and it seems to untoggle itself after a while. But it's there, and that's what I tend to use. I otherwise just don't befriend toxic people, although I've blocked a few people who just post repetitive crap I don't agree with. Everyone has the tools to control their feed right in front of them, but they're not using them either because they don't know they're there or because they're afraid they'll miss that one meme post from their otherwise toxic friends.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    As far as I know, the chronological setting has to be reset every time. As far as blaming people for the toxicity of what appears, I don't think that's right. Salt is toxic in large quantities, essential in small amounts. Systematically placing it in wounds adds a whole new dimension. Context has a huge effect on the meaning of events. Suppose someone made a video of dozens of brief instances where you were at your worst, and sent it to everyone you know. That would not be the truth about who you are, or your fault. Selecting one of 10 or 100 posts for how intense a reaction it gets, is creating a toxic narrative, and the emergent result of the algorithms is not to be blamed on the source of the data. Systematically manipulating the context of interactions with people is an incredibly destructive, harmful thing to do - traditionally, it's the bread and butter of tactical politics, but Facebook has brought it to ordinary people.

bena 8y ago

I'd say that not all censorship is technically bad. If I start a forum for discussing a particular subject, then disallowing discussion of other subjects is technically censorship but not bad per se, because it keeps the focus of the forum where it should be.