3 ms·

I understand how it works. Your protected free speech only relates to the Government in the USA. You are not guaranteed free speech on a private platform and a

by maym86 8y ago

I understand how it works. Your protected free speech only relates to the Government in the USA. You are not guaranteed free speech on a private platform and a private platform doesn't have to provide a platform to racists. It chooses to. Hacker News, for example, chooses not to. Facebook's definition of free speech is unclear and they change it when it suits their business needs. They are not as principaled as you make out. They are using it as an excuse to not deal with a problem that will cost them some time and money to solve. You didn't answer my question. Do you think Facebook should allow targeted paid antisemitic advertising on the platform? Genuinely interested in what people think after Zuckerberg raised the issue.

bena 8y ago
No one said that they were. Someone said that you shouldn't give a platform to someone who wouldn't extend the same courtesy. Someone replied that it runs counter to the ideals of free speech that is one of the hallmarks of the country in which Facebook is based. They then asked why should Facebook lower their standards. You then said that "Free speech relates to protecting people from the government punishing or silencing people for what they say". Which is wrong. Full stop. The concepts of free speech apply everywhere. If you choose not to give a platform to certain viewpoints, you are not a place for free speech. But that is within your right on your own property. The concept is still valid, but you choose not to allow it. So your question is meaningless. They are trying to remain as free as possible while being respectful of all opinions, especially ones they disagree with. It is difficult. You want to go somewhere extreme because extreme example serve to demonize the side you don't like or to make it as obvious as you can. But should Facebook allow targeted paid religious advertising? Should the allow targeted paid advertising for Scientology? Flat-earth? Anti-vaccine? Chiropractors? Fast food? Cigarettes? Alcohol? Where is that line supposed to be drawn? And why there? I'm not calling them principled. I'm saying the issue is messy and complicated. Something you refuse to acknowledge.
- maym86 8y ago
  Yes it's definitely messy for some topics. Mostly we agree. Can you answer the specific question about a specific topic (holocaust denial) that the CEO of the platform raised or is that case too messy?

by maym86 8y ago

bena 8y ago

No one said that they were. Someone said that you shouldn't give a platform to someone who wouldn't extend the same courtesy. Someone replied that it runs counter to the ideals of free speech that is one of the hallmarks of the country in which Facebook is based. They then asked why should Facebook lower their standards. You then said that "Free speech relates to protecting people from the government punishing or silencing people for what they say". Which is wrong. Full stop. The concepts of free speech apply everywhere. If you choose not to give a platform to certain viewpoints, you are not a place for free speech. But that is within your right on your own property. The concept is still valid, but you choose not to allow it. So your question is meaningless. They are trying to remain as free as possible while being respectful of all opinions, especially ones they disagree with. It is difficult. You want to go somewhere extreme because extreme example serve to demonize the side you don't like or to make it as obvious as you can. But should Facebook allow targeted paid religious advertising? Should the allow targeted paid advertising for Scientology? Flat-earth? Anti-vaccine? Chiropractors? Fast food? Cigarettes? Alcohol? Where is that line supposed to be drawn? And why there? I'm not calling them principled. I'm saying the issue is messy and complicated. Something you refuse to acknowledge.

maym86 8y ago
Yes it's definitely messy for some topics. Mostly we agree. Can you answer the specific question about a specific topic (holocaust denial) that the CEO of the platform raised or is that case too messy?