3 ms·

When I step back, I realize there are a lot of good reasons not to police this stuff. However, if I down scale Facebook to a 100 user forum that I control, then

by beart 8y ago

When I step back, I realize there are a lot of good reasons not to police this stuff. However, if I down scale Facebook to a 100 user forum that I control, then I would ban this in a heartbeat. I guess subjective morality doesn't scale?

rurounijones 8y ago
I think it is the power imbalance / reach / social impact / chilling effect. Subjective morality enforced over 100 people on an optional forum? Meh Subjective morality over billions on a platform that many consider essential (I know, I know) to daily life? Oooof
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  All morality is subjective, though. Facebook bans some kinds of speech, so the question isn't "should Facebook do that," but "where do we draw the line." Facebook allows almost anything right now, in part because it's a US company and has inherited the US propensity to allow pretty much all speech. But that's not the only way to do it. Banning certain types of speech doesn't necessarily lead to a slippery slope. For instance, in Germany, you can't deny the holocaust and they haven't become some sort of dystopian Orwellian society. I would argue Facebook needs to move more toward that model. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are spreading right now. Hell, I personally know someone who I considered a pretty normal person who's become caught up in 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy mongering. Banning groups that promote that kind of garbage make them seem illegitimate (as they are) and no, doing so doesn't infringe on any rights. They're free to make their own website somewhere and spout nonsense. But hey, maybe those kinds of things shouldn't be getting hosted by big media companies like YouTube and Facebook. That just makes them seem legitimate. With great power comes great responsibility. Right now, it seems to me Facebook (and others) want to have the power, but not the responsibility and that's leading us into a new era of propaganda and idiocy.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Is not harassing people, and claiming that things like Sandy Hook didn't happen really subjective morality, though?
existencebox 8y ago
That's honestly the avenue I've always taken when confronted with that argument. A bar can rightfully kick you out if you're yelling about the end of the world, however you can feel free to drag your soapbox to the "town square" and do the same and be heavily protected in doing so (yes yes limits of speech massive digressive topics here). The problem seems to be that many of these private tech companies have grown to such a scale where they _are_ the de-facto town square. What honestly makes me most leery about the movement towards "Sanctioned Speech" is as we can even see in HN itself. A sister response to yours, eloquent and advocating the questionable outcomes from policing speech, is downvoted past visibility despite a very functional discussion following from it. For whatever reason, I've noticed a global (far broader than HN) decline in the quality/willingness to engage in good-faith discourse. This is extremely scary to me, and I fear having gatekeepers for discussion and "truth" only further pushes these underlying bifurcations further apart.
- glitcher 8y ago
  > decline in the quality/willingness to engage in good-faith discourse Absolutely. And I have no idea what to do about it, even within my tiny sphere of influence. I see people (metaphorically) putting on armor and actively building barriers just in the _anticipation_ of defending their beliefs. It almost seems like a lack of empathetic imagination. When I imagine the motivations, beliefs, fears, desires, etc that might be behind opinions that I am strongly against, it is usually followed by the empty feeling that hardly anybody else is taking the time to put themselves in anybody else's shoes.
meowface 8y ago
I think the difference is that Facebook is not a community. It is a common carrier of communication. It's an indifferent platform. A small forum or chatroom you run is a completely different entity. A better comparison would be a 100 user forum vs. a Facebook group that you own. Even if that Facebook group has 100 people or 100,000, it still makes sense for the owner to ban content they think doesn't fit the community, such as conspiracy theories. But it doesn't make sense for Facebook The Company to ban conspiracy theories, in my opinion, unless those specific conspiracy theory posts are shown to be likely to directly result in someone's imminent physical harm.
- beart 8y ago
  I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. However, Mark Zuckerberg is effectively king of Facebook. So even if Facebook is a de facto common carrier, having a single person able to make whatever decision he so chooses for the platform complicates things.
  - meowface 8y ago
    How do you know that for a fact? The CEO probably has the final say, but that's the case for many companies. I doubt he's coming to these decisions and conclusions by himself. I would be shocked if the past few months of his job didn't involve constant meetings with executives to discuss how to deal with this issue.

by beart 8y ago

rurounijones 8y ago

I think it is the power imbalance / reach / social impact / chilling effect. Subjective morality enforced over 100 people on an optional forum? Meh Subjective morality over billions on a platform that many consider essential (I know, I know) to daily life? Oooof

FactolSarin 8y ago
All morality is subjective, though. Facebook bans some kinds of speech, so the question isn't "should Facebook do that," but "where do we draw the line." Facebook allows almost anything right now, in part because it's a US company and has inherited the US propensity to allow pretty much all speech. But that's not the only way to do it. Banning certain types of speech doesn't necessarily lead to a slippery slope. For instance, in Germany, you can't deny the holocaust and they haven't become some sort of dystopian Orwellian society. I would argue Facebook needs to move more toward that model. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are spreading right now. Hell, I personally know someone who I considered a pretty normal person who's become caught up in 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy mongering. Banning groups that promote that kind of garbage make them seem illegitimate (as they are) and no, doing so doesn't infringe on any rights. They're free to make their own website somewhere and spout nonsense. But hey, maybe those kinds of things shouldn't be getting hosted by big media companies like YouTube and Facebook. That just makes them seem legitimate. With great power comes great responsibility. Right now, it seems to me Facebook (and others) want to have the power, but not the responsibility and that's leading us into a new era of propaganda and idiocy.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Is not harassing people, and claiming that things like Sandy Hook didn't happen really subjective morality, though?

existencebox 8y ago

That's honestly the avenue I've always taken when confronted with that argument. A bar can rightfully kick you out if you're yelling about the end of the world, however you can feel free to drag your soapbox to the "town square" and do the same and be heavily protected in doing so (yes yes limits of speech massive digressive topics here). The problem seems to be that many of these private tech companies have grown to such a scale where they _are_ the de-facto town square. What honestly makes me most leery about the movement towards "Sanctioned Speech" is as we can even see in HN itself. A sister response to yours, eloquent and advocating the questionable outcomes from policing speech, is downvoted past visibility despite a very functional discussion following from it. For whatever reason, I've noticed a global (far broader than HN) decline in the quality/willingness to engage in good-faith discourse. This is extremely scary to me, and I fear having gatekeepers for discussion and "truth" only further pushes these underlying bifurcations further apart.

glitcher 8y ago
> decline in the quality/willingness to engage in good-faith discourse Absolutely. And I have no idea what to do about it, even within my tiny sphere of influence. I see people (metaphorically) putting on armor and actively building barriers just in the _anticipation_ of defending their beliefs. It almost seems like a lack of empathetic imagination. When I imagine the motivations, beliefs, fears, desires, etc that might be behind opinions that I am strongly against, it is usually followed by the empty feeling that hardly anybody else is taking the time to put themselves in anybody else's shoes.

meowface 8y ago

I think the difference is that Facebook is not a community. It is a common carrier of communication. It's an indifferent platform. A small forum or chatroom you run is a completely different entity. A better comparison would be a 100 user forum vs. a Facebook group that you own. Even if that Facebook group has 100 people or 100,000, it still makes sense for the owner to ban content they think doesn't fit the community, such as conspiracy theories. But it doesn't make sense for Facebook The Company to ban conspiracy theories, in my opinion, unless those specific conspiracy theory posts are shown to be likely to directly result in someone's imminent physical harm.

beart 8y ago
I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. However, Mark Zuckerberg is effectively king of Facebook. So even if Facebook is a de facto common carrier, having a single person able to make whatever decision he so chooses for the platform complicates things.
- meowface 8y ago
  How do you know that for a fact? The CEO probably has the final say, but that's the case for many companies. I doubt he's coming to these decisions and conclusions by himself. I would be shocked if the past few months of his job didn't involve constant meetings with executives to discuss how to deal with this issue.