8 ms·

If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If n

by imgabe 8y ago

If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If not, what makes Facebook different? Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications?

aleksei 8y ago
> Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications? Facebook is a private entity that can do as they please. It most certainly is not a neutral carrier for communications, and to treat it as such is foolish.
- madengr 8y ago
  Why can’t it be neutral? The data is flowing over the same public right-of-ways and spectrum as voice communication? The phone companies are also private.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  It is publicly accessible. You do not need an account to view "public" pages and posts. Anybody can get an account in order to interact with it if they want to. It is a publicly accessible platform that allows for public and private for communication, that happens to be owned and maintained by a for-profit, publicly traded organization. I really have a hard time understanding how the few areas in which Facebook as an entity is private outweighs the many areas in which it is not.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
> what makes Facebook different? The content in question isn't private messages, it's public (and shareable!) posts. We would absolutely expect, for example, the New York Times to disallow classified ads organizing lynch mobs.
- imgabe 8y ago
  Hmm, with a specific crime, like if someone wanted to print a classified ad that said "Hey everyone, let's go lynch Joe at 5:30pm this Thursday", yes I think we'd expect the NY Times to report it to the authorities. Who are the authorities in this case? The Myanmar government? Why aren't they doing anything? They obviously know the lynchings are happening. It's their responsibility to maintain order and prevent or punish crimes in their country, not Facebook's. If it were just a general hateful statement like "I hate the Jews" that someone wanted post in a classified ad, I don't know that the NY Times would necessarily stop that, nor that they should if we're going to have free speech.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    > It's their responsibility to maintain order and prevent or punish crimes in their country, not Facebook's. Insofar as people are doing things on Facebook's platform that they themselves disagree with, it's absolutely their responsibility to stop it. How ridiculous does this sound: "Alice says she's going to buy this knife from me to stab Bob. I don't like stabbings, but I'm going to sell it to her anyway, because it's the government's job to stop stabbings, not mine." > nor that they should if we're going to have free speech. It's incumbent on states to recognize freedom of speech, not private entities. The NYT deciding whether or not to publish something has zero impact on that.
    - imgabe 8y ago
      Facebook isn't selling knives. The bits in Facebook's database are not killing anyone. The people doing the lynching are. Yes, it is ultimately the state's responsibility to uphold the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that any private actor is prohibited from providing a platform that upholds freedom of speech, only that they are not obligated to do so. You can do something even if you're not legally obligated to, you know. > Insofar as people are doing things on Facebook's platform that they themselves disagree with, it's absolutely their responsibility to stop it. So you mean like, if there were a candidate for US President that Facebook didn't like, then Facebook should refuse to run ads for that candidate. And if people used Facebook to talk about or promote that candidate, then Facebook should delete their posts right? I mean, if Facebook is responsible for stopping everything they disagree with, that should follow then.
otterley 8y ago
The difference is that Facebook is not, and has never been, a common carrier. They are not obligated by law to serve the public. Secondly, telephones, unlike Facebook, are designed primarily for person-to-person, not group communication. Communication dynamics are very different between the two models.
MarkMc 8y ago
> If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If the cost and effectiveness was comparable, and the government showed no interest in stopping it, yes. > Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications If the alternative is genocide, I don't want Facebook to be a neutral carrier for communications.
- imgabe 8y ago
  That is not the alternative. Genocide will happen either way. One way just removes freedom from innocent people.

by imgabe 8y ago

aleksei 8y ago

> Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications? Facebook is a private entity that can do as they please. It most certainly is not a neutral carrier for communications, and to treat it as such is foolish.

madengr 8y ago
Why can’t it be neutral? The data is flowing over the same public right-of-ways and spectrum as voice communication? The phone companies are also private.
a_tractor 8y ago
It is publicly accessible. You do not need an account to view "public" pages and posts. Anybody can get an account in order to interact with it if they want to. It is a publicly accessible platform that allows for public and private for communication, that happens to be owned and maintained by a for-profit, publicly traded organization. I really have a hard time understanding how the few areas in which Facebook as an entity is private outweighs the many areas in which it is not.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

> what makes Facebook different? The content in question isn't private messages, it's public (and shareable!) posts. We would absolutely expect, for example, the New York Times to disallow classified ads organizing lynch mobs.

imgabe 8y ago
Hmm, with a specific crime, like if someone wanted to print a classified ad that said "Hey everyone, let's go lynch Joe at 5:30pm this Thursday", yes I think we'd expect the NY Times to report it to the authorities. Who are the authorities in this case? The Myanmar government? Why aren't they doing anything? They obviously know the lynchings are happening. It's their responsibility to maintain order and prevent or punish crimes in their country, not Facebook's. If it were just a general hateful statement like "I hate the Jews" that someone wanted post in a classified ad, I don't know that the NY Times would necessarily stop that, nor that they should if we're going to have free speech.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > It's their responsibility to maintain order and prevent or punish crimes in their country, not Facebook's. Insofar as people are doing things on Facebook's platform that they themselves disagree with, it's absolutely their responsibility to stop it. How ridiculous does this sound: "Alice says she's going to buy this knife from me to stab Bob. I don't like stabbings, but I'm going to sell it to her anyway, because it's the government's job to stop stabbings, not mine." > nor that they should if we're going to have free speech. It's incumbent on states to recognize freedom of speech, not private entities. The NYT deciding whether or not to publish something has zero impact on that.
  - imgabe 8y ago
    Facebook isn't selling knives. The bits in Facebook's database are not killing anyone. The people doing the lynching are. Yes, it is ultimately the state's responsibility to uphold the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that any private actor is prohibited from providing a platform that upholds freedom of speech, only that they are not obligated to do so. You can do something even if you're not legally obligated to, you know. > Insofar as people are doing things on Facebook's platform that they themselves disagree with, it's absolutely their responsibility to stop it. So you mean like, if there were a candidate for US President that Facebook didn't like, then Facebook should refuse to run ads for that candidate. And if people used Facebook to talk about or promote that candidate, then Facebook should delete their posts right? I mean, if Facebook is responsible for stopping everything they disagree with, that should follow then.

otterley 8y ago

The difference is that Facebook is not, and has never been, a common carrier. They are not obligated by law to serve the public. Secondly, telephones, unlike Facebook, are designed primarily for person-to-person, not group communication. Communication dynamics are very different between the two models.

MarkMc 8y ago

> If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If the cost and effectiveness was comparable, and the government showed no interest in stopping it, yes. > Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications If the alternative is genocide, I don't want Facebook to be a neutral carrier for communications.

imgabe 8y ago
That is not the alternative. Genocide will happen either way. One way just removes freedom from innocent people.