3 ms·

I can choose who to serve in my pub. If you start mouthing off at the other patrons, you will be asked to leave. That is not censorship or silencing, it’s simp

I can choose who to serve in my pub. If you start mouthing off at the other patrons, you will be asked to leave. That is not censorship or silencing, it’s simply advising you that my place is not the place for that kind of behaviour.

monochromatic 8y ago
I didn’t say that FB can’t do this. I said it shouldn’t.
jlawson 8y ago
If you owned every pub, street, square, coffee shop, theater, restaurant, and other social and public discussion space in the world, do you think it's be fine for you to enforce your arbitrary opinions on everyone in those spaces? What if it's just people discussing things you don't like amongst themselves, with willing speakers and willing listeners?
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  Facebook does not own every public space. Facebook is not, itself, a public space. If one had to guess at it, I would describe it as perhaps a publically-accessible but privately owned space. Even if one decided to host something that would be allowed in public streets (for example a protest rally) the landowner of the space can still kick you out at any time from their property. On the internet, if one wants to express hate speech, there are still websites to do so that may not be Facebook.
  - jlawson 8y ago
    So to you, there is no level of dominance of channels of communication where a corporation takes on some of the responsibility of managing a public space? If they owned everything minus one, you're 100% okay with them censoring anyone for any reason and you think they should face zero criticism of that whatsoever. Because they own it, they can do what they want with it, and property rights are absolute. Just trying to follow your logic (and highlight its incoherence). As for other places to express speech you label "hate speech" - not really. Domain registrars, hosting providers, and payment processors will shut you down. See what happened to SubscribeStar recently. There actually is nowhere to go if the consortium of megacorporations decides they don't like you. Cyberpunk was supposed to be a dystopia but you seem to desperately want to bring it about.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      You are assuming my opinion on the subject. Please consider my points in good faith. To clarify: My perspective is that we have reached a point where it is clear that in the space of online, there are a few dominant companies that effectively control population traffic and attention through hosting spaces. The internet can be viewed as a public private space, with all the consequences of such. Changing it would require government-level regulation, bringing in the established checks on speech restriction that the government has. I do not want any consequence. I am undecided on the pros/cons of possible soltutions.

monochromatic 8y ago

I didn’t say that FB can’t do this. I said it shouldn’t.

jlawson 8y ago

If you owned every pub, street, square, coffee shop, theater, restaurant, and other social and public discussion space in the world, do you think it's be fine for you to enforce your arbitrary opinions on everyone in those spaces? What if it's just people discussing things you don't like amongst themselves, with willing speakers and willing listeners?

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
Facebook does not own every public space. Facebook is not, itself, a public space. If one had to guess at it, I would describe it as perhaps a publically-accessible but privately owned space. Even if one decided to host something that would be allowed in public streets (for example a protest rally) the landowner of the space can still kick you out at any time from their property. On the internet, if one wants to express hate speech, there are still websites to do so that may not be Facebook.
- jlawson 8y ago
  So to you, there is no level of dominance of channels of communication where a corporation takes on some of the responsibility of managing a public space? If they owned everything minus one, you're 100% okay with them censoring anyone for any reason and you think they should face zero criticism of that whatsoever. Because they own it, they can do what they want with it, and property rights are absolute. Just trying to follow your logic (and highlight its incoherence). As for other places to express speech you label "hate speech" - not really. Domain registrars, hosting providers, and payment processors will shut you down. See what happened to SubscribeStar recently. There actually is nowhere to go if the consortium of megacorporations decides they don't like you. Cyberpunk was supposed to be a dystopia but you seem to desperately want to bring it about.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    You are assuming my opinion on the subject. Please consider my points in good faith. To clarify: My perspective is that we have reached a point where it is clear that in the space of online, there are a few dominant companies that effectively control population traffic and attention through hosting spaces. The internet can be viewed as a public private space, with all the consequences of such. Changing it would require government-level regulation, bringing in the established checks on speech restriction that the government has. I do not want any consequence. I am undecided on the pros/cons of possible soltutions.