7 ms·

For the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries

by beager 8y ago

For the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries doing it. Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.

s9w 8y ago
And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense
- jamespo 8y ago
  When will Fox News be broadcasting my show?
  - s9w 8y ago
    censorship is about taking something away. That is not the same as not adding things
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      OK, so Facebook's fine here. They're preventing you from adding links to Zero Hedge.
- beager 8y ago
  Nope, that's not what I said at all.
- msla 8y ago
  > And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense What makes no sense is thinking Facebook is on the left. Facebook will be standing right in with the tighty-righty GOPpers when it comes to regulating or taxing it.
  - nilskidoo 8y ago
    Robert Mercer's SCL Group, owners of Cambridge Analytica who worked on the Trump campaign, and campaigns for Cruz and Romney before that, is supposed to be very rightwing. Which made me wonder if the FB/CA deal wasn't the first case but the first one called out, and could Murdoch's myspace have ever been played with comparably, earlier?
hugh4life 8y ago
When Facebook sets up relationship with the Atlantic Council to monitor information, then it might as well be the government.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  The Atlantic Council is a private think tank, so that's a weird assertion.
  - hugh4life 8y ago
    Yeah... just like the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Freedom House. The current chairman is the US ambassador to Russia.
  - arcseco 8y ago
    Your right, it is worse than that, it's a consortium of governments, NATO and corporate interests that so generously donate to the Council; >The Atlantic Council’s president and CEO sent a seven-page letter to Hagel Friday that included a list of foreign corporations, governments and government entities that fund the organization. The list includes roughly 100 corporations and 15 foreign governments, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The amount of funding from each entity is not listed. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/282047-atlantic-council-releases-foreign-donor-list-for-hagel https://thehill.com/policy/defense/282047-atlantic-council-r...
pnw_hazor 8y ago
It is censorship. It is contrary to the principle of free speech. However, it is not a violation of US law. If that is good enough for you, then so be it.
- duxup 8y ago
  Free speech makes no sense if you apply it here. Nobody has to host your speech....
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Facebook aren't hosting it.
    - duxup 8y ago
      You mean the full article? No. I don't see how that changes anything. Nobody has to host a link to anyone else's site either in the name of free speech ....
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Sure it does. FB is a communication platform that adheres to the principles of free speech or it isn't. Here, they are demonstrating (among other times) that they do not believe in free speech. It is their right. Just as it is their right to collect user data and resell it. They have a right to suck and be evil.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I belive in free speech, I won't host just anything on my site(s) either. Do you have to host other people's content, anything, to belive in free speech? I don't know what you mean by free speech at this point.
      - pnw_hazor 8y ago
        Here is some reading that may inform you why your blog is different than FB. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo... https://verdict.justia.com/2019/01/09/why-facebooks-hate-speech-policy-makes-so-little-sense https://verdict.justia.com/2019/01/09/why-facebooks-hate-spe...
gabbygab 8y ago
It is censorship. It isn't government backed and hence legal, but it is by definition censorship. Telling people to divest from facebook is as helpful as telling a chinese citizen to leave china if they don't like government censorship. Especially if facebook becomes entrenched and monopolistic. Also, considering facebook has more power and reach than almost every country in the world, perhaps it's time to think about censorship and corporate power. After all, government censorship was the norm until we decided that governments have gotten too powerful to allow to exist unchecked. Perhaps it's time to think of large corporations in the same manner.
50656E6973 8y ago
What is the big difference in outcome between if a government or a multinational hundred billion dollar corporation conducts mass censorship? >Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest. "Country X can do what it wants. If you don't like it, leave."

by beager 8y ago

s9w 8y ago

And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense

jamespo 8y ago
When will Fox News be broadcasting my show?
- s9w 8y ago
  censorship is about taking something away. That is not the same as not adding things
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    OK, so Facebook's fine here. They're preventing you from adding links to Zero Hedge.
beager 8y ago
Nope, that's not what I said at all.
msla 8y ago
> And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense What makes no sense is thinking Facebook is on the left. Facebook will be standing right in with the tighty-righty GOPpers when it comes to regulating or taxing it.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  Robert Mercer's SCL Group, owners of Cambridge Analytica who worked on the Trump campaign, and campaigns for Cruz and Romney before that, is supposed to be very rightwing. Which made me wonder if the FB/CA deal wasn't the first case but the first one called out, and could Murdoch's myspace have ever been played with comparably, earlier?

hugh4life 8y ago

When Facebook sets up relationship with the Atlantic Council to monitor information, then it might as well be the government.

ceejayoz 8y ago
The Atlantic Council is a private think tank, so that's a weird assertion.
- hugh4life 8y ago
  Yeah... just like the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Freedom House. The current chairman is the US ambassador to Russia.
- arcseco 8y ago
  Your right, it is worse than that, it's a consortium of governments, NATO and corporate interests that so generously donate to the Council; >The Atlantic Council’s president and CEO sent a seven-page letter to Hagel Friday that included a list of foreign corporations, governments and government entities that fund the organization. The list includes roughly 100 corporations and 15 foreign governments, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The amount of funding from each entity is not listed. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/282047-atlantic-council-releases-foreign-donor-list-for-hagel https://thehill.com/policy/defense/282047-atlantic-council-r...

pnw_hazor 8y ago

It is censorship. It is contrary to the principle of free speech. However, it is not a violation of US law. If that is good enough for you, then so be it.

duxup 8y ago
Free speech makes no sense if you apply it here. Nobody has to host your speech....
- repolfx 8y ago
  Facebook aren't hosting it.
  - duxup 8y ago
    You mean the full article? No. I don't see how that changes anything. Nobody has to host a link to anyone else's site either in the name of free speech ....
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Sure it does. FB is a communication platform that adheres to the principles of free speech or it isn't. Here, they are demonstrating (among other times) that they do not believe in free speech. It is their right. Just as it is their right to collect user data and resell it. They have a right to suck and be evil.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I belive in free speech, I won't host just anything on my site(s) either. Do you have to host other people's content, anything, to belive in free speech? I don't know what you mean by free speech at this point.
    - pnw_hazor 8y ago
      Here is some reading that may inform you why your blog is different than FB. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo... https://verdict.justia.com/2019/01/09/why-facebooks-hate-speech-policy-makes-so-little-sense https://verdict.justia.com/2019/01/09/why-facebooks-hate-spe...

gabbygab 8y ago

It is censorship. It isn't government backed and hence legal, but it is by definition censorship. Telling people to divest from facebook is as helpful as telling a chinese citizen to leave china if they don't like government censorship. Especially if facebook becomes entrenched and monopolistic. Also, considering facebook has more power and reach than almost every country in the world, perhaps it's time to think about censorship and corporate power. After all, government censorship was the norm until we decided that governments have gotten too powerful to allow to exist unchecked. Perhaps it's time to think of large corporations in the same manner.

50656E6973 8y ago

What is the big difference in outcome between if a government or a multinational hundred billion dollar corporation conducts mass censorship? >Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest. "Country X can do what it wants. If you don't like it, leave."