9 ms·

Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other

Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.

KerryJones 8y ago
"it merely means it should implement them better" this is the theory of every government committee, ever. In practice, generally, _it doesn't happen_. I believe private companies are usually better, but still highly dependant on size and a number of other factors. I definitely don't have faith that FB will wield this well, and the worse part is it will probably pretty hard to find out from the silenced parties when they f!@# up until much later.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does. The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings. Let me phrase it to you like this... if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with.
- Veraticus 8y ago
  > No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Because I'm not a white nationalist? Facebook already bans child pornography, pro-ISIS content, and doxxing. Does anyone seriously believe that Facebook is slippery sloping to banning all speech? But let's say that Trump and Pence do indeed take over Facebook and make it so they ban all users that don't loudly praise Trump. If they do, honestly, so what? Facebook can't imprison you or legally remove your property. The worst they can do is ban you from their platform. Which, well, that sucks, but there's lots of sites on the Internet. In fact, you could go ahead and legally make a non-censorship Facebook. ...of course, sites like that already exist, in this world, not in the Trump/Pence Facebook world. And they're dominated by child pornography, white nationalism, and doxxing. No one at large uses them because they're horribly toxic and disgusting. Almost like some rules about content are actually helpful for sites on the Internet.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    It seems you and I go to different websites; and I’m quite happy about that. But I beleive my comment said legal things. Having a different opinion is still legal, for now. You jumped to all sorts of illegal things. And my context was what if “the bad people” are suddenly running these services or in positions of power and relative to them, you are the one with hate speech? Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive.
    - Veraticus 8y ago
      Pro-ISIS speech isn't illegal but it's still banned. Pornography isn't illegal but it's still banned. So the legality argument here isn't particularly compelling. > Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive. You have got to be kidding. If it's on a platform I control I can make any kind of legal judgments about the content I find acceptable. And if you're banned, again, so what? Facebook is not a government or even a government-adjacent entity: I have no right to participate on the site, and they have no obligation to platform my speech.
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Now I'm curious about what non-censorship sites you are using? Because the only ones that I am aware of are full of terrible people. If you have one that isn't over-run by the bad guys, please share it because others here might want to use it too.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future I think it's foolish to wring your hands over the arbitrary machinations of a multibillion dollar corporation's online platform. They don't care about you or me and frankly they have no obligation to do so. This logic is akin to complaining that McDonalds puts too much lard in the fries, maybe that's true, but if that's the case then don't give McDonalds your business; the fact that there is a McDonalds on every street corner doesn't mean they are obligated to modify their business process to be within the parameters of your approval. > if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? That's Facebook's prerogative. I don't really use Facebook, but if I felt like Facebook was unfairly targeting me I'd stop using their platform, if they elected Trump to the board of directors I'd stop using their platform. The solution to all these Facebook problems is very simple: stop using it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? I don't. My view on this action is a view on this action, not every potential future action Facebook might take in the future that is loosely analogous. > if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is. Yes. I also think that they would do a horrible job of it, and the board of Facebook should not choose them for that job. I also think Donald Trump does a horrible job directing the policy of the executive branch of the US government, but I don't think that fact means the the President of the United States should not direct executive policy. If I thought that no one should have any responsibility or authority if Donald Trump would fail in the responsibility or misuse the authority, then, well, I wouldn't allow anyone to do anything. > Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with. It's absolutely Facebook's job to decide what messages they are willing to relay on their platform. That's a direct consequence of the First Amendment.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    The part where if people who you strongly disagree with were making the rules that you insist you would still be ok with that - is intellectually dishonest.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- betterunix2 8y ago
  "Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with." The problem is not that I personally disagree with white supremacy. The problem is that white supremacist organizations are a significant and growing terrorist threat, and they are using Facebook to recruit new members. This is no different from the various platforms that banned ISIS.
  - HereIGoAgain 8y ago
    Actually, while arguably it may be growing (kind of hard to tell with single and no digit yearly numbers) It isn't all that much of an issue overall or even relatively speaking. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859
    - laughinghan 8y ago
      Did you read your own link? 3 of the 4 graphs against time showed right-wing extremism increasing, in Western Europe and North America, the UK, and the USA, respectively. The only graph that didn't show that right-wing extremism is a growing problem instead showed that it has been consistently bad in Germany, worse than the other two categories combined (in that graph, the other two categories were left-wing attacks and "Not Identified"). What's arguable about it?
      - raxxorrax 8y ago
        It raises through animosity mostly. It had been on the net for years without any significant effect. Rumors have it they tried to recruit some weeaboos, but they were too smart. The poster is pretty much correct.
        laughinghan 8y ago
        Did you mean to reply to someone else's comment? This doesn't appear to have anything to do with my comment.
carnagii 8y ago
why not just have their policy be the first amendment and they abide by the same rules as the country that created them? Why should corporations take on censorship powers that are prohibited for the government? Why should a private for-profit corporation controlled by one man have more power than a transparent institution controlled by democracy?
- BalinKing 8y ago
  I think the standard answer is that corporations are less restricted because they are not able to enact those policies through force. The government can fine you, imprison you, etc. regardless of what you think; however, you don't have to use Facebook in the first place.
  - carnagii 8y ago
    that is the default answer but there comes a point when you have to reconsider it in light of the facts of a particular situation. Take email for instance: first class mail is protected by the 5th amendment, and a warrant is required to open and read first class mail. Move communications to a private digital platform and the presumption of privacy is completely flipped into a presumption that all your emails will be read and stored for future reading. When all communications go online that leads to a very significant change in how the law applies to private communications and that is exploited by the government just as much as it is exploited by the corporations. After many years of there being a free-for-all where law enforcement and intelligence claimed they could view anything online without a warrant there was finally some push back by courts to reassert the rule of law, but email still has substantially less privacy than first class mail. Speech on public forums is a similar case. The 1st amendment applies to the town square but if a corporation creates a digital town square then it gets the right of censorship. Then the government applies pressure on the corporation to censor on their behalf and the government begins to exercise a power it did not previously have. That was not a problem when online platforms were small and inconsequential, but when they grow to billions of users globally, then the power to censor speech on those platforms becomes quite influential on the exercise of real world power. Corporations do not have police powers but they are subjects of governments that do, so once they get power they can always be made tools of the people that hold power over them.

KerryJones 8y ago

"it merely means it should implement them better" this is the theory of every government committee, ever. In practice, generally, _it doesn't happen_. I believe private companies are usually better, but still highly dependant on size and a number of other factors. I definitely don't have faith that FB will wield this well, and the worse part is it will probably pretty hard to find out from the silenced parties when they f!@# up until much later.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does. The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings. Let me phrase it to you like this... if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with.

Veraticus 8y ago
> No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Because I'm not a white nationalist? Facebook already bans child pornography, pro-ISIS content, and doxxing. Does anyone seriously believe that Facebook is slippery sloping to banning all speech? But let's say that Trump and Pence do indeed take over Facebook and make it so they ban all users that don't loudly praise Trump. If they do, honestly, so what? Facebook can't imprison you or legally remove your property. The worst they can do is ban you from their platform. Which, well, that sucks, but there's lots of sites on the Internet. In fact, you could go ahead and legally make a non-censorship Facebook. ...of course, sites like that already exist, in this world, not in the Trump/Pence Facebook world. And they're dominated by child pornography, white nationalism, and doxxing. No one at large uses them because they're horribly toxic and disgusting. Almost like some rules about content are actually helpful for sites on the Internet.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  It seems you and I go to different websites; and I’m quite happy about that. But I beleive my comment said legal things. Having a different opinion is still legal, for now. You jumped to all sorts of illegal things. And my context was what if “the bad people” are suddenly running these services or in positions of power and relative to them, you are the one with hate speech? Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive.
  - Veraticus 8y ago
    Pro-ISIS speech isn't illegal but it's still banned. Pornography isn't illegal but it's still banned. So the legality argument here isn't particularly compelling. > Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive. You have got to be kidding. If it's on a platform I control I can make any kind of legal judgments about the content I find acceptable. And if you're banned, again, so what? Facebook is not a government or even a government-adjacent entity: I have no right to participate on the site, and they have no obligation to platform my speech.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Now I'm curious about what non-censorship sites you are using? Because the only ones that I am aware of are full of terrible people. If you have one that isn't over-run by the bad guys, please share it because others here might want to use it too.
root_axis 8y ago
> how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future I think it's foolish to wring your hands over the arbitrary machinations of a multibillion dollar corporation's online platform. They don't care about you or me and frankly they have no obligation to do so. This logic is akin to complaining that McDonalds puts too much lard in the fries, maybe that's true, but if that's the case then don't give McDonalds your business; the fact that there is a McDonalds on every street corner doesn't mean they are obligated to modify their business process to be within the parameters of your approval. > if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? That's Facebook's prerogative. I don't really use Facebook, but if I felt like Facebook was unfairly targeting me I'd stop using their platform, if they elected Trump to the board of directors I'd stop using their platform. The solution to all these Facebook problems is very simple: stop using it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? I don't. My view on this action is a view on this action, not every potential future action Facebook might take in the future that is loosely analogous. > if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is. Yes. I also think that they would do a horrible job of it, and the board of Facebook should not choose them for that job. I also think Donald Trump does a horrible job directing the policy of the executive branch of the US government, but I don't think that fact means the the President of the United States should not direct executive policy. If I thought that no one should have any responsibility or authority if Donald Trump would fail in the responsibility or misuse the authority, then, well, I wouldn't allow anyone to do anything. > Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with. It's absolutely Facebook's job to decide what messages they are willing to relay on their platform. That's a direct consequence of the First Amendment.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  The part where if people who you strongly disagree with were making the rules that you insist you would still be ok with that - is intellectually dishonest.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
betterunix2 8y ago
"Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with." The problem is not that I personally disagree with white supremacy. The problem is that white supremacist organizations are a significant and growing terrorist threat, and they are using Facebook to recruit new members. This is no different from the various platforms that banned ISIS.
- HereIGoAgain 8y ago
  Actually, while arguably it may be growing (kind of hard to tell with single and no digit yearly numbers) It isn't all that much of an issue overall or even relatively speaking. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47626859
  - laughinghan 8y ago
    Did you read your own link? 3 of the 4 graphs against time showed right-wing extremism increasing, in Western Europe and North America, the UK, and the USA, respectively. The only graph that didn't show that right-wing extremism is a growing problem instead showed that it has been consistently bad in Germany, worse than the other two categories combined (in that graph, the other two categories were left-wing attacks and "Not Identified"). What's arguable about it?
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      It raises through animosity mostly. It had been on the net for years without any significant effect. Rumors have it they tried to recruit some weeaboos, but they were too smart. The poster is pretty much correct.
      - laughinghan 8y ago
        Did you mean to reply to someone else's comment? This doesn't appear to have anything to do with my comment.

carnagii 8y ago

why not just have their policy be the first amendment and they abide by the same rules as the country that created them? Why should corporations take on censorship powers that are prohibited for the government? Why should a private for-profit corporation controlled by one man have more power than a transparent institution controlled by democracy?

BalinKing 8y ago
I think the standard answer is that corporations are less restricted because they are not able to enact those policies through force. The government can fine you, imprison you, etc. regardless of what you think; however, you don't have to use Facebook in the first place.
- carnagii 8y ago
  that is the default answer but there comes a point when you have to reconsider it in light of the facts of a particular situation. Take email for instance: first class mail is protected by the 5th amendment, and a warrant is required to open and read first class mail. Move communications to a private digital platform and the presumption of privacy is completely flipped into a presumption that all your emails will be read and stored for future reading. When all communications go online that leads to a very significant change in how the law applies to private communications and that is exploited by the government just as much as it is exploited by the corporations. After many years of there being a free-for-all where law enforcement and intelligence claimed they could view anything online without a warrant there was finally some push back by courts to reassert the rule of law, but email still has substantially less privacy than first class mail. Speech on public forums is a similar case. The 1st amendment applies to the town square but if a corporation creates a digital town square then it gets the right of censorship. Then the government applies pressure on the corporation to censor on their behalf and the government begins to exercise a power it did not previously have. That was not a problem when online platforms were small and inconsequential, but when they grow to billions of users globally, then the power to censor speech on those platforms becomes quite influential on the exercise of real world power. Corporations do not have police powers but they are subjects of governments that do, so once they get power they can always be made tools of the people that hold power over them.