4 ms·

> "audience would want to listen to me but unable to because I'd have to build a new Internet to do it". We are talking about Facebook here, right? Do they hav

> "audience would want to listen to me but unable to because I'd have to build a new Internet to do it". We are talking about Facebook here, right? Do they have to power to remove your content from the Internet entirely? > If it's because of other forms of prejudice not listed in the list, or because of their non-membership in the ruling party, that would be ok? It depends! It is entirely legal to discriminate against someone because they're stupid or ugly. Is that okay? Obviously we have to rule on a case-by-case basis. > We know for a fact that the slope is slippery. We witnessed the descent many times. Facebook has banned content it doesn't like since the inception of the platform. You have no more of a right to post there than have your articles be published by a newspaper. They aren't a government and can't police your speech, but they can (and should) decide what they post. > Very bad example. Except it's still actually illegal? The rest of your argument simply doesn't apply, since Facebook is not the government.

smsm42 8y ago
> We are talking about Facebook here, right? No, Facebook is just one facet of it. We've seen deplatforming from every major social network, bar none, from Paypal, from Patreon, from banks, from credit card companies, from hosting providers, DNS providers, CDN providers... Virtually every piece of internet infrastructure is subject to deplatforming. And it's not just if you do something - if you provide services to people that do something controversial, you're out too. > It depends! You write "it depends", I read "if the mob likes you, you're ok. If they don't - well, you're screwed". Maybe it's a comfortable existence for somebody who never had a controversial thought, but it's certainly far from something I'd call "free". > Obviously we have to rule on a case-by-case basis. Who is "we" and why you have to rule? I don't particularly like to be ruled by "we", and be judged on its whims. OK, frankly, I can live without Facebook, I left Twitter long ago and could leave Facebook behind too. But it wouldn't stop there, would it? Intolerance to existence of contrary opinions never just stops because these opinions are now located under different URL. If it were possible, having them on Facebook wouldn't be a big deal from the start - just don't subscribe to people you don't like, ban them if they come to comment, and you'd never read their content. But the point is not that - as long as it exists anywhere, it must be suppressed. The only real end to it is elimination of the offending opinion, anything less is good, but ultimately always unsatisfactory. You may say "ok, what's bad in complete suppression of white nationalists"? Well, nothing in this mechanism has "white nationalists" anywhere, it would work against you or me as well as against anything else. Lack of freedom can be very comfortable when the rulers do the same things you wanted to be done anyway. It very soon stops being comfortable when they don't. Are you sure you'd never say anything anybody could find some problem with? Maybe decades later? > Facebook has banned content it doesn't like since the inception of the platform. And the list of banned things grows constantly. Yes, I know. That's exactly what worries me. Not because I like white nationalists - quite the contrary - but because one day whoever decides what to ban may dislike one of my thoughts. > Except it's still actually illegal? You basing that on what? Certainly not on decision of Wendell Holmes, since he never decided that (it was a rhetorical flourish for him) - so on what exactly? http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...
- Veraticus 8y ago
  > Virtually every piece of internet infrastructure is subject to deplatforming. This is essentially the marketplace of ideas working as intended -- if your idea sucks you get booted out of venue after venue. Maybe the problem isn't the venues having standards, maybe it's your idea being bad? > If they don't - well, you're screwed How is not being able to tell people your bad ideas "being screwed?" You aren't being jailed, your property isn't being seized. People are telling you they don't want to hear what you have to say, but you can continue saying it to anyone who bothers to listen to you. No one is obligated to hear or agree with anything you want to say. > Who is "we" and why you have to rule? Platform owners specifically, citizens in aggregate. We judge the ideas we want to hear and tell people we don't want to hear that we don't want to hear them. This isn't exactly some radical new concept either. > Well, nothing in this mechanism has "white nationalists" anywhere, it would work against you or me as well as against anything else. Except it literally has "white nationalists" in the rule itself. How about we ban them? And then rule, on a case-by-case basis, on whether other things should be banned? Like pro-ISIS speech? Or pornography, which Facebook also bans? The idea that nothing at all can be banned, because Facebook might ban the wrong things, is absurd. If your ideas are bad and no one wants to listen to you, the problem is your ideas, not that Facebook can ban things. No one should be compelled to hear bad ideas. And before you ask, yes, Facebook can decide what ideas it considers are bad on behalf of its users. If you don't like that, don't use Facebook -- problem solved. > You basing that on what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."" Of course, this is still applicable to the government, not private corporations, again. Private corporations can deplatform whatever they like for any legal reason.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    "Imminent lawless action" is not the same as "shouting some words". People shouted "fire" in theaters hundreds of times - e.g. during plays - and nothing happened. Only when it causes - or is imminent to cause - the actual action, can it be punished. Just as saying "shoot him" is not restricted speech - unless you are saying it to an accomplice who then murders a person. There needs to be an independent lawless act, and speech needs to be used as a prerequisite or a tool for it. > Private corporations can deplatform whatever they like for any legal reason. Legally, they can. Morally, they shouldn't.

smsm42 8y ago

> We are talking about Facebook here, right? No, Facebook is just one facet of it. We've seen deplatforming from every major social network, bar none, from Paypal, from Patreon, from banks, from credit card companies, from hosting providers, DNS providers, CDN providers... Virtually every piece of internet infrastructure is subject to deplatforming. And it's not just if you do something - if you provide services to people that do something controversial, you're out too. > It depends! You write "it depends", I read "if the mob likes you, you're ok. If they don't - well, you're screwed". Maybe it's a comfortable existence for somebody who never had a controversial thought, but it's certainly far from something I'd call "free". > Obviously we have to rule on a case-by-case basis. Who is "we" and why you have to rule? I don't particularly like to be ruled by "we", and be judged on its whims. OK, frankly, I can live without Facebook, I left Twitter long ago and could leave Facebook behind too. But it wouldn't stop there, would it? Intolerance to existence of contrary opinions never just stops because these opinions are now located under different URL. If it were possible, having them on Facebook wouldn't be a big deal from the start - just don't subscribe to people you don't like, ban them if they come to comment, and you'd never read their content. But the point is not that - as long as it exists anywhere, it must be suppressed. The only real end to it is elimination of the offending opinion, anything less is good, but ultimately always unsatisfactory. You may say "ok, what's bad in complete suppression of white nationalists"? Well, nothing in this mechanism has "white nationalists" anywhere, it would work against you or me as well as against anything else. Lack of freedom can be very comfortable when the rulers do the same things you wanted to be done anyway. It very soon stops being comfortable when they don't. Are you sure you'd never say anything anybody could find some problem with? Maybe decades later? > Facebook has banned content it doesn't like since the inception of the platform. And the list of banned things grows constantly. Yes, I know. That's exactly what worries me. Not because I like white nationalists - quite the contrary - but because one day whoever decides what to ban may dislike one of my thoughts. > Except it's still actually illegal? You basing that on what? Certainly not on decision of Wendell Holmes, since he never decided that (it was a rhetorical flourish for him) - so on what exactly? http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

Veraticus 8y ago
> Virtually every piece of internet infrastructure is subject to deplatforming. This is essentially the marketplace of ideas working as intended -- if your idea sucks you get booted out of venue after venue. Maybe the problem isn't the venues having standards, maybe it's your idea being bad? > If they don't - well, you're screwed How is not being able to tell people your bad ideas "being screwed?" You aren't being jailed, your property isn't being seized. People are telling you they don't want to hear what you have to say, but you can continue saying it to anyone who bothers to listen to you. No one is obligated to hear or agree with anything you want to say. > Who is "we" and why you have to rule? Platform owners specifically, citizens in aggregate. We judge the ideas we want to hear and tell people we don't want to hear that we don't want to hear them. This isn't exactly some radical new concept either. > Well, nothing in this mechanism has "white nationalists" anywhere, it would work against you or me as well as against anything else. Except it literally has "white nationalists" in the rule itself. How about we ban them? And then rule, on a case-by-case basis, on whether other things should be banned? Like pro-ISIS speech? Or pornography, which Facebook also bans? The idea that nothing at all can be banned, because Facebook might ban the wrong things, is absurd. If your ideas are bad and no one wants to listen to you, the problem is your ideas, not that Facebook can ban things. No one should be compelled to hear bad ideas. And before you ask, yes, Facebook can decide what ideas it considers are bad on behalf of its users. If you don't like that, don't use Facebook -- problem solved. > You basing that on what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."" Of course, this is still applicable to the government, not private corporations, again. Private corporations can deplatform whatever they like for any legal reason.
- smsm42 8y ago
  "Imminent lawless action" is not the same as "shouting some words". People shouted "fire" in theaters hundreds of times - e.g. during plays - and nothing happened. Only when it causes - or is imminent to cause - the actual action, can it be punished. Just as saying "shoot him" is not restricted speech - unless you are saying it to an accomplice who then murders a person. There needs to be an independent lawless act, and speech needs to be used as a prerequisite or a tool for it. > Private corporations can deplatform whatever they like for any legal reason. Legally, they can. Morally, they shouldn't.