4 ms·

I’m a firm believer in free speech and think this is a bad move. However, there’s a vast difference between targeted censorship of forbidden topics and a tempo

I’m a firm believer in free speech and think this is a bad move. However, there’s a vast difference between targeted censorship of forbidden topics and a temporary blanket ban on certain forms of communication. This isn’t good, but it’s pretty mild. Temporary limits on fundamental freedoms during an emergency are pretty common, even in the good old USA.

zzzcpan 8y ago
It's not that mild. Still an attempt to stop information government doesn't like from spreading. Still targeted, more broadly, but targeted. Still requires internet censorship infrastructure to even be able to order ISPs to block websites and power, so much power to get there, pretty much dictatorship level power. China, the anti freedom villain, does this kind of thing regularly. I get why people are making excuses though. Pretty much no political systems in the world can actually exist with truly free speech, because they all rely on controlling free speech to function. And now that actual free speech got out of their control it threatens them and makes them push against it, promoting restrictions to free speech.
code_sloth 8y ago
Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ opinions and ideas. To articulate ideas and opinions, you have to think and formulate your thoughts. What Facebook enables and optimizes for can hardly be called free speech. Articulation is not encouraged, merely the spreading of thoughts (both good and bad). Engagement has been optimized for advertising purposes. It led to banal agreement in the form of likes and reshares. There is hardly any discourse, people get silo-ed in echo chambers, and the extreme ends of the spectrum get magnified. Confirmation bias rules, and bad ideas aren't defeated by good ideas because they hardly come into contact. So no, Facebook isn't enabling free speech, as much as they'd like to claim they are. At best they are a communication tool, nothing more.
- tdhoot 8y ago
  Free speech is not only about articulation. It's also about the ability to share, disseminate, and influence others.
  - code_sloth 8y ago
    Speech without thought isn't free speech. It's just people and sometimes mobs saying things. Freedom of information flow isn't the same thing. Democracy works best with an informed electorate. Information flow without discourse is just indoctrination. And that's what Facebook (unintendedly) optimizes for.
    - NeonVice 8y ago
      Speech even without thought is still free speech. You would hope that the most thoughtful speech would be easily recognized and followed in place of its opposite. However, free speech does not exist in a world where only one group decides what is thoughtful speech.
      - tus87 8y ago
        The only speech without thought is tourettes.
        bencollier49 8y ago
        And glossolalia, and sleeptalking. Oh, and recitation from memory. Probably some other things. Depending on your definition of "thought".
    - talmand 8y ago
      >> Speech without thought isn't free speech. That's a rather strong opening to limiting free speech. Who gets to decide that my speech was without thought? Is there an approval process? Can I repeal the decision? Do I have to document my thoughts before I speak to prove later that I did indeed think before I spoke out against the people that make those distinctions?
- tus87 8y ago
  > Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ opinions and ideas Liberal fascists start off like this, but then it becomes: > Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ correct and legitimate opinions and ideas And then you get sent to gulags. Happens every time.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  ...banal agreement...hardly any discourse...Confirmation bias rules... Speak for your own friend group, please. Maybe I just have better friends.
lambdasquirrel 8y ago
There's also the contrarian viewpoint that Facebook is a danger to civilization, and not only ideas that are valued by democracy. The whole thing was built by hijacking the limbic system. And aren't ads much the same? So you can say then, that it was monetized by likewise hijacking the limbic system. Anyway, this is not a good recipe for discourse. Now they can finagle around with it as much as they like, try to machine-learning this, machine-learning that, but it isn't going to get around that it fundamentally operates by hijacking people's limbic system. And people are ultimately more clever and dastardly than whatever machine-learning they are going to throw at it to try to sanitize the discourse. It's probably easier to teach yoga/tai chi/meditation/whatever to all of Facebook's users than to fix Facebook.
hliyan 8y ago
Sri Lankan here. I have to agree with this. I'm absolutely against censorship and suppression of free speech, but in this particular instance, it's more like a government grounding all flights because it's a vector for a spreading pandemic. Social media right now is such a vector. I'm certain we prevented a lot of retaliatory bloodshed with the social media blackout and the curfew.
username223 8y ago
> Temporary limits on fundamental freedoms during an emergency are pretty common, even in the good old USA. Exactly. If people are rioting, for example because their football team won the Super Bowl (http://fortune.com/2018/02/05/eagles-win-super-bowl-riot-psychology/ http://fortune.com/2018/02/05/eagles-win-super-bowl-riot-psy...), the city may impose a curfew to give everyone a chance to cool off. This just sounds like the digital equivalent to me, and while it's unfortunate, it seems like the best solution to the problem.

zzzcpan 8y ago

It's not that mild. Still an attempt to stop information government doesn't like from spreading. Still targeted, more broadly, but targeted. Still requires internet censorship infrastructure to even be able to order ISPs to block websites and power, so much power to get there, pretty much dictatorship level power. China, the anti freedom villain, does this kind of thing regularly. I get why people are making excuses though. Pretty much no political systems in the world can actually exist with truly free speech, because they all rely on controlling free speech to function. And now that actual free speech got out of their control it threatens them and makes them push against it, promoting restrictions to free speech.

code_sloth 8y ago

Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ opinions and ideas. To articulate ideas and opinions, you have to think and formulate your thoughts. What Facebook enables and optimizes for can hardly be called free speech. Articulation is not encouraged, merely the spreading of thoughts (both good and bad). Engagement has been optimized for advertising purposes. It led to banal agreement in the form of likes and reshares. There is hardly any discourse, people get silo-ed in echo chambers, and the extreme ends of the spectrum get magnified. Confirmation bias rules, and bad ideas aren't defeated by good ideas because they hardly come into contact. So no, Facebook isn't enabling free speech, as much as they'd like to claim they are. At best they are a communication tool, nothing more.

tdhoot 8y ago
Free speech is not only about articulation. It's also about the ability to share, disseminate, and influence others.
- code_sloth 8y ago
  Speech without thought isn't free speech. It's just people and sometimes mobs saying things. Freedom of information flow isn't the same thing. Democracy works best with an informed electorate. Information flow without discourse is just indoctrination. And that's what Facebook (unintendedly) optimizes for.
  - NeonVice 8y ago
    Speech even without thought is still free speech. You would hope that the most thoughtful speech would be easily recognized and followed in place of its opposite. However, free speech does not exist in a world where only one group decides what is thoughtful speech.
    - tus87 8y ago
      The only speech without thought is tourettes.
      - bencollier49 8y ago
        And glossolalia, and sleeptalking. Oh, and recitation from memory. Probably some other things. Depending on your definition of "thought".
  - talmand 8y ago
    >> Speech without thought isn't free speech. That's a rather strong opening to limiting free speech. Who gets to decide that my speech was without thought? Is there an approval process? Can I repeal the decision? Do I have to document my thoughts before I speak to prove later that I did indeed think before I spoke out against the people that make those distinctions?
tus87 8y ago
> Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ opinions and ideas Liberal fascists start off like this, but then it becomes: > Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ correct and legitimate opinions and ideas And then you get sent to gulags. Happens every time.
stickfigure 8y ago
...banal agreement...hardly any discourse...Confirmation bias rules... Speak for your own friend group, please. Maybe I just have better friends.

lambdasquirrel 8y ago

There's also the contrarian viewpoint that Facebook is a danger to civilization, and not only ideas that are valued by democracy. The whole thing was built by hijacking the limbic system. And aren't ads much the same? So you can say then, that it was monetized by likewise hijacking the limbic system. Anyway, this is not a good recipe for discourse. Now they can finagle around with it as much as they like, try to machine-learning this, machine-learning that, but it isn't going to get around that it fundamentally operates by hijacking people's limbic system. And people are ultimately more clever and dastardly than whatever machine-learning they are going to throw at it to try to sanitize the discourse. It's probably easier to teach yoga/tai chi/meditation/whatever to all of Facebook's users than to fix Facebook.

hliyan 8y ago

Sri Lankan here. I have to agree with this. I'm absolutely against censorship and suppression of free speech, but in this particular instance, it's more like a government grounding all flights because it's a vector for a spreading pandemic. Social media right now is such a vector. I'm certain we prevented a lot of retaliatory bloodshed with the social media blackout and the curfew.

username223 8y ago

> Temporary limits on fundamental freedoms during an emergency are pretty common, even in the good old USA. Exactly. If people are rioting, for example because their football team won the Super Bowl (http://fortune.com/2018/02/05/eagles-win-super-bowl-riot-psychology/ http://fortune.com/2018/02/05/eagles-win-super-bowl-riot-psy...), the city may impose a curfew to give everyone a chance to cool off. This just sounds like the digital equivalent to me, and while it's unfortunate, it seems like the best solution to the problem.