6 ms·

...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no obligation to allow all speech.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 7y ago
I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nostromo 7y ago
  Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should. Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.
  - res0nat0r 7y ago
    There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.
    - vibrato 7y ago
      That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the USA there. The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-twitter-is-a-public-square-more-than-5-times/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-t...
      - jfk13 7y ago
        This is a crucial point, IMO. Facebook et al need to decide (or we as a society need to decide) whether they're a public square - in which case they have no business censoring what people choose to say except in cases speech that is clearly illegal - or a content publisher making choices about what to publish and what not. (In Facebook's case, at least, I'd say that ever since they moved on from the simple chronological "wall" showing posts as submitted, replacing it with a "timeline" where their algorithms - with plenty of input from "sponsors", etc - decide what you'll see, they have chosen to become a content publisher.) Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform. But then they must also be held responsible for what they do choose to publish - including liability for harmful content such as libel, false advertising, etc.
  - hashmap 7y ago
    Right. It means you can't be forced to say anything - Facebook is under no obligation to proliferate things these people want to post.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed... So tell me, does Facebook have Freedom of Speech in your view?
  - Rapzid 7y ago
    Isegoria, the right for every adult male to free political speech(to address the assembly)? Parrhesia, freedom of speech in the courts and assemblies(and outside public assemblies)? No, I'm pretty sure it has always had to do with the governments and the governed. It seems popular these days to conflate the general concept tolerance with freedom of speech. Tolerance has it's limits though as per the tolerance paradox. Freedom of speech says the government shouldn't draw the line, but society at large absolutely should be allowed to. EDIT: Outside of specific venues and contexts what you could say in Ancient Athens society was much more rigidly defined and there was much less tolerance for breaking those norms than in the USA today.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Is property truly private when it's the public square for 1/6 of the population of the entire planet? It's like if someone owned all of the streets outside of your house and censored you on their private property.
- mindslight 7y ago
  By that reasoning, people who "scream" demanding that all races be let into restaurants are also being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others.
- ALittleLight 7y ago
  There is the legal idea of free speech, which constrains Congress, but also the moral idea of free speech which says you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally. Facebook is, of course, not violating the legal principle of free speech. They are absolutely violating the moral principle. In the same way, if someone came over to your house and made some political argument you didn't like you would be perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave - but you'd be wrong if you claimed that you were open to hearing all kinds of opinions in your house, or that you were completely open minded. Your comment is also needlessly hostile. Play by Facebook's rules or get out? Imagine applying this sentiment to any other objectionable thing Facebook has done. Facebook's users are just users, not automatons, and until Facebook takes over HackerNews and starts banning people for criticising them, then people should feel no hesitation about voicing fair criticism of Facebook here.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or grand mother. As a token concession, if he insults my father or any of my uncles, I'll let him have an, uh... "discussion"... with them while they "...work out their disagreements..." But that's not gonna end well for him either. They're all Vietnam Vets. The pissed off enlisted kind. Not the contemplative commissioned kind.
    - t_dunks 7y ago
      Yea it would mean you're not open to discourse about that topic. Your totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore or not, but yes then you're not open in regards to that subject. And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct. Furthermore, there is a very significant different between Facebook (which acts like a town square) vs your private dwelling.
- frotak 7y ago
  Earnest question - how do you feel about the bakery owner who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of the gay couple in Colorado? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... Same basic scenario? Or there further nuance?
mc32 7y ago
Just wait till people on the other side of the spectrum start getting blowback because establishment left are done with them, then we’ll hear how speech is being kerbed in the interest of the establishment and corporatism.
- busterarm 7y ago
  Left-aligned bloggers/organizations that report on extremist right politics got caught up in a mass ban for their reporting and cried foul about it just last week actually.
mindslight 7y ago
-1j; Flamebait.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
staunch 7y ago
Legally they have no obligation but IMHO Zuckerberg does have an ethical obligation to uphold freedom of speech, particularly as a citizen of a country founded on the principle. Facebook is as influential and dominant over information as the U.S. government has ever been. Responsibility comes with power and money is Facebook's only motivation here. They're worried about the financial repercussions of upholding this most sacred of American principles. They fear the backlash from least principled people among us, people that simply can't comprehend the concept of defending even your sworn enemy's human rights. Zuckerberg is compromising his own ethics for money, clearly proving once and for all that he truly cannot be trusted great power. An intelligent billionaire that is unwilling to stand up to a mob is truly a sad excuse for a human being.
radcon 7y ago
> They have no obligation to allow all speech. Their legal obligation is one thing, their moral/ethical obligations are another. So are you technically right? Yes. But are you completely overlooking the real problem here? Also yes. Allowing these platforms to silence anyone at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason is giving them an absurd amount of power. The least we could do is force them to be transparent - give us a list of who they've banned and exactly why they were banned so we can make informed decisions about supporting those platforms. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if these bans were arbitrary or justified. And since we depend on private companies for so many fundamental aspects of our lives, it only makes sense that the obligation to protect fundamental rights should also extend to those companies.
- anoonmoose 7y ago
  If enough people agreed with you, you could start your own FB competitor that did the things you wanted and make money doing it. Nowhere near enough people care.
  - radcon 7y ago
    Whether or not the uninformed masses care is a pretty poor measure of a problem's importance. But I'm sure they'll care when they're arbitrarily banned, or when someone they agree with is banned.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      > Whether or not the uninformed masses care is a pretty poor measure of a problem's importance. Agreed, see Tienanmen Square

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 7y ago
Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should. Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.
- res0nat0r 7y ago
  There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.
  - vibrato 7y ago
    That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the USA there. The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-twitter-is-a-public-square-more-than-5-times/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-t...
    - jfk13 7y ago
      This is a crucial point, IMO. Facebook et al need to decide (or we as a society need to decide) whether they're a public square - in which case they have no business censoring what people choose to say except in cases speech that is clearly illegal - or a content publisher making choices about what to publish and what not. (In Facebook's case, at least, I'd say that ever since they moved on from the simple chronological "wall" showing posts as submitted, replacing it with a "timeline" where their algorithms - with plenty of input from "sponsors", etc - decide what you'll see, they have chosen to become a content publisher.) Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform. But then they must also be held responsible for what they do choose to publish - including liability for harmful content such as libel, false advertising, etc.
- hashmap 7y ago
  Right. It means you can't be forced to say anything - Facebook is under no obligation to proliferate things these people want to post.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed... So tell me, does Facebook have Freedom of Speech in your view?
- Rapzid 7y ago
  Isegoria, the right for every adult male to free political speech(to address the assembly)? Parrhesia, freedom of speech in the courts and assemblies(and outside public assemblies)? No, I'm pretty sure it has always had to do with the governments and the governed. It seems popular these days to conflate the general concept tolerance with freedom of speech. Tolerance has it's limits though as per the tolerance paradox. Freedom of speech says the government shouldn't draw the line, but society at large absolutely should be allowed to. EDIT: Outside of specific venues and contexts what you could say in Ancient Athens society was much more rigidly defined and there was much less tolerance for breaking those norms than in the USA today.
busterarm 7y ago
Is property truly private when it's the public square for 1/6 of the population of the entire planet? It's like if someone owned all of the streets outside of your house and censored you on their private property.
mindslight 7y ago
By that reasoning, people who "scream" demanding that all races be let into restaurants are also being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others.
ALittleLight 7y ago
There is the legal idea of free speech, which constrains Congress, but also the moral idea of free speech which says you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally. Facebook is, of course, not violating the legal principle of free speech. They are absolutely violating the moral principle. In the same way, if someone came over to your house and made some political argument you didn't like you would be perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave - but you'd be wrong if you claimed that you were open to hearing all kinds of opinions in your house, or that you were completely open minded. Your comment is also needlessly hostile. Play by Facebook's rules or get out? Imagine applying this sentiment to any other objectionable thing Facebook has done. Facebook's users are just users, not automatons, and until Facebook takes over HackerNews and starts banning people for criticising them, then people should feel no hesitation about voicing fair criticism of Facebook here.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or grand mother. As a token concession, if he insults my father or any of my uncles, I'll let him have an, uh... "discussion"... with them while they "...work out their disagreements..." But that's not gonna end well for him either. They're all Vietnam Vets. The pissed off enlisted kind. Not the contemplative commissioned kind.
  - t_dunks 7y ago
    Yea it would mean you're not open to discourse about that topic. Your totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore or not, but yes then you're not open in regards to that subject. And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct. Furthermore, there is a very significant different between Facebook (which acts like a town square) vs your private dwelling.
frotak 7y ago
Earnest question - how do you feel about the bakery owner who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of the gay couple in Colorado? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... Same basic scenario? Or there further nuance?

mc32 7y ago

Just wait till people on the other side of the spectrum start getting blowback because establishment left are done with them, then we’ll hear how speech is being kerbed in the interest of the establishment and corporatism.

busterarm 7y ago
Left-aligned bloggers/organizations that report on extremist right politics got caught up in a mass ban for their reporting and cried foul about it just last week actually.

mindslight 7y ago

-1j; Flamebait.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

staunch 7y ago

Legally they have no obligation but IMHO Zuckerberg does have an ethical obligation to uphold freedom of speech, particularly as a citizen of a country founded on the principle. Facebook is as influential and dominant over information as the U.S. government has ever been. Responsibility comes with power and money is Facebook's only motivation here. They're worried about the financial repercussions of upholding this most sacred of American principles. They fear the backlash from least principled people among us, people that simply can't comprehend the concept of defending even your sworn enemy's human rights. Zuckerberg is compromising his own ethics for money, clearly proving once and for all that he truly cannot be trusted great power. An intelligent billionaire that is unwilling to stand up to a mob is truly a sad excuse for a human being.

radcon 7y ago

> They have no obligation to allow all speech. Their legal obligation is one thing, their moral/ethical obligations are another. So are you technically right? Yes. But are you completely overlooking the real problem here? Also yes. Allowing these platforms to silence anyone at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason is giving them an absurd amount of power. The least we could do is force them to be transparent - give us a list of who they've banned and exactly why they were banned so we can make informed decisions about supporting those platforms. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if these bans were arbitrary or justified. And since we depend on private companies for so many fundamental aspects of our lives, it only makes sense that the obligation to protect fundamental rights should also extend to those companies.

anoonmoose 7y ago
If enough people agreed with you, you could start your own FB competitor that did the things you wanted and make money doing it. Nowhere near enough people care.
- radcon 7y ago
  Whether or not the uninformed masses care is a pretty poor measure of a problem's importance. But I'm sure they'll care when they're arbitrarily banned, or when someone they agree with is banned.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > Whether or not the uninformed masses care is a pretty poor measure of a problem's importance. Agreed, see Tienanmen Square