5 ms·

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 the

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 8y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 8y 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 8y ago
  There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.
  - vibrato 8y 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 8y 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 Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform.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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nostromo 8y 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 8y ago
There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.
- vibrato 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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?