5 ms·

At the end of the day, that's for Facebook to decide. If Facebook decides they don't want to host content from them, that's their choice as the private company

At the end of the day, that's for Facebook to decide. If Facebook decides they don't want to host content from them, that's their choice as the private company they are. People keep bringing up "freedom of speech" when it comes to these trolls, like the world owes them something.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago
That would only be true if Facebook was truly private and not taking direction from government-funded entities like the Atlantic Council. The government isn't simply allowed to outsource censorship to do an end-run around the 1st Amendment. This remains true whether or not they claim to be doing so because of the dastardly Russians or anyone else. http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-election-propaghanda/ http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-elec...
- anoonmoose 7y ago
  "Despite its connections, the Council is by charter independent of the U.S. government and NATO, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council I guess what I'm saying is, Facebook is a private company by any reasonable legal interpretation.
  - StanislavPetrov 7y ago
    Their claims of independence are irrelevant - they are funded directly by NATO. Its a pity the Hacker News woke crowd is so hostile to the 1st Amendment - a sign of the times. http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-releases-donor-list.html http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-relea...
    - anoonmoose 7y ago
      I'm not hostile to the 1A, I just recognize that the Constitution applies to actions made by the government and not by private companies. Facebook can take money from NATO and still be private.
- dguaraglia 7y ago
  Funnily enough, even if Facebook was receiving money directly from several governments, they wouldn't be violating the First Amendment because they aren't the government. The First Amendment was designed to protect free speech from government (and the American government at that). It's arguable that even if the US government was providing some funding, they still wouldn't be violating the First Amendment. So no, this is not a "First Amendment" issue. Nobody's telling these people they can't participate in society or publish their own blogs. They are just telling them that their anti-Semitic crap won't be allowed. And for that, we should all be thankful.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

That would only be true if Facebook was truly private and not taking direction from government-funded entities like the Atlantic Council. The government isn't simply allowed to outsource censorship to do an end-run around the 1st Amendment. This remains true whether or not they claim to be doing so because of the dastardly Russians or anyone else. http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-election-propaghanda/ http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-elec...

anoonmoose 7y ago
"Despite its connections, the Council is by charter independent of the U.S. government and NATO, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council I guess what I'm saying is, Facebook is a private company by any reasonable legal interpretation.
- StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  Their claims of independence are irrelevant - they are funded directly by NATO. Its a pity the Hacker News woke crowd is so hostile to the 1st Amendment - a sign of the times. http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-releases-donor-list.html http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-relea...
  - anoonmoose 7y ago
    I'm not hostile to the 1A, I just recognize that the Constitution applies to actions made by the government and not by private companies. Facebook can take money from NATO and still be private.
dguaraglia 7y ago
Funnily enough, even if Facebook was receiving money directly from several governments, they wouldn't be violating the First Amendment because they aren't the government. The First Amendment was designed to protect free speech from government (and the American government at that). It's arguable that even if the US government was providing some funding, they still wouldn't be violating the First Amendment. So no, this is not a "First Amendment" issue. Nobody's telling these people they can't participate in society or publish their own blogs. They are just telling them that their anti-Semitic crap won't be allowed. And for that, we should all be thankful.