5 ms·

>You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. Legally, that is true. I don't think anyone in this conversat

>You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. Legally, that is true. I don't think anyone in this conversation or elsewhere is claiming that Facebook is illegally silencing people. Of course, while you are not entitled to use Facebook, Facebook is, like all businesses regulated by various existing laws in the US, prohibited from denying you service based upon certain protected characteristics. I do not point that out to claim that Facebook is currently denying anyone service based upon those protected characteristics, only to point out that "it's privately owned" is an argument that lost most of its punch many decades ago. Furthermore, the people being silenced by Facebook are well aware that the people calling for them to be silenced by Facebook and others are heavily in favor of those laws, so when they hear "Facebook is a private company so it can kick you off if it wants" from those people, it comes off to them as being very dishonest, partisan, and malicious. >The unstated suggestion that lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to effective communication in our society is untrue. Lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to participating in the (large) portion of the public political debate which takes place on Facebook. That is a problem we should be concerned about. We want to ensure people can meaningfully participate in the public political debate, because if they cannot, the alternative is violence.

root_axis 7y ago
> Legally, that is true. I don't think anyone in this conversation or elsewhere is claiming that Facebook is illegally silencing people. You're missing my point. I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that Facebook cannot determine who is allowed to access their private property. The users do not pay Facebook for access and thus it is purely a business decision to determine who can and cannot access the site. > Facebook is, like all businesses regulated by various existing laws in the US, prohibited from denying you service based upon certain protected characteristics I am not disagreeing with the idea of regulations. If Facebook is running afoul of the law then they should face the consequences, but assuming they are not breaking the law, it should be Facebook's prerogative to ban users because Facebook bears the burden of developing the software and the ongoing costs of running the servers. Why should anyone be allowed to demand access to something that is wholly owned, operated, and funded by Facebook? > Facebook is a private company so it can kick you off if it wants" from those people, it comes off to them as being very dishonest, partisan, and malicious. What about it is dishonest or malicious? And how is this a partisan issue in any way? You already pointed out that legally Facebook can kick off any user they want, so are you arguing that the laws should be changed to prevent Facebook from doing so? > Lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to participating in the (large) portion of the public political debate which takes place on Facebook Facebook is a cesspool of memes and fake news, it is not at all relevant in the annals of "public political debate" any more than 4chan. I'm sure you'd say the same thing if 4chan was as popular as Facebook, but my point is that such reasoning is silly. The fundamental nature of Facebook is triviality and the idea that lacking access to Facebook is a precursor to violence is completely unsubstantiated.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that Facebook cannot determine who is allowed to access their private property. What?? That is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. >Why should anyone be allowed to demand access to something that is wholly owned, operated, and funded by Facebook? Because we have decided for cases that other concerns are more important than their private property rights, which are far from being absolute. >What about it is dishonest or malicious? The people being deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the right wing. The people calling for right wingers to be deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the left wing. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the left wing generally supports prohibiting private businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of e.g. sexual orientation, so when left wingers happily use "it's a private business" as an argument to support deplatforming right wingers, that comes off to right wingers as being partisan and phony. Given that speech is one important way in which people advocate for their interests, a partisan attack on the ability of people on the right wing to participate in the public conversation comes across as malicious. >You already pointed out that legally Facebook can kick off any user they want, so are you arguing that the laws should be changed to prevent Facebook from doing so? Yes, or regulations rewritten. >Facebook is a cesspool of memes and fake news, it is not at all relevant in the annals of "public political debate" any more than 4chan. Its userbase swamps that of 4chan. I'm not sure why memes wouldn't count as participation in the political conversation. They are modern day political slogans, propaganda posters, and political satire. Regardless, as you are probably aware, political campaigns have hugely invested in their social media presence. Are you saying that was all a waste? >The fundamental nature of Facebook is triviality I'm not sure why you think that the public political debate has ever been a deep and substantive one for the vast majority of participants. The depth of the conversations does not matter. Most people do not have to attention span for anything other than triviality. >the idea that lacking access to Facebook is a precursor to violence is completely unsubstantiated. The idea that lacking access to the public political conversation is a precursor to violence is a very old one, and has been substantiated many, many times.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > What?? That is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. So what? Does the existence of discrimination laws mean you can never deny service to anybody ever? Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? The purpose of anti-discrimination laws are to prevent discrimination of protected classes, they are not meant to prohibit Facebook from moderating its platform. > Because we have decided for cases that other concerns are more important than their private property rights, which are far from being absolute. Once again, so what? There are no absolute legal rights including property rights, that doesn't mean that the logical mechanics of property rights are completely obliterated, I don't see any reasonable justification for why Facebook shouldn't be permitted to exercise their property rights to ban whoever they want, (again, provided the ban does not violate the law), especially because Facebook is a free and non-vital service the use of which is completely optional. > The people being deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the right wing. The people calling for right wingers to be deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the left wing. I see. This is a political debate I am uninterested in so I won't bother with it except to say that it is irrelevant to my point. I don't care about who is calling for who to be banned or other trivial dramatics occurring in the Facebook community, my argument is only addressing the nature of Facebook's prerogatives to operate their business. > I'm not sure why memes wouldn't count as participation in the political conversation. lol what? They obviously count as conversations, they're just utterly unimportant and not something society should care to ensure is available to the masses. Just because there are a lot of people on the Facebook network doesn't mean that society should guarantee access to a gallery of vapid image macros. There is nothing important about political discussion on Facebook and no user is materially harmed by having their access to Facebook revoked any more than having their HN account banned. > Regardless, as you are probably aware, political campaigns have hugely invested in their social media presence. Are you saying that was all a waste? I'm not saying that. Obviously politicians will advertise wherever there are eyeballs. What does that prove except that people use Facebook? Are you suggesting that the law should entitle people free access any medium where political ads are present? > I'm not sure why you think that the public political debate has ever been a deep and substantive one for the vast majority of participants I don't. That's exactly my point. It's substantively unimportant, nobody is harmed by not being able to participate in triviality; it's not like you need Facebook to vote, or to contact your senator, or to sit in on city council meetings, or to file a petition and gather signatures or literally anything relevant in the political process (and I'd argue it should be illegal to transition any of those political processes into a platform that doesn't end in .gov) > The idea that lacking access to the public political conversation is a precursor to violence is a very old one, and has been substantiated many, many times. You replaced "access to Facebook" with "access to the public political conversation" but lacking access to Facebook is absolutely not even close to the same as lacking access to "the public political conversation"; to suggest otherwise is either dishonest or an admission of ignorance regarding the nature of the political process and how politics work in the U.S and around the world. Yes, political discussion happens on Facebook like it does anywhere people have discussions, but the political discussions on Facebook are wholly unimportant and not something that society needs to ensure is available to the masses.

root_axis 7y ago

> Legally, that is true. I don't think anyone in this conversation or elsewhere is claiming that Facebook is illegally silencing people. You're missing my point. I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that Facebook cannot determine who is allowed to access their private property. The users do not pay Facebook for access and thus it is purely a business decision to determine who can and cannot access the site. > Facebook is, like all businesses regulated by various existing laws in the US, prohibited from denying you service based upon certain protected characteristics I am not disagreeing with the idea of regulations. If Facebook is running afoul of the law then they should face the consequences, but assuming they are not breaking the law, it should be Facebook's prerogative to ban users because Facebook bears the burden of developing the software and the ongoing costs of running the servers. Why should anyone be allowed to demand access to something that is wholly owned, operated, and funded by Facebook? > Facebook is a private company so it can kick you off if it wants" from those people, it comes off to them as being very dishonest, partisan, and malicious. What about it is dishonest or malicious? And how is this a partisan issue in any way? You already pointed out that legally Facebook can kick off any user they want, so are you arguing that the laws should be changed to prevent Facebook from doing so? > Lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to participating in the (large) portion of the public political debate which takes place on Facebook Facebook is a cesspool of memes and fake news, it is not at all relevant in the annals of "public political debate" any more than 4chan. I'm sure you'd say the same thing if 4chan was as popular as Facebook, but my point is that such reasoning is silly. The fundamental nature of Facebook is triviality and the idea that lacking access to Facebook is a precursor to violence is completely unsubstantiated.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>I'm saying that it makes no sense to say that Facebook cannot determine who is allowed to access their private property. What?? That is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. >Why should anyone be allowed to demand access to something that is wholly owned, operated, and funded by Facebook? Because we have decided for cases that other concerns are more important than their private property rights, which are far from being absolute. >What about it is dishonest or malicious? The people being deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the right wing. The people calling for right wingers to be deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the left wing. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the left wing generally supports prohibiting private businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of e.g. sexual orientation, so when left wingers happily use "it's a private business" as an argument to support deplatforming right wingers, that comes off to right wingers as being partisan and phony. Given that speech is one important way in which people advocate for their interests, a partisan attack on the ability of people on the right wing to participate in the public conversation comes across as malicious. >You already pointed out that legally Facebook can kick off any user they want, so are you arguing that the laws should be changed to prevent Facebook from doing so? Yes, or regulations rewritten. >Facebook is a cesspool of memes and fake news, it is not at all relevant in the annals of "public political debate" any more than 4chan. Its userbase swamps that of 4chan. I'm not sure why memes wouldn't count as participation in the political conversation. They are modern day political slogans, propaganda posters, and political satire. Regardless, as you are probably aware, political campaigns have hugely invested in their social media presence. Are you saying that was all a waste? >The fundamental nature of Facebook is triviality I'm not sure why you think that the public political debate has ever been a deep and substantive one for the vast majority of participants. The depth of the conversations does not matter. Most people do not have to attention span for anything other than triviality. >the idea that lacking access to Facebook is a precursor to violence is completely unsubstantiated. The idea that lacking access to the public political conversation is a precursor to violence is a very old one, and has been substantiated many, many times.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > What?? That is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. So what? Does the existence of discrimination laws mean you can never deny service to anybody ever? Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? The purpose of anti-discrimination laws are to prevent discrimination of protected classes, they are not meant to prohibit Facebook from moderating its platform. > Because we have decided for cases that other concerns are more important than their private property rights, which are far from being absolute. Once again, so what? There are no absolute legal rights including property rights, that doesn't mean that the logical mechanics of property rights are completely obliterated, I don't see any reasonable justification for why Facebook shouldn't be permitted to exercise their property rights to ban whoever they want, (again, provided the ban does not violate the law), especially because Facebook is a free and non-vital service the use of which is completely optional. > The people being deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the right wing. The people calling for right wingers to be deplatformed are, generally speaking, on the left wing. I see. This is a political debate I am uninterested in so I won't bother with it except to say that it is irrelevant to my point. I don't care about who is calling for who to be banned or other trivial dramatics occurring in the Facebook community, my argument is only addressing the nature of Facebook's prerogatives to operate their business. > I'm not sure why memes wouldn't count as participation in the political conversation. lol what? They obviously count as conversations, they're just utterly unimportant and not something society should care to ensure is available to the masses. Just because there are a lot of people on the Facebook network doesn't mean that society should guarantee access to a gallery of vapid image macros. There is nothing important about political discussion on Facebook and no user is materially harmed by having their access to Facebook revoked any more than having their HN account banned. > Regardless, as you are probably aware, political campaigns have hugely invested in their social media presence. Are you saying that was all a waste? I'm not saying that. Obviously politicians will advertise wherever there are eyeballs. What does that prove except that people use Facebook? Are you suggesting that the law should entitle people free access any medium where political ads are present? > I'm not sure why you think that the public political debate has ever been a deep and substantive one for the vast majority of participants I don't. That's exactly my point. It's substantively unimportant, nobody is harmed by not being able to participate in triviality; it's not like you need Facebook to vote, or to contact your senator, or to sit in on city council meetings, or to file a petition and gather signatures or literally anything relevant in the political process (and I'd argue it should be illegal to transition any of those political processes into a platform that doesn't end in .gov) > The idea that lacking access to the public political conversation is a precursor to violence is a very old one, and has been substantiated many, many times. You replaced "access to Facebook" with "access to the public political conversation" but lacking access to Facebook is absolutely not even close to the same as lacking access to "the public political conversation"; to suggest otherwise is either dishonest or an admission of ignorance regarding the nature of the political process and how politics work in the U.S and around the world. Yes, political discussion happens on Facebook like it does anywhere people have discussions, but the political discussions on Facebook are wholly unimportant and not something that society needs to ensure is available to the masses.