4 ms·

> 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?

> 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.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? You should be able to guess what my answer will be here. They should not be allowed to ban people on the basis of their political speech because a large portion of the public political debate currently occurs on Facebook, and people lacking the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a precursor to real world violence, the avoidance of which is more important than Facebook's private property rights. >that doesn't mean that the logical mechanics of property rights are completely obliterated Telling Facebook they can't ban people on the basis of their political speech is not an obliteration of Facebook's property rights. >they're just utterly unimportant and not something society should care to ensure is available to the masses. I'm not sure what you mean by unimportant. Do you mean to claim that peoples' opinions cannot be influenced by them? If Facebook allows memes from one side of the political debate, but bans memes from the other side, do you believe that would have no influence on e.g. the outcome of elections? >There is nothing important about political discussion on Facebook Are you suggesting that what takes place on Facebook has no ability to influence e.g. the outcome of elections? Why then do politicians invest resources there? >What does that prove except that people use Facebook? It proves that Facebook is currently a place where people are influenced by political content. >nobody is harmed by not being able to participate in triviality That's absurd on its face. Losing access to Facebook results in losing access to a massive audience, which results in harm to people whose livelihood depends on access to the audience there, such as political commentators that rely on individual donations, e.g. Alex Jones. More broadly, given the obvious fact that political speech is one way in which people advocate for their interests, taking away their ability to meaningfully participate in the political debate reduces their ability to advocate for their interests. >or to file a petition and gather signatures If Facebook banned all links to your petition, would that not have a substantial effect on your ability to gather signatures? >lacking access to Facebook is absolutely not even close to the same as lacking access to "the public political conversation" Lacking access to Facebook quite obviously reduces a person's ability to meaningfully participate in the public political conversation. >but the political discussions on Facebook are wholly unimportant What exactly do you mean by "unimportant"? Tens and tens of millions of people are exposed to political ideas on Facebook, compared to the virtually none that sit in on city council meetings or contact their representatives, and the low numbers of millions soaking up the output of any given corporate media outlet. Do you think that is "unimportant"?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? You should be able to guess what my answer will be here. They should not be allowed to ban people on the basis of their political speech because a large portion of the public political debate currently occurs on Facebook, and people lacking the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a precursor to real world violence, the avoidance of which is more important than Facebook's private property rights. >that doesn't mean that the logical mechanics of property rights are completely obliterated Telling Facebook they can't ban people on the basis of their political speech is not an obliteration of Facebook's property rights. >they're just utterly unimportant and not something society should care to ensure is available to the masses. I'm not sure what you mean by unimportant. Do you mean to claim that peoples' opinions cannot be influenced by them? If Facebook allows memes from one side of the political debate, but bans memes from the other side, do you believe that would have no influence on e.g. the outcome of elections? >There is nothing important about political discussion on Facebook Are you suggesting that what takes place on Facebook has no ability to influence e.g. the outcome of elections? Why then do politicians invest resources there? >What does that prove except that people use Facebook? It proves that Facebook is currently a place where people are influenced by political content. >nobody is harmed by not being able to participate in triviality That's absurd on its face. Losing access to Facebook results in losing access to a massive audience, which results in harm to people whose livelihood depends on access to the audience there, such as political commentators that rely on individual donations, e.g. Alex Jones. More broadly, given the obvious fact that political speech is one way in which people advocate for their interests, taking away their ability to meaningfully participate in the political debate reduces their ability to advocate for their interests. >or to file a petition and gather signatures If Facebook banned all links to your petition, would that not have a substantial effect on your ability to gather signatures? >lacking access to Facebook is absolutely not even close to the same as lacking access to "the public political conversation" Lacking access to Facebook quite obviously reduces a person's ability to meaningfully participate in the public political conversation. >but the political discussions on Facebook are wholly unimportant What exactly do you mean by "unimportant"? Tens and tens of millions of people are exposed to political ideas on Facebook, compared to the virtually none that sit in on city council meetings or contact their representatives, and the low numbers of millions soaking up the output of any given corporate media outlet. Do you think that is "unimportant"?