6 ms·

No. What the best interest of us all is to realize that all not hate speech, especially politically related, needs to not be burdened by restrictions on such b

No. What the best interest of us all is to realize that all not hate speech, especially politically related, needs to not be burdened by restrictions on such by any government. the only entities too big are the Chinese and American governments and both for the same reason, they are very willing to suppress speech which does not further their goals as countries or that of their politicians. In the US that means they have to resort to scare tactics because our freedom of speech and assembly are protected if not heralded at times. so they have to scare you into believing the democratic process is threatened, that elections are threatened, that your very way of life is threatened, unless you of course give them power to suppress speech they claim meets those requirements. Fortunately courts would stop most attempts but politicians truly think the court of public opinion can be used to influence the courts too. So yeah I get it, the fad is to hate of Facebook but I would take multiple companies the size of facebook before I let any politician tell me what speech is acceptable when it comes to politics or the like. putting a muzzle on facebook opens the door to muzzling all blogs and sites and that is something the press and politicians would love to have, control over the message again. edit: just blundered into this story [0] - while more dire than what we are discussing one must understand that China isn't far from what Venezuela is now but for the people there this is what they gave up when they allowed the politicians to control the message and what is and what is not acceptable [0] https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/20/my-socialist-hell-the-death-of-free-speech-in-venezuela/ https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/20/my-so...

someguydave 7y ago
I agree with you, but that won’t stop Zuck from trying to sell Facebook-the-big-corp as an anti-China counterweight.
jimbokun 7y ago
This is very naive. In addition to suppressing speech, there are foreign intelligence operations posing as domestic actors influencing political campaigns. This is illegal under US law, for good reason. It distorts the entire process if no one can tell who the speech is coming from. Foreign lobbyists must be publicly identified for this reason, and its interesting that multiple Trump administration persons have been found guilty of "not registering as a foreign agent". Many fake US organizations and persons were created by Russians to influence the 2016 campaign, in clear violation of US laws. It seems the Chinese are not far behind. And because they are foreign actors, this falls squarely under the purview of counter intelligence and foreign policy towards hostile actors. I do not think the US Founders vision of free speech included massive foreign propaganda campaigns.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > It distorts the entire process if no one can tell who the speech is coming from. Not if voters are rational. Rational voters will weigh everything they see and hear in terms of the track record of the source: how well has this source done at telling me the truth in the past? Obviously an unknown source--still more a source that refuses to identify itself and has no track record at all--will simply be ignored. In an environment like that, hiding the true origin of speech is self-defeating.
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    Humans are not rational, and it's naive to believe that they ever possibly could be. Governments need to be at least as big as the corporations and the other governments they seek to regulate and defend against, otherwise things get squirrelly and dangerous.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > Humans are not rational, and it's naive to believe that they ever possibly could be. If this is true, we're screwed, because governments are run by humans.
      - pgeorgi 7y ago
        Governments have a couple of safeguards in place to deal with irrational humans running the show. Some of them are division of power and checks and balances. These safeguards are the reason why governance is sometimes slow and sometimes bulky but also why, by and large, governance doesn't fail entirely when it happens to be unjust: it can recover from most injustices (one argument against capital punishment is that there's no recovery from that). And all that is rooted in a distrust that humans do the right thing all the time - without that assumption you wouldn't need these mechanisms with all their overhead, you'd just appoint a philosopher king. [edit to add: One problem is when some of these powers aren't doing their job. Checks and balances break down when (for example) the legislature devolves into playing the executive's yes-men instead of directing its activities.]
mntmoss 7y ago
With respect to the current US political situation, a good deal of it can be traced back to the last major upheavals of the late 1960's to early 1970's. The preordained approach to and discourse around economics, race/ethnicity, and feminism(and likewise many sacred cows of the computing culture) all have some birthing around these dates, and their post-hoc developments have tended towards intensification rather than realignment, a thing which has become more jarring and explosive over time and is likely to precipitate our next political era(or perhaps the current one depending on how you see it). And this goes for how we talk about and express "free speech" as well, since the era prior had just seen the Red Scare, various forms of media censorship, military drafts, and a "government man" approach to solving all sorts of problems. Everything moved in the direction of libertarian, market-driven ideology, and Facebook is an ultimate result of that. My suspicion is that the "compete with China" narrative is actually the most powerful thing shaping this discourse. The authoritarian end of US politics will seize upon it as a way to take power, but will always suffer the handicap of their solutions being "too much like China". When combined with the free speech principle it animates arguments for allowing free speech on Facebook and throughout the Internet, while simultaneously also fueling arguments for breaking up the company and decentralizing its functionality in the "users have a right to privacy and should own their data" sense. In that sense it's like the motives that produced the Apollo missions, and a politican who approached it that way, as a "defense of our digital property rights requires the investment of our brightest minds" kind of issue would probably be very successful.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >When combined with the free speech principle it animates arguments for allowing free speech on Facebook and throughout the Internet, while simultaneously also fueling arguments for breaking up the company and decentralizing its functionality in the "users have a right to privacy and should own their data" sense. In that sense it's like the motives that produced the Apollo missions, and a politican who approached it that way, as a "defense of our digital property rights requires the investment of our brightest minds" kind of issue would probably be very successful. People have a tendency to conflate Facebook's privacy lapses with the calls for antitrust action. GDPR isn't meant to punish big tech companies like Google or Facebook, it's literally meant to protect individuals' privacy. That's it. It's not a Rube Goldberg machine to punish Facebook or address competition concerns. GDPR isn't even limited to the tech industry, it applies to every industry. Governments already have antitrust laws to deal with monopoly power. The reason the calls for antitrust action are heating up is because of actual anti-competitive behavior. Antitrust also has nothing to do with free speech no matter what opportunistic politicians say to conflate them. The First Amendment protects private corporations to make any moderation decision they want. Section 230 lets them do it while also immunizing them from any liability.

someguydave 7y ago

I agree with you, but that won’t stop Zuck from trying to sell Facebook-the-big-corp as an anti-China counterweight.

jimbokun 7y ago

This is very naive. In addition to suppressing speech, there are foreign intelligence operations posing as domestic actors influencing political campaigns. This is illegal under US law, for good reason. It distorts the entire process if no one can tell who the speech is coming from. Foreign lobbyists must be publicly identified for this reason, and its interesting that multiple Trump administration persons have been found guilty of "not registering as a foreign agent". Many fake US organizations and persons were created by Russians to influence the 2016 campaign, in clear violation of US laws. It seems the Chinese are not far behind. And because they are foreign actors, this falls squarely under the purview of counter intelligence and foreign policy towards hostile actors. I do not think the US Founders vision of free speech included massive foreign propaganda campaigns.

pdonis 7y ago
> It distorts the entire process if no one can tell who the speech is coming from. Not if voters are rational. Rational voters will weigh everything they see and hear in terms of the track record of the source: how well has this source done at telling me the truth in the past? Obviously an unknown source--still more a source that refuses to identify itself and has no track record at all--will simply be ignored. In an environment like that, hiding the true origin of speech is self-defeating.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  Humans are not rational, and it's naive to believe that they ever possibly could be. Governments need to be at least as big as the corporations and the other governments they seek to regulate and defend against, otherwise things get squirrelly and dangerous.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Humans are not rational, and it's naive to believe that they ever possibly could be. If this is true, we're screwed, because governments are run by humans.
    - pgeorgi 7y ago
      Governments have a couple of safeguards in place to deal with irrational humans running the show. Some of them are division of power and checks and balances. These safeguards are the reason why governance is sometimes slow and sometimes bulky but also why, by and large, governance doesn't fail entirely when it happens to be unjust: it can recover from most injustices (one argument against capital punishment is that there's no recovery from that). And all that is rooted in a distrust that humans do the right thing all the time - without that assumption you wouldn't need these mechanisms with all their overhead, you'd just appoint a philosopher king. [edit to add: One problem is when some of these powers aren't doing their job. Checks and balances break down when (for example) the legislature devolves into playing the executive's yes-men instead of directing its activities.]

mntmoss 7y ago

With respect to the current US political situation, a good deal of it can be traced back to the last major upheavals of the late 1960's to early 1970's. The preordained approach to and discourse around economics, race/ethnicity, and feminism(and likewise many sacred cows of the computing culture) all have some birthing around these dates, and their post-hoc developments have tended towards intensification rather than realignment, a thing which has become more jarring and explosive over time and is likely to precipitate our next political era(or perhaps the current one depending on how you see it). And this goes for how we talk about and express "free speech" as well, since the era prior had just seen the Red Scare, various forms of media censorship, military drafts, and a "government man" approach to solving all sorts of problems. Everything moved in the direction of libertarian, market-driven ideology, and Facebook is an ultimate result of that. My suspicion is that the "compete with China" narrative is actually the most powerful thing shaping this discourse. The authoritarian end of US politics will seize upon it as a way to take power, but will always suffer the handicap of their solutions being "too much like China". When combined with the free speech principle it animates arguments for allowing free speech on Facebook and throughout the Internet, while simultaneously also fueling arguments for breaking up the company and decentralizing its functionality in the "users have a right to privacy and should own their data" sense. In that sense it's like the motives that produced the Apollo missions, and a politican who approached it that way, as a "defense of our digital property rights requires the investment of our brightest minds" kind of issue would probably be very successful.

Despegar 7y ago
>When combined with the free speech principle it animates arguments for allowing free speech on Facebook and throughout the Internet, while simultaneously also fueling arguments for breaking up the company and decentralizing its functionality in the "users have a right to privacy and should own their data" sense. In that sense it's like the motives that produced the Apollo missions, and a politican who approached it that way, as a "defense of our digital property rights requires the investment of our brightest minds" kind of issue would probably be very successful. People have a tendency to conflate Facebook's privacy lapses with the calls for antitrust action. GDPR isn't meant to punish big tech companies like Google or Facebook, it's literally meant to protect individuals' privacy. That's it. It's not a Rube Goldberg machine to punish Facebook or address competition concerns. GDPR isn't even limited to the tech industry, it applies to every industry. Governments already have antitrust laws to deal with monopoly power. The reason the calls for antitrust action are heating up is because of actual anti-competitive behavior. Antitrust also has nothing to do with free speech no matter what opportunistic politicians say to conflate them. The First Amendment protects private corporations to make any moderation decision they want. Section 230 lets them do it while also immunizing them from any liability.