4 ms·

We're talking here about free speech versus compelled speech. There are no restrictions on your right to speech, but we also don't compel anyone to sell you an

We're talking here about free speech versus compelled speech. There are no restrictions on your right to speech, but we also don't compel anyone to sell you an advertising platform. Anyone is free to choose to sell you a megaphone or not. In this case Zuck gets criticism for choosing to sell megaphones to people he knows are going to use those megaphones to lie. The case Zuck wants to make is that he should be free from the consequences of choosing to take money to distribute lies. He wants to do so by claiming its his obligation to give free speech to politicians but this is clearly rubbish - it's a protection no other megaphone vendor has. Take CNN for example, they can and do refuse to broadcast some political adverts because they have an obligation. An obligation that Zuckerberg contents shouldn't exist. What he is advocating for is a fundamental re-definition of what free speech in the US means.

bhupy 7y ago
I think you might be confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. Per the First Amendment, Zuck can do whatever he likes with his platform. He can refuse to broadcast whatever he wants, just like CNN and other news networks. But just as important, he is free to NOT refuse to broadcast whatever he pleases. There are no legal consequences for that (outside of the narrow exceptions in Brandenburg v Ohio). The argument that he is making is that he wants Facebook to be a platform that upholds the ideal of free speech. Whether or not Facebook follows through and actually practices this philosophy equally, remains to be seen.
- Traster 7y ago
  I'm not confusing the two, there are inherently two parts to this. Because obviously, if you do buy the idea that we're literally just talking about the principle of free speech, then we have literally hundreds of lines of the facebook terms of service that we need to discuss - since those are limits on speech. In fact, the statement he put out on facebook literally says that his company's defence of free speech is not absolute. The problem is, that it appears that buy buying a facebook advert you're essentially buying the ability for facebook to refuse to scrutinize you. The argument he's actually trying to make is: >Should we block all political ads? Google, YouTube and most internet platforms run these same ads, most cable networks run these same ads, and of course national broadcasters are required by law to run them by FCC regulations. But that's a lie. People aren't criticising Facebook for running the same ads that run on CNN. They're criticising facebook for running ads that CNN refuses to run. But instead, he completely fails to engage with the fact that cable networks have a different, coherent policy. Whilst Facebook's policy is that they're both a free speech platform, but also that they spend more money on getting harmful content off their platform than any other company in the world. That's the reason it's confusing - because the criticism of facebook isn't that its adhering to free speech principles, it's that its selectively using free speech as a defence when it suits them.
ben509 7y ago
> The case Zuck wants to make is that he should be free from the consequences of choosing to take money to distribute lies. The "free from consequences" argument is a thin rationalization for political thuggery. You can't make your case intellectually, so you're going to go after people's livelihoods.
r00fus 7y ago
Maybe we can call it FaceSpeech. Where the platform owner can decide who gets to talk. It's even better when we don't know who paid or how much.

bhupy 7y ago

I think you might be confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. Per the First Amendment, Zuck can do whatever he likes with his platform. He can refuse to broadcast whatever he wants, just like CNN and other news networks. But just as important, he is free to NOT refuse to broadcast whatever he pleases. There are no legal consequences for that (outside of the narrow exceptions in Brandenburg v Ohio). The argument that he is making is that he wants Facebook to be a platform that upholds the ideal of free speech. Whether or not Facebook follows through and actually practices this philosophy equally, remains to be seen.

Traster 7y ago
I'm not confusing the two, there are inherently two parts to this. Because obviously, if you do buy the idea that we're literally just talking about the principle of free speech, then we have literally hundreds of lines of the facebook terms of service that we need to discuss - since those are limits on speech. In fact, the statement he put out on facebook literally says that his company's defence of free speech is not absolute. The problem is, that it appears that buy buying a facebook advert you're essentially buying the ability for facebook to refuse to scrutinize you. The argument he's actually trying to make is: >Should we block all political ads? Google, YouTube and most internet platforms run these same ads, most cable networks run these same ads, and of course national broadcasters are required by law to run them by FCC regulations. But that's a lie. People aren't criticising Facebook for running the same ads that run on CNN. They're criticising facebook for running ads that CNN refuses to run. But instead, he completely fails to engage with the fact that cable networks have a different, coherent policy. Whilst Facebook's policy is that they're both a free speech platform, but also that they spend more money on getting harmful content off their platform than any other company in the world. That's the reason it's confusing - because the criticism of facebook isn't that its adhering to free speech principles, it's that its selectively using free speech as a defence when it suits them.

ben509 7y ago

> The case Zuck wants to make is that he should be free from the consequences of choosing to take money to distribute lies. The "free from consequences" argument is a thin rationalization for political thuggery. You can't make your case intellectually, so you're going to go after people's livelihoods.

r00fus 7y ago

Maybe we can call it FaceSpeech. Where the platform owner can decide who gets to talk. It's even better when we don't know who paid or how much.