7 ms·

I watched it entirely. He is arguing for censorship (because terrorism, pedophiles and racism), nothing new here. Attacking Facebook of course helps to gain at

I watched it entirely. He is arguing for censorship (because terrorism, pedophiles and racism), nothing new here. Attacking Facebook of course helps to gain attention of people who are happy to be separated from freedom.

cblum 7y ago
That’s exactly what I got from it. What he’s proposing is censorship. Have everything posted anywhere be vetted by someone. I also think that saying “Google shows you all these neonazi sites” (probably not an accurate quote, but he said something of that sort) demonstrates ignorance of what Google is supposed to be.
- thih9 7y ago
  > what Google is supposed to be And what Google is supposed to be? They stopped being a dictionary-like search engine some time ago. These days they seem to show personalized web page recommendations, loosely based on the search terms.
daed 7y ago
Maybe I need to rewatch it, but what I got from it was that he's not arguing against the right to free speech, he's arguing against allowing the right to free speech to impinge on other rights - specifically in his words, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- slg 7y ago
  >he's arguing against allowing the right to free speech to impinge on other rights This is what so many people miss in this debate. We already outlaw a wide variety of speech that infringes on the rights of others. You can't threaten violence against me because that infringes on my rights. You can't slander me because it infringes on my rights. You can't reproduce my copyrighted speech because it infringes on my rights. You can't use my image to advertise your product because it infringes on my rights. The debate isn't free speech versus no free speech. We already decided against universal free speech. The debate is now where do we draw the line between one person's rights and another person's rights.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Of course the problem, though, is that certain folks have imagined a right “not to be offended” into existence out of thin air. Or imagined that certain speech is “literally violence”.
    - slg 7y ago
      In almost any debate there are going to be people that take one side to an necessary extreme. But at least those people who claim to have a right not to be offended are engaging in discussion. The people who demand we adhere to absolute free speech are both by definition unwilling to compromise and are coming to the conversation under false pretenses that we currently have absolute free speech in the first place. Although I do want push back against your "literally violence" point since we handle that differently on an individual versus group basis currently. For example, if we start with the idea that slander of an individual infringes on the rights of someone, why is slandering an entire protected class of people okay? Cohen could sue me if I called him miserly (to use one of the examples of hate from his speech), but it is fine to say all Jews are miserly including Cohen? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        Your point is specious. The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed. The limits become arbitrary, and grounded in nothing except whatever the current moral panic is. The free speech “absolutist”, such as they actually exist, are of course bounded by the actual law. I don’t know what your example about Cohen and Jews is attempting to show. Neither example is “violence”.
        mkane848 7y ago
        >The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed. I've gotta say, this sounds real similar to the "very fine people on both sides" type logic that tries to equate antifa to white supremacists.
- Sammi 7y ago
  In that case any anti propaganda regulation is censorship. We can't just reduce things down to being either censorship or free speech. Real life is messier than that.
neogodless 7y ago
Do you think that anyone should be able to pay network TVs to display any political message (including lies) that they want? Should accumulated wealth be the equivalent of having the loudest megaphone? I think there's a line there between free users of social media vs. paid advertisements. Still, I'm not sure social media is public space rather than an establishment, so the idea of how you apply freedom of speech has to be carefully weighed.
hughpeters 7y ago
"Speech is not reach" - he's clearly not supporting censoring posts. He is advocating for Facebook to restrict the type of messages that can be amplified with their insanely effective programatic advertising tools (have you ever used lookalike audiences!? it's amazing.. and a little scary). Posts are speech ads are not.
- hypewatch 7y ago
  This is the subtle point that people often miss. Ironically, conflating ads with free speech damages poor people’s free speech. Zuck is simply playing the monopolist in the internet age.

cblum 7y ago

That’s exactly what I got from it. What he’s proposing is censorship. Have everything posted anywhere be vetted by someone. I also think that saying “Google shows you all these neonazi sites” (probably not an accurate quote, but he said something of that sort) demonstrates ignorance of what Google is supposed to be.

thih9 7y ago
> what Google is supposed to be And what Google is supposed to be? They stopped being a dictionary-like search engine some time ago. These days they seem to show personalized web page recommendations, loosely based on the search terms.

daed 7y ago

Maybe I need to rewatch it, but what I got from it was that he's not arguing against the right to free speech, he's arguing against allowing the right to free speech to impinge on other rights - specifically in his words, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

slg 7y ago
>he's arguing against allowing the right to free speech to impinge on other rights This is what so many people miss in this debate. We already outlaw a wide variety of speech that infringes on the rights of others. You can't threaten violence against me because that infringes on my rights. You can't slander me because it infringes on my rights. You can't reproduce my copyrighted speech because it infringes on my rights. You can't use my image to advertise your product because it infringes on my rights. The debate isn't free speech versus no free speech. We already decided against universal free speech. The debate is now where do we draw the line between one person's rights and another person's rights.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Of course the problem, though, is that certain folks have imagined a right “not to be offended” into existence out of thin air. Or imagined that certain speech is “literally violence”.
  - slg 7y ago
    In almost any debate there are going to be people that take one side to an necessary extreme. But at least those people who claim to have a right not to be offended are engaging in discussion. The people who demand we adhere to absolute free speech are both by definition unwilling to compromise and are coming to the conversation under false pretenses that we currently have absolute free speech in the first place. Although I do want push back against your "literally violence" point since we handle that differently on an individual versus group basis currently. For example, if we start with the idea that slander of an individual infringes on the rights of someone, why is slandering an entire protected class of people okay? Cohen could sue me if I called him miserly (to use one of the examples of hate from his speech), but it is fine to say all Jews are miserly including Cohen? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      Your point is specious. The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed. The limits become arbitrary, and grounded in nothing except whatever the current moral panic is. The free speech “absolutist”, such as they actually exist, are of course bounded by the actual law. I don’t know what your example about Cohen and Jews is attempting to show. Neither example is “violence”.
      - mkane848 7y ago
        >The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed. I've gotta say, this sounds real similar to the "very fine people on both sides" type logic that tries to equate antifa to white supremacists.
Sammi 7y ago
In that case any anti propaganda regulation is censorship. We can't just reduce things down to being either censorship or free speech. Real life is messier than that.

neogodless 7y ago

Do you think that anyone should be able to pay network TVs to display any political message (including lies) that they want? Should accumulated wealth be the equivalent of having the loudest megaphone? I think there's a line there between free users of social media vs. paid advertisements. Still, I'm not sure social media is public space rather than an establishment, so the idea of how you apply freedom of speech has to be carefully weighed.

hughpeters 7y ago

"Speech is not reach" - he's clearly not supporting censoring posts. He is advocating for Facebook to restrict the type of messages that can be amplified with their insanely effective programatic advertising tools (have you ever used lookalike audiences!? it's amazing.. and a little scary). Posts are speech ads are not.

hypewatch 7y ago
This is the subtle point that people often miss. Ironically, conflating ads with free speech damages poor people’s free speech. Zuck is simply playing the monopolist in the internet age.