4 ms·

> If replacing the CEO of Facebook would produce more of the same, this should not be a discussion of who "controls" Facebook- it is of whether Facebook- and co

> If replacing the CEO of Facebook would produce more of the same, this should not be a discussion of who "controls" Facebook- it is of whether Facebook- and companies like it- should be allowed to exist at all. Yes, they should be allowed to exist. It's not the government's place to determine what businesses should and should not exist unless their core business presents a clear, imminent, and obvious danger to the public or requires committing a crime (and speech by private individuals cannot be a crime). You have a fundamental individual right to run a service like Facebook, without government interference. This is like free society 101.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
It’s entirely the government’s place to decide if your business should exist or not. There are many businesses the government already legislates away. This is no different. Providing a platform is not the same as the right to free speech. Facebook and other social media orgs have proven they are a clear and present danger to citizens of many countries. At the very least, they should be heavily regulated, and at the most, dismantled. The accounting firm that enabled Enron’s accounting fraud was dissolved for their crime, far less than enabling disinformation and propaganda campaigns influencing elections at nation state scale.
- frockington1 7y ago
  How is the government deciding what can and cannot be posted by private citizens on a private platform not a direct violation of the first amendment?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    It doesn’t appear to be the case based on the government’s ability to nuke Backpage.com from orbit. You’re not allowed to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. I can extrapolate that out to using misinformation against voters, posting antivaxx materials online, or ads that might lead to sex trafficking to a jury.
    - natechols 7y ago
      Repeating myself here, but oh well: please don't quote the "fire in a crowded theater" trope to support censorship until you've actually read the SCOTUS opinion that it came from. It's not quite as bad as "three generations of imbeciles is enough", but it's a pretty awful decision nonetheless.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        I've read the opinion, and also have a recurring donation to both the ACLU and EFF. My position may be nuanced, but I still believe it defendable.
        natechols 7y ago
        It would be more defendable if you didn't use that quote. In my experience the people most likely to throw it into the discussion are also the people most likely to be horrified by the SCOTUS opinion.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Point taken.
        tathougies 7y ago
        The ACLU advocates for the spread of misinformation (as they should). They have advocated successfully for white supremacist nutjobs to spread their hate in all sorts of places. Other cases of the ACLU advocating for misinformation: 1. Lovell v. Griffin -- ACLU advocated for Jehovah's witnesses to spread published misinformation on city streets without any governmental intervention or approval needed. 2. Terminiello v. Chicago -- ACLU advocated on behalf of preacher who used falsehoods about Jews to stir anti-semitism 3. New York Times v. Sullivan -- ACLU advocated on behalf of the New York Times claiming they should be allowed to publish falsehoods, even if they constituted libel against an individual, unless those falsehoods were published with an actual intent to libel. 4. Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins -- particularly important. In this case, ACLU argued that even private property owners must allow free speech, when their property is basically public. Thus, facebook, like a mall, would be forced to allow all speech without restraint. So thank you for supporting the ACLU, but your support and your belief that facebook ought to restrict speech is incredibly at odds. That's like me contributing to the Trump campaign while thinking he's a buffoon. But, whatever.
RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
Facebook is not an imminent or obvious danger to the public; it is slow, subtle, but nonetheless clear. Much as the purveyors of leaded gasoline in the 1920s understood their products pose a risk to public health, Facebook is fully aware of the consequences of their product. We've all read countless articles, exposes, and leaks about the calculated human cost of this company, whether it is the rampant spread of misinformation, the operant conditioning designed to make their applications addictive, the abuses and leaks of the personal information of users, or the psychological trauma inflicted upon their armies of minimum-wage contracted moderators. Facebook shareholders have demonstrated no interest in curbing Facebook's negative externalities, as it is still yielding profit. Facebook is a de-facto monopoly with no direct competitors and ruinously unethical policies. If ever there were a case for government "interference", we're seeing it.
- tathougies 7y ago
  You compare facebook to leaded gasoline (I'm ignoring the fact that lead is an ancient compound that had been used for centuries prior without anyone noticing ill effect). However, this argument actually is an argument against legislating facebook out of existence. Leaded gasoline companies were simply regulated to minimize the externalities. The companies formerly selling gas still exist today. You identify the following risks of facebook. I list them below along with the obvious reason of why the government should not do anything about it. 1. rampant spread of misinformation -- Facebook does not publish this information. Individual people do. Now, you argue that facebook is a publisher. This is probably true. However, people (not companies perhaps) have a natural individual right to spread misinformation. If you legislate facebook out as a potential forum, then people still have this natural right, and have the right to use technology to accomplish this. Now, one could argue that, the internet, being privately owned, should be able to censor people. And indeed, the private owners of the internet ought to be allowed to do this, but there is a recent push in this country to make the internet a public utility, in which case there can be no regulation of the speech and publication allowed on it (unless it is already illegal). Misinformation is not illegal. I have a natural right to stand on the street and preach all sorts of ridiculous stuff. If the internet becomes public (and I think it probably should, because it is important today for civil rights), then this right cannot be restricted. 2. Addictive applications -- What do we legislate against next? Catchy music? Musicologists and theoreticians of music have been studying for millenia how to make music addictive and catchy. From Pythagoras to Ariana Grande, they are all making their music addictive. Should that be illegal too now? What exactly is wrong if people enjoy talking on the internet and decide to do that? 3. The abuses and leaks of personal information -- I can agree with this, but most companies do this (the government is also guilty of it). As far as we know, no company or entity is perfect in this regard. There should be legal guidelines and obvious neglect should be illegal, but the idea of making any company that loses data automatically put out of business is ridiculous. 4. psychological trauma inflicted upon armies of minimum wage contracted moderators -- I don't think there is any proven way of censoring obscene content without moderation. Neither facebook nor the government seem able to do this. I would also point out the hypocrisy in calling for censorship while at the same time claiming it is psychologically traumatic for censors.
JohnFen 7y ago
> unless their core business presents a clear, imminent, and obvious danger to the public I think Facebook hits those marks. There's also the point about corporations: corporations are an invention of the government, only exist because the government approves of their existed, and (technically, although sadly not done anymore) can be disbanded when they act against the public interest. You can't separate corporations from government.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > There's also the point about corporations: corporations are an invention of the government, only exist because the government approves of their existed, and (technically, although sadly not done anymore) can be disbanded when they act against the public interest. You can't separate corporations from government. Corporate taxation schemes are an invention of the government. The idea of multiple people joining together to participate in commercial activity is actually a fundamental, natural right guaranteed in the constitution. By all means, remove facebook's classification as a corporation. That does not remove the individual shareholders rights to band together to form an entity like facebook in a partnership (which is not regulated at all like a corporation). You do not any governmental approval to form a partnership of any number of people with the name 'Zuckerberg and partners'. And thank goodness for that, because Mr Zuckerberg has a fundamental, natural right as an individual to engage in commerce, just like you and me.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

It’s entirely the government’s place to decide if your business should exist or not. There are many businesses the government already legislates away. This is no different. Providing a platform is not the same as the right to free speech. Facebook and other social media orgs have proven they are a clear and present danger to citizens of many countries. At the very least, they should be heavily regulated, and at the most, dismantled. The accounting firm that enabled Enron’s accounting fraud was dissolved for their crime, far less than enabling disinformation and propaganda campaigns influencing elections at nation state scale.

frockington1 7y ago
How is the government deciding what can and cannot be posted by private citizens on a private platform not a direct violation of the first amendment?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  It doesn’t appear to be the case based on the government’s ability to nuke Backpage.com from orbit. You’re not allowed to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. I can extrapolate that out to using misinformation against voters, posting antivaxx materials online, or ads that might lead to sex trafficking to a jury.
  - natechols 7y ago
    Repeating myself here, but oh well: please don't quote the "fire in a crowded theater" trope to support censorship until you've actually read the SCOTUS opinion that it came from. It's not quite as bad as "three generations of imbeciles is enough", but it's a pretty awful decision nonetheless.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      I've read the opinion, and also have a recurring donation to both the ACLU and EFF. My position may be nuanced, but I still believe it defendable.
      - natechols 7y ago
        It would be more defendable if you didn't use that quote. In my experience the people most likely to throw it into the discussion are also the people most likely to be horrified by the SCOTUS opinion.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Point taken.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        The ACLU advocates for the spread of misinformation (as they should). They have advocated successfully for white supremacist nutjobs to spread their hate in all sorts of places. Other cases of the ACLU advocating for misinformation: 1. Lovell v. Griffin -- ACLU advocated for Jehovah's witnesses to spread published misinformation on city streets without any governmental intervention or approval needed. 2. Terminiello v. Chicago -- ACLU advocated on behalf of preacher who used falsehoods about Jews to stir anti-semitism 3. New York Times v. Sullivan -- ACLU advocated on behalf of the New York Times claiming they should be allowed to publish falsehoods, even if they constituted libel against an individual, unless those falsehoods were published with an actual intent to libel. 4. Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins -- particularly important. In this case, ACLU argued that even private property owners must allow free speech, when their property is basically public. Thus, facebook, like a mall, would be forced to allow all speech without restraint. So thank you for supporting the ACLU, but your support and your belief that facebook ought to restrict speech is incredibly at odds. That's like me contributing to the Trump campaign while thinking he's a buffoon. But, whatever.

RodgerTheGreat 7y ago

Facebook is not an imminent or obvious danger to the public; it is slow, subtle, but nonetheless clear. Much as the purveyors of leaded gasoline in the 1920s understood their products pose a risk to public health, Facebook is fully aware of the consequences of their product. We've all read countless articles, exposes, and leaks about the calculated human cost of this company, whether it is the rampant spread of misinformation, the operant conditioning designed to make their applications addictive, the abuses and leaks of the personal information of users, or the psychological trauma inflicted upon their armies of minimum-wage contracted moderators. Facebook shareholders have demonstrated no interest in curbing Facebook's negative externalities, as it is still yielding profit. Facebook is a de-facto monopoly with no direct competitors and ruinously unethical policies. If ever there were a case for government "interference", we're seeing it.

tathougies 7y ago
You compare facebook to leaded gasoline (I'm ignoring the fact that lead is an ancient compound that had been used for centuries prior without anyone noticing ill effect). However, this argument actually is an argument against legislating facebook out of existence. Leaded gasoline companies were simply regulated to minimize the externalities. The companies formerly selling gas still exist today. You identify the following risks of facebook. I list them below along with the obvious reason of why the government should not do anything about it. 1. rampant spread of misinformation -- Facebook does not publish this information. Individual people do. Now, you argue that facebook is a publisher. This is probably true. However, people (not companies perhaps) have a natural individual right to spread misinformation. If you legislate facebook out as a potential forum, then people still have this natural right, and have the right to use technology to accomplish this. Now, one could argue that, the internet, being privately owned, should be able to censor people. And indeed, the private owners of the internet ought to be allowed to do this, but there is a recent push in this country to make the internet a public utility, in which case there can be no regulation of the speech and publication allowed on it (unless it is already illegal). Misinformation is not illegal. I have a natural right to stand on the street and preach all sorts of ridiculous stuff. If the internet becomes public (and I think it probably should, because it is important today for civil rights), then this right cannot be restricted. 2. Addictive applications -- What do we legislate against next? Catchy music? Musicologists and theoreticians of music have been studying for millenia how to make music addictive and catchy. From Pythagoras to Ariana Grande, they are all making their music addictive. Should that be illegal too now? What exactly is wrong if people enjoy talking on the internet and decide to do that? 3. The abuses and leaks of personal information -- I can agree with this, but most companies do this (the government is also guilty of it). As far as we know, no company or entity is perfect in this regard. There should be legal guidelines and obvious neglect should be illegal, but the idea of making any company that loses data automatically put out of business is ridiculous. 4. psychological trauma inflicted upon armies of minimum wage contracted moderators -- I don't think there is any proven way of censoring obscene content without moderation. Neither facebook nor the government seem able to do this. I would also point out the hypocrisy in calling for censorship while at the same time claiming it is psychologically traumatic for censors.

JohnFen 7y ago

> unless their core business presents a clear, imminent, and obvious danger to the public I think Facebook hits those marks. There's also the point about corporations: corporations are an invention of the government, only exist because the government approves of their existed, and (technically, although sadly not done anymore) can be disbanded when they act against the public interest. You can't separate corporations from government.

tathougies 7y ago
> There's also the point about corporations: corporations are an invention of the government, only exist because the government approves of their existed, and (technically, although sadly not done anymore) can be disbanded when they act against the public interest. You can't separate corporations from government. Corporate taxation schemes are an invention of the government. The idea of multiple people joining together to participate in commercial activity is actually a fundamental, natural right guaranteed in the constitution. By all means, remove facebook's classification as a corporation. That does not remove the individual shareholders rights to band together to form an entity like facebook in a partnership (which is not regulated at all like a corporation). You do not any governmental approval to form a partnership of any number of people with the name 'Zuckerberg and partners'. And thank goodness for that, because Mr Zuckerberg has a fundamental, natural right as an individual to engage in commerce, just like you and me.