8 ms·

People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized appl

• hobs 6y ago
  Yeah, calls for murdering people by the president don't present any new thing for us to consider potentially new processes might apply, he's definitely not a person with enormous power, and he's definitely acting in good faith. Thoughts of people are censored by themselves constantly because of the potential harm they cause, if you cant muzzle yourself and you call for violence expect others to do it for you. People have died when Trump has tweeted, and he has shown no remorse or guilt, in fact he takes no responsibility. So, who the heck would want him on their platform? Why would you spend your server time and money on a child-brained fascist?
• lorsting 6y ago
  It's not real. This is fake news working for the Democrats.
• phone8675309 6y ago
  >Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can't remove you if they want to (so long as they're not breaking another law by doing it).
  • beager 6y ago
    I rather like the comparison of social media platforms to amusement parks.
    • soylentcola 6y ago
      I usually compare them to pubs/night clubs: They're places where people hang out and socialize or network. Some have really strict bouncers whereas others will let just about anyone in as long as they're spending money and not shitting the place up too badly. There are some that are so big and so popular that it almost doesn't matter if you prefer hanging out in another less popular one because no matter how you try, you'll never convince most of your friends to hang out at your favorite dive since everyone is at the big place. ...etc
      • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Both are long term bad for your health but you love the small dopamine fix.
  • 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
    so are the utilities- Yet we still found a way to regulate them (in our capitalist dystopia)
    • esperent 6y ago
      Other countries that are not capitalist dystopias also regulate their utilities. So perhaps the problem lies elsewhere?
    • petee 6y ago
      They did that to themselves by creating monopolies, and leveraging their power over basic services to make money and fleece customers. Regulation exists for a reason
      • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Google using their massive resource tried to make a better platform than Facebook. They failed spectacularly. Are you suggesting Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp doesn’t have a monopoly on what each is?
        • petee 6y ago
          They do not provide a necessary public service; it's not drinking water or heat, you would be perfectly fine existing without Facebook. It's their private platform, they should do what's morally right by them, which is apparently doing nothing.
          • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
            Ok, so using that exact line of thinking. Netflix isn’t a necessary public good or service - why can’t Comcast throttle it? Is it because I don’t get to say what you do or don’t use Netflix for? Then why does someone else get to determine what political speech I do or don’t get to see? They’re both over the Internet aren’t they? It’s far more nuanced than “they’re a private company”. Even at base level let’s say FINE, you should still want them to follow the spirit of free speech especially if not required to do so.
  • blueterminal 6y ago
    I did not say Facebook is obliged to leave a post. Yes, they are a private platform and can decide whether to remove or leave a post. And people complain that the post was left being public. I don't understand what you're arguing here..?
  • GhostVII 6y ago
    Facebook is not required to preserve free speech on their platform, I don't think there are many people who would argue that they are required to do so. That doesn't mean they shouldn't given how widespread Facebook is.
    • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      This is an understanding that goes a little too far into adulthood for some. 100% exactly. They aren’t under a requirement - but absolutely should. And the people that dislike Trump the most should be demanding for free speech for everyone regardless of how “wrong” they are because it’s the mechanism that protects the Democracy long term. Instead, I see a lot of people that want to just make the bad man who said the mean things go away, and look to our SiliconValley Overlords to make that happen.
    • jb775 6y ago
      Hence the executive order to take the first step towards protecting free speech. Similar to anti-discrimination laws, "private" companies should have to respect free speech. Especially when a handful of those companies control the dialogue of the populace.
      • FireBeyond 6y ago
        To be clear, you're saying something akin to: bakeries and florists refusing to make wedding cakes (or arrangements) for gay couples? Good. Facebook not giving unpleasant extremities a platform on which to peddle their beliefs? Bad. Now, if you think the religious baker should be forced to make a cake? I disagree, but I at least applaud you for the consistency of your convictions. Note: "they should go to another baker" isn't any more applicable than "they should go to another web host/platform". If however you do believe that Facebook should "have to respect free speech" of a political variety, but the bakery should have a religious exemption, I'll ask: Why, when freedom of association (politics), political beliefs, and religious beliefs are all held on the same pedestal in the Constitution, why are you singling out only some? And in either case, why do you feel an Executive Order by way of Presidential tantrum is an appropriate way to manage what is certainly a Constitutional legal principle, if not worthy of an Amendment?
  • mosselman 6y ago
    I don't think your analogy really fits the place Facebook takes in the world, sadly I must add. In some places Facebook is an official channel of communication between people and governments and other public institutions like Universities. Their use of Facebook, or other social media platforms, in this way makes it more like a utility than a private platform. If you really must, you could make the analogy of a billboard. Lets say Hustler puts up a billboard in the city with some of their famous content, I bet it will have to be taken down pretty quickly, regardless of the content policy the billboard company has.
    • phone8675309 6y ago
      >In some places Facebook is an official channel of communication between people and governments and other public institutions like Universities. Their use of Facebook, or other social media platforms, in this way makes it more like a utility than a private platform. By that logic, a university posting a flyer on a coffee shop corkboard makes that corkboard a public forum and the coffee shop must allow anybody to post anything on it.
  • buzzkillington 6y ago
    The difference is that Six Flags doesn't use visitor built roller coasters, unlike facebook and twitter who depend on user content to survive. Or in other words, don't use lazy metaphors for lazy thinking. Facebook and Twitter are nothing like Six Flags.
  • rubber_duck 6y ago
    Umm first of all social media is nothing like a park (public or private), and government has a lot of ammunition to fire at them if they decide to play politics. When companies start getting hijacked by hipster activists, entering political arena and stepping on policy maker toes they are going to get smacked down - and rightfully so - the last thing we need is some anonymous nobody from twitter deciding what to fact check and how to frame it on what's presented as a public communication channel for the elected official. If twitter was heavily right wing and they did this to Obama the same people cheering them on now would be up in arms - this is just partisan BS.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      > has a lot of ammunition to fire at them if they decide to play politics. In a very literal sense. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-minneapolis-police-protest-update/reuters-camera-crew-hit-by-rubber-bullets-as-more-journalists-attacked-at-u-s-protests-idUKKBN237052 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-minneapolis-police-protest...
      • rubber_duck 6y ago
        Not really - journalist are established in that area, they are used to such risks/treatment and they do have protection in principle because their work is seen as valuable (in a democracy). I don't have any problem with people having opinions and writing opinion peaces. Social networks stamping information is more like your ISP throttling traffic from Netflix because it doesn't like the fact that you aren't using their streaming service - it's funny that the "it's a private service" crowd are probably the same people that want net neutrality laws against that. In my view they should both just be dumb pipes with filters to prevent illegal use, the rest just puts too much power in the wrong place because of the monopolistic nature of social networks.
  • commandlinefan 6y ago
    > That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.
    • espadrine 6y ago
      > Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park That is a strawman. They are advocating that Six Flags should ban people who draw swastikas on the carts, even when those people are in office, or seek election.
      • CSSer 6y ago
        To add another dimension, people who draw swastikas and claim it’s not bad because “we didn’t mean it _that_ way”.
      • therealdrag0 6y ago
        Why use such off topic examples? Isn't it more like > They are advocating that Six Flags should ban people who tell people around them "Hey if you try to burn or rob that snack stand, that security guard might shoot you!" AFAIK this is more aligned with the presidents comments that everyone is in a hissy about. Would you consider that a bannable offense at Six Flags?
    • ben_w 6y ago
      Is Twitter banning anyone who wears a Republican T-shirt? Or is Twitter marking false information as false while hiding (not deleting, hiding behind a button) a statement which looks suspiciously like a literal calls to arms to suppress a group which is upset because its members are being murdered without due process or due cause and the murders are getting away with it despite video evidence? Oh, and some people in the same gang as the killers are shooting journalists in the face and arresting other journalists live on TV. (I have no idea what or where “Six Flags” is. I’m not American.)
  • AdrianB1 6y ago
    In a way you can say the same about a telecom company that is private and should be able to censor phone calls. Yeah, right.
  • Lammy 6y ago
    > That people use it does not make it a public platform. This is literally the definition of the word public.
    • phone8675309 6y ago
      It's not remotely the definition of the word public. By that logic, your front yard is public property if you let your neighbors on it.
      • Lammy 6y ago
        Yes, "public" is where ever the people are.
        • phone8675309 6y ago
          Words can have multiple definitions. That you allow some members of the public (your neighbors) onto your private property (your front yard) does not negate your right to control access to your private property, nor does it make your front yard public domain for anybody to gather on without your permission. It doesn’t make it “public”.
          • Lammy 6y ago
            Yes, I think we are in agreement. I am using that specific definition of public here because I feel like it's the most representative of the soul of these homonymous legal concepts that have morphed over a few hundred years into tools of oppression. The law wouldn't exist without the people, and it's time to bring these concepts back into alignment.
• myvoiceismypass 6y ago
  Facebook is doing the same thing with some political ads (the ones that criticize Trump, of course) - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/lincoln-project-called-facebook-to-dispute-warning-label-on-anti-trump-ad.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/lincoln-project-called-faceb...
• mc32 6y ago
  No, it looks like they are only interested in taking down comments they disagree with. I bet they haven’t commented on leaving up comments up by people they agree with which could be inflammatory. So people are happy Twitter can manipulate messages, but unhappy Facebook is not manipulating messages because it goes counter to their PoV!
• amaccuish 6y ago
  I don't think adding a small banner is censorship.
• austincheney 6y ago
  Or have congress roll back Section 230. If online publishers were held to the same libel standards as print publishers this problem would be instantly fixed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...
  • Fjolsvith 6y ago
    It might not be instantly fixed, but everyone would know where things belonged.
  • vharuck 6y ago
    230 covers a lot of situations. For example, it has been cited by a judge who ruled in favor a library, which was the defendant[0]. This protected the library's choice to let patrons use the internet on library computers. It's summarized in the Wikipedia article you shared. If 230 disappears, I don't see how any websites would allow user comments. I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). [0] http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.asp http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.as... Edited: removed repeated sentence
    • austincheney 6y ago
      > I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). There are a number of ways to go about moderation. The change would be minimal, or none, for sites that already apply a good faith strict moderation effort and horrid for sites that supply the minimal moderation required by criminal law.
  • rswail 6y ago
    So who do you hold responsible for the publishing of your comment? YC? @dang? Yourself? If it's one of the first two, your comment will be queued and reviewed by one of the many editors that YC will pay for to review each individual comment to ensure it does not incur liability on their part for publication. /s
• jdmichal 6y ago
  All decentralization would do is force people even harder into their bubbles. Facebook et al do a pretty good job of that already, but at least with everyone on one platform there's a chance to see another view. Decentralized platforms just means cliques will develop and dissenting views will be banned. Just look at Reddit and its subreddit system for where this ends up.
• playpause 6y ago
  > People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? This is a strange inversion. I would guess that most of the disgruntled FB employees want a transparent review system with rules that are applied consistently, with exactly zero intervention from Mark Zuckerberg.
  • lagadu 6y ago
    But not everyone is the same, in this particular case: the president of a sovereign nation is held to different rules. As the president it's in the interest of the people he serves (and as an American company FB operates at the pleasure of those same people) that he is allowed to communicate with them through whatever means are available. Sure you want no violent messages to spread but what if he declared war on another country, should he be banned from FB if he ever posted about it? It's about as violent as it can get.
  • therealdrag0 6y ago
    What's not transparent? Facebook has a policy and they determined that the remarks did "not violate company policy against incitements to violence".
• mc32 6y ago
  People are happy Twitter exercises its right to moderate speech because it moderates it the way they like. People are unhappy that Facebook moderates speech because it’s moderating it they way they don’t like. So, they only like free speech if they agree with it, otherwise they don’t.
  • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    I think that’s an accurate and sad take. That people are being so childish and tribal they can’t see past their own noses. “It’s a private company” when they want to use it and “Internet is a right” when they don’t.
  • dathinab 6y ago
    You know there is a difference between deleting posts and blocking reposts/comments/etc. or adding a link to more information about how a post is wrong. Also, and most important, the world isn't black and white. So just because you find facebooks handling much worse then twitter doesn't mean they are happy with twitters handling, it might just not have jet overstepped their bottom line as much as facebook did. And given that what belongs to free speech and what not isn't always clear it's really important to not see it as black and white. Not just are there different definitions of free speech (by common sense vs. by law vs. by common sense in a different country etc.). But even in this areas boundaries are not clear. The most purest form of free speech would be non constraints at all in any circumstances. But you will find it hard to find anyone supporting it (after they think about what it means). People just don't think is generally ok to use free speech to e.g. drive someone into comiting suicide. So the real question is at which point is it free speech and at which is it "evil"/"bad"/"a crime" to a degree that it's unacceptable. And given that likely there is a lot of thinks in the gray area how to handle them the best is also not an easy question. But this is exactly where the difference between Facebook and Twitter matter, in the handling of thinks which are "bad" but not necessary so bad that most would agree it's unacceptable. Like it's a not a crime but very close to one.
• intothemild 6y ago
  What you're failing to understand here, is that whilst for you, you might not have issue with seeing the truth behind something. Others, specifically older generations, cannot. these are people who grew up with the media they could trust to give balanced viewpoints. That's just not something that we can rely on anymore. So when someone in a position of trust spreads unsubstantiated claims, there needs to be some form of fact checking. Normally this comes from the media/news/etc... but since we're increasingly unable to trust that source, and also that we're using that source less in our daily lives. Who does it fall on? I'll put it in another way most of us here can understand. Imagine this is the late 90s, or the early 00's... Twitter is just another forum. You have one member of that forum posting with the intent of upsetting the user base... what should the forum mods do?
• mosselman 6y ago
  I think a part of the issue is that other users than Trump would probably have had their posts removed when reported by others. Trump didn't. > Thoughts of people should not be censored. Also, I was formulating a thought to counter this, but then I realised that this it true in any case I could think of. Censorship gives people an excuse to ignore the situation, in this case: a dense violent idiot is President of the US, rather than really do something. Trump gets away with basically anything constantly and that is the real issue, not whether his comments get deleted at some point in time. If you censor all the idiotic and offensive things he says, then how can people realise things need to change? You should not get offended by what he says. You should get offended by the fact that a person who says these kinds of things is President of your country.
• petee 6y ago
  Calls to violence? Yes they should. Freedom isn't limitless, it demands responsibility. The same way you can't yell fire in a movie theater. Inciting people to violence and threatening that same free speech of others, particularly from someone with the biggest soap box in the world, is unacceptable in our country. I thought we decided that years ago
  • Fjolsvith 6y ago
    What wasn't decided years ago was that a private corporation was prosecutor, judge and jury in being responsible for calling out and punishing these "criminal" (not really) bits of speech.
  • rswail 6y ago
    The issue is not whether people are allowed to incite violence with their words. It's where FB or other online forums are responsible. To use your example, is it the movie theater's responsibility to ensure that you don't yell fire in their theater?
    • elygre 6y ago
      But if you yell fire, shouldn’t the move theatre throw you out of there?
    • petee 6y ago
      If they're handing you the microphone, absolutely!! Trump isn't a normal person, his words have power. Providing him with a platform to spew whatever he wants is completely irresponsible
  • jaywalk 6y ago
    > The same way you can't yell fire in a movie theater. This is a myth. The standard that we use for the 1st Amendment in regards to speech is imminent lawless action. Look it up. Trump's tweet doesn't come anywhere near that standard.
    • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
• paulgb 6y ago
  > People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? I can't speak for everyone, but I just want the company not to carve out exceptions for their rules against violent speech depending on who said it. If you believe that Facebook doesn't have the right to remove any violent speech regardless of who says it, obviously that's another story. I think online communities have the same rights to create and enforce rules that offline communities to, because I've seen what happens when they don't.
  • Fjolsvith 6y ago
    The problem I see is that "violent" speech is a subjective perception. I could claim that your post was "violent", and that I was harmed by it. Sticks and stones.
    • paulgb 6y ago
      Yes, there is subjectivity. In this particular case, Trump and Zuckerberg talked on the phone and Zuckerberg expressed concerns about the content but ultimately decided to keep it up. If you really want fair and impartial content policies that apply equally to everyone, shouldn't it be concerning that we can't all call Zuckerberg on the phone? https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/media/trump-zuckerberg-phone-call/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/media/trump-zuckerberg-phone-...
    • tobylane 6y ago
      Section 230 permits the platform to decide for themselves what is violent, according to https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-persistent-myth-about-law-that-created-the-internet/ https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-p...
      • Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Exactly. So Twitter says its violent and Facebook doesn't.
• JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Maybe the real issue is, the President shouldn't be tweeting official pronouncements. Maybe use some responsible apparatus for disseminating considered decisions? Fact is, I give no credence to tweeted nonsense anyway. Might as well say "Who should be allowed to censor pictures the President takes at the midway during the Cedar Country Fair?!" Lets not pretend there's some God-given right to spout hate over a public recreational text channel. That's its some fundamental democratic right, or that the President ought to be participating, at all.
  • lagadu 6y ago
    Why not? The president intends to address to the people he serves and facebook, among others, is an effective means of doing so.
    • ethagnawl 6y ago
      Among thousands of other reasons, it's an exclusionary and (potentially) ephemeral mechanism.
      • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        I don’t like Trump, but I can’t exactly fault Trump for twitter because he found a way to side step a media that dislikes him (justified or not). Try to put yourself in his shoes, you would absolutely use an effective tool that the people you didn’t trust to deliver your message had no control over. And the lady doth protest too much when it comes to the media talking about Trump Tweets. They love it, free programming for an hour or two.
• awinder 6y ago
  Uh, no ones post got deleted, twitter just took the microphone away (limited sharing & comments, but anyone can go read the post). Otherwise, thoughts don’t occur in a vacuum, they’re informed by the information that people receive. If you’re trying to be an information platform and a thought sharing platform, then there’s a huge vector for misinformation. I can understand a difference of opinion and nuance but acting like there’s no problem here is just head in the sand at this point.
• noscrewstoyous 6y ago
  they already censor what you say by using an algorithm to weight posts
• IanDrake 6y ago
  The thing the censorship fans can't seem to understand is the power they are granting. Today the power is for their progressive friends, tomorrow it could be for regressive tyrants. Likely those are the very same people. Just look to history. How many leftist uprising have worked out well?
  • ben_w 6y ago
    I wish I could disagree. As I have remarked previously, freedom of speech is important for precisely the same reason that it is dangerous — it can change things. Like most non-Americans, I’m not even close to the USA legal position on free speech. I absolutely do not accept the right to make one group hate another by words alone. What I don’t know is how to achieve that simultaneously with preventing the kind of censorship that leads to nations walking blindfolded into dictatorships.
    • IanDrake 6y ago
      So we can censor Democrats that post hate about Republicans? It fits your guidelines.
      • ben_w 6y ago
        Of course! If the post is “the only good X is a dead X”, I don’t care who is saying it, they shouldn’t be allowed to.
        • IanDrake 6y ago
          Well, you said hate. You can say hateful things about a group without wishing them dead.
          • ben_w 6y ago
            I said "make one group hate another", not "say hateful things". The post that started this entire discussion wasn’t the POTUS merely saying games should be boycotted if people were not fired for taking the knee — neither FB nor Twitter stopped him from doing that — it was him using the words “the shooting starts”.
• _bxg1 6y ago
  Nobody deleted Trump's posts. Twitter a) attached a "this may be misleading" link to one of them with the link leading to more reputable information on the subject, and b) hid the inflammatory one behind a warning about inciting violence, with a clear and present "View" button available. To my mind this is exactly the right approach: the original content remains fully available for those who would cry censorship, yet its destructive impact is hopefully dampened.
  • ravenstine 6y ago
    Seems like plenty of people read/heard about it anyway.
    • _bxg1 6y ago
      Exactly. The people who really want to can, but the issue with social media is how it amplifies messages that people only casually encounter. Measures like these don't block those who are intent, but they hamper that mass, wildfire-like impact.
• zzzeek 6y ago
  > People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? I think you have it backwards. He has explicitly decided to not delete a post, rather than leaving this decision to a more majoritarian and just mechanism. "Facebook employees critical of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision not to remove an inflammatory comment from U.S. President Donald Trump took their dissent public over the weekend on Twitter," see? he decided. That should not be his job.
  • Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > That should not be his job. Absolutely it should be his job. He is responsible for the direction of Facebook, and is probably reading the winds of change that have been blown up by Twitter. With the possibility of Section 230 repeal in the offing, Facebook needs to decide now whether they will be a publisher or platform.
• hart_russell 6y ago
  Couldn’t have said it better myself. A family member honestly proposed to me the other day that “hate-speech” should be banned. As well intentioned as that person is: I asked her, who do you want to decide which speech is hateful? The president you don’t like? The Supreme Court that he’s appointed many members to? Neutral laws that protect everyone’s rights are that way for a reason. So when YOU are in the minority, you don’t find yourself in a compromised position.
• sirmoveon 6y ago
  Policing/deleting is not the same as pointing out factual information in the event of falsehood. Facts are not biased or have any political affiliation. I agree with you. We should not police free speech. That doesn't mean we should allow falsehood to sail rampant in broadcast media. Any broadcast media should be held accountable if its spreading blatant lies to disinform and uproar conspiracy theories. Free speech shouldn't mean irresponsible speech.
• brainless 6y ago
  This is the most ignorant one can be. Facebook always have been deciding on behalf of every one of its users. The only difference this time is the decision these employees want do not line well with FBs long term goals to reap off of its users.
• snarfy 6y ago
  Moderators on HN decide all the time whether a post should be deleted or not. Why is this a problem if it's on Facebook or Twitter? I don't see why anybody even the president deserves a private platform. If he doesn't want to be censored he can make an official press release like every other president has in the history of the presidency.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]