5 ms·

>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 ma

• 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.
        • jb775 6y ago
          I respectfully disagree. When a handful of "private" companies control the dialogue of the populace, it becomes a defacto public service. Similar to anti-discrimination laws, "private" companies should have to respect the underlying principles of free speech.
• 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.