5 ms·

I acknowledge Facebook's right to not moderate such things. And support the laws that give Facebook that freedom. I think it's morally reprehensible and theref

I acknowledge Facebook's right to not moderate such things. And support the laws that give Facebook that freedom. I think it's morally reprehensible and therefore support Facebook's employees movement to work to change Facebook's actions. These are not contradictory views.

mc32 6y ago
Free speech is morally reprehensible or just speech you disagree with? If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster? I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.
- Talanes 6y ago
  You don't understand AT ALL how someone could want an organization to make a choice, but not want the government to make that choice for them? I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
    - danharaj 6y ago
      > Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical? > I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that. Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people. You're clearly having a normal one.
      - kryogen1c 6y ago
        > They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
        danharaj 6y ago
        There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.
        kryogen1c 6y ago
        > People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves. good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        > There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
        danharaj 6y ago
        What you can fit in your diary.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Ok, I think I agree with that specific case, but I think we can try broadening it: should there be external consequences if I and someone else discuss something?
        danharaj 6y ago
        Are you planning a murder? Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world. Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow. Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right. You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
    - Talanes 6y ago
      Nice of you to just straight up admit you're putting words into other people's mouths. You should judge people based on their actions, not your fan-fiction.
jlarocco 6y ago
My feeling is that focusing on Twitter and Facebook's response is missing the point completely. Trump's threats were repugnant and disgusting, but it's not Twitter or Facebook's place to tell people that. It's important, as citizens, to hear what politicians are saying and form our own opinions. The consequences of Trump's threats will not go away just because Twitter told everybody they were violent threats. Shooting the messengers won't help anything. Have corporations imposing their "morals" on public communication would be a very dangerous slippery slope, IMO.
- mc32 6y ago
  I agree the great danger here is corps feeding us their morality and shaping society as they please with people complicit in this take over. These are media and ad companies and people want them be the gatekeepers of permissible speech.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  I think what you're saying is fair, but I also think you're raising a different argument than the OP. This is probably more suited to a top-level comment. But in response to the subject of your comment: don't they already do this regardless? Isn't inaction a moral response in itself? In the same way that [as a loose example, so don't shoot me if it falls short] Coca Cola or Nestle see no moral problem with consuming entire regions' fresh water supplies for profit? Is it that American Express or Wells Fargo making a moral decision when they deny a credit application to somebody who may need it to eat? Surely those institutions are as public as any social media platform. I think there is a lot more to work through there. Personally, I'm in the camp of the people should push for what they see as the right action: be it that a beverage company stops exploiting disadvantaged regions for their fresh water supplies or an internet company tags a post/comment as containing whatever kind of information might be questionable. Long, slow, hard road may it be—most people seem inclined to do better by each other on the large scale. The more options they have to do so, and the less potential gain by acting anti-socially, the better. It's definitely a complex problem [trying not to ramble, but even "acting out" can be a social act rather than anti-social, hence the complexity]. Boy...
  - 6y ago
colllectorof 6y ago
>These are not contradictory views. You think the supposed contradiction is between legality and morality of not censoring certain speech. The actual contradiction is between claiming to support people's right to free speech while also supporting policies that undermine one of the main reasons that right is important in the first place. This is not a matter of spherical freedom in vacuum. This is a practical matter of whether a tiny number of people should be able to effectively control country's political processes because those people happen to own certain technological tools.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  The harm of government regulation of speech is greater than the harm of corporations censoring views with which you personally agree (or disagree). Facebook isn't going to imprison you, and there exist other platforms, however vehemently people like to deny that. > claiming to support people's right to free speech To be clear, I didn't claim this, in the sense that I don't support the ideological right to free speech that some people do. I fully support consequences for saying stupid and things. Much as you are free to say something I disagree with, I am free to tell you it's stupid, or stop associating with you in response.

mc32 6y ago

Free speech is morally reprehensible or just speech you disagree with? If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster? I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.

Talanes 6y ago
You don't understand AT ALL how someone could want an organization to make a choice, but not want the government to make that choice for them? I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.
- mc32 6y ago
  Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
  - danharaj 6y ago
    > Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical? > I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that. Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people. You're clearly having a normal one.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
      - danharaj 6y ago
        There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.
        kryogen1c 6y ago
        > People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves. good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        > There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
        danharaj 6y ago
        What you can fit in your diary.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Ok, I think I agree with that specific case, but I think we can try broadening it: should there be external consequences if I and someone else discuss something?
        danharaj 6y ago
        Are you planning a murder? Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world. Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow. Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right. You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Nice of you to just straight up admit you're putting words into other people's mouths. You should judge people based on their actions, not your fan-fiction.

jlarocco 6y ago

My feeling is that focusing on Twitter and Facebook's response is missing the point completely. Trump's threats were repugnant and disgusting, but it's not Twitter or Facebook's place to tell people that. It's important, as citizens, to hear what politicians are saying and form our own opinions. The consequences of Trump's threats will not go away just because Twitter told everybody they were violent threats. Shooting the messengers won't help anything. Have corporations imposing their "morals" on public communication would be a very dangerous slippery slope, IMO.

mc32 6y ago
I agree the great danger here is corps feeding us their morality and shaping society as they please with people complicit in this take over. These are media and ad companies and people want them be the gatekeepers of permissible speech.
52-6F-62 6y ago
I think what you're saying is fair, but I also think you're raising a different argument than the OP. This is probably more suited to a top-level comment. But in response to the subject of your comment: don't they already do this regardless? Isn't inaction a moral response in itself? In the same way that [as a loose example, so don't shoot me if it falls short] Coca Cola or Nestle see no moral problem with consuming entire regions' fresh water supplies for profit? Is it that American Express or Wells Fargo making a moral decision when they deny a credit application to somebody who may need it to eat? Surely those institutions are as public as any social media platform. I think there is a lot more to work through there. Personally, I'm in the camp of the people should push for what they see as the right action: be it that a beverage company stops exploiting disadvantaged regions for their fresh water supplies or an internet company tags a post/comment as containing whatever kind of information might be questionable. Long, slow, hard road may it be—most people seem inclined to do better by each other on the large scale. The more options they have to do so, and the less potential gain by acting anti-socially, the better. It's definitely a complex problem [trying not to ramble, but even "acting out" can be a social act rather than anti-social, hence the complexity]. Boy...
- 6y ago

colllectorof 6y ago

>These are not contradictory views. You think the supposed contradiction is between legality and morality of not censoring certain speech. The actual contradiction is between claiming to support people's right to free speech while also supporting policies that undermine one of the main reasons that right is important in the first place. This is not a matter of spherical freedom in vacuum. This is a practical matter of whether a tiny number of people should be able to effectively control country's political processes because those people happen to own certain technological tools.

joshuamorton 6y ago
The harm of government regulation of speech is greater than the harm of corporations censoring views with which you personally agree (or disagree). Facebook isn't going to imprison you, and there exist other platforms, however vehemently people like to deny that. > claiming to support people's right to free speech To be clear, I didn't claim this, in the sense that I don't support the ideological right to free speech that some people do. I fully support consequences for saying stupid and things. Much as you are free to say something I disagree with, I am free to tell you it's stupid, or stop associating with you in response.