7 ms·

I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. I remember about a

I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. I remember about a decade ago when certain parties were so concerned with voices being silenced and "erasure." The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech, with great discretion as to how the "rules" are implemented. These parties have been quiet, so much so, over China. Down we slide along the slippery slope!

vikramkr 6y ago
They can do whatever they want as a private company. I can do whatever I want as well. Including leaving zoom. They should have the right to enforce whatever standards they want, and we have the right to disagree and leave.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  I really don't understand this. I am not American so may have a different perspective, but if by being private, you are ok with censoring, then you are ok with anyone banning blacks from their businesses, or not hiring gays, or only allowing women to go up the corporate ladder if they sleep around. After all, it is their private company, so why should I care about sexual harassment, blocking people, etc as long I am not the target? Heck, lets have white-men only private schools again, let's leave those blacks/gypsies/whatever out, after all, it is a private school so it should be able to discriminate against anyone.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I can anticipate the counter-argument to this: "well, discrimination based on race and gender is illegal, so they can't do that". Which is true, but kinda misses the point: it amounts to a position that discrimination and censorship is ok as long as it doesn't run afoul of local laws. If local laws reflect the totality of ethical and moral positions, that would be fine, but I think we all know that laws tend to fall far short on that metric. But I'm also sympathetic to the overall thrust of this. Let's say for a minute that hosting/distributing child porn wasn't illegal. Would you then call Zoom out as somehow evil for shutting down accounts that broadcast child porn live? I'll assume that people would be happy with Zoom shutting down something like that, and are also generally fine that there are laws banning child porn. So then it's impossible to hold a "no censorship at all" position, at least not without being a hypocrite. It's really "I don't like censorship, but it's appropriate in some narrowly-defined cases". Once we agree on that -- which we kinda have to, because that's the reality of the situation -- then it just becomes a matter of agreeing on what those "narrowly-defined cases" are, and of course I'd expect there to be disagreement. For example, I'm fine with a private company deciding they don't want to be used as a platform to distribute racist hate speech. But I'm not ok with a private company shutting down the account of someone organizing events around the Tiananmen massacre. But as long as people (including myself) are willing to say "well, none of the other videoconferencing solutions are good enough for my needs, so I'll look the other way", they can get away with whatever they want.
    - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
      The thing is, imo, we need to stand up for our values. Segregation ended because people raised up. Sexual Harassment laws the same. But seems now, if it is a Tech company, people judge them differently. Wether Facebook or Twitter or Zoom, 'oh I can vote with my feet'. But if that was the case 30-40-60 years ago, we wouldn't have the 'progress' we see now. And while I am opposed to child porn, if it is legal, I am not in favour of having private companies doing the censorship, but I would ask for people to be active on changing that law. Since that is opening a door I am not comfortable opening. We had YouTube/Twitter banning/blocking content that went against WHO guidelines, but we also had WHO guidelines being retracted one day after they were published. We had for days/weeks recommendations from the WHO that were just flat wrong, and we shouldn't let private companies censor information based on 3rd parties that are not 'innocent'. And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        > And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? No, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of it. > Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech. And that's where I think you and I fundamentally differ in our beliefs. I think, absent a law either way, companies may -- and perhaps should -- feel free to exercise their own judgment about what they're comfortable broadcasting from their platform. And again, why is "the law" so revered here? The law (at least in the US) is filled with racist and racist-enabling garbage. Why do we hold it as some final word on morality? I don't think we should. Changing the law takes time, effort, and money. Companies refusing to broadcast certain types of speech can be a part of activism and lobbying in order to change laws. And if ultimately the will of society is that this refusal is wrong, there are remedies (legal and economic) for that, too. I believe I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bigphishy 6y ago
  A counter argument to this would be to acknowledge that in actuality a free market is regulated. It has to be regulated in order to be free. That's because there are bad-actors who lie, manipulate the market, deceit the public, with no discrepancy and with complete impunity.
- hrktb 6y ago
  This is the recipe used by some agencies to avoid scrutiny: have private companies do the job for them. Your argument’s end point looks like your freedom to only use video conferencing tools that respect your ideals. Would I do that, I’d have to leave my job and stop talking to pretty much anyone.
addicted 6y ago
At least you recognize your slippery slope fallacy when you make it!
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  I have stopped regarding it as a fallacy. It seems to be something of a predictive measure at this point.
  - smolder 6y ago
    It's a fallacy to say that with a "slope" of states A B and C, with C implying B has been reached, that moving from A to B means you'll necessarily go to C next. The fallacy doesn't mean we can't go from B to C or that it isn't easier to get to C from B than A.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Which is why it's called the "Slippery Slope," not the "Sheer Cliff" or the "Trap Door" or the "Gravity Well." Whatever ancient neckbeard decided it was a fallacy clearly didn't get out much.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. But people aren't logical entities for the most part, and the real world doesn't even vaguely resemble a philosophy classroom.
sdinsn 6y ago
> I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. Perhaps that applies, perhaps it doesn't. Did they remove the account due to pressure from the CCP?
brnt 6y ago
Going after bigots on your platform does not equal going after activists. Please do not intentionally confuse the two.
- throwaway8879 6y ago
  One man's activist is another man's bigot.
  - bananabreakfast 6y ago
    There is a world of difference between being for something and against something and you are being very disingenuous (read: trolling) to conflate the two, Mr. throwaway account
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > There is a world of difference between being for something and against something They are the same. If you are for something, you're also against not something.
- ican1 6y ago
  Is there an objective way of distinguishing between an activist and a bigot? The CCP can just say that they consider this activist to be a bigot. Internet platforms should never have been in the business of censorship. Unfortunately, liberals encouraged them to censor their political opponents for short term gain. The result is sad but predictable. Any speech that offends someone powerful is now subject to possible censorship.
  - alexland 6y ago
    The easiest distinction between activism and bigotry is to tolerate everything except intolerance itself. Activists mostly fight for more rights/freedom, and bigots mostly look to prevent that. It's not a perfect boundary, but I've found it works well for the significant majority of cases.
gameswithgo 6y ago
i notice you say “certain kinds of speech” instead of speech promoting violence and racism. im not aware of twitter et al banning any reasonable political activism.
- SeeTheTruth 6y ago
  They want to dump on platforms for taking action against hate speech and instigating violence because "someone else censored political activism". It's a disgusting point of view.
beager 6y ago
I have to be internally consistent and agree that it's at Zoom's discretion as a private-sector company whether to host specific content or provide services to specific people and viewpoints, just as it is for Facebook/Twitter etc. Two things are additional considerations that may change how this sort of action ends up for Zoom: 1. Zoom will be judged in the court of public opinion for their decision to align their moderation of access to their service with the CCP. This is likely a different degree of backlash than you'd see with, say, shutting down the accounts of US-based hate groups. 2. Zoom may come under scrutiny—without concrete evidence—for introspecting the content of communications through its platform that would otherwise be presumed to be private. This is different from Facebook/Twitter etc., for which much of the content that drives moderation decisions is public. Zoom is not abridging anyone's constitutional right to free speech, nor would they be able to. How they are judged for their specific actions, though, is entirely at the discretion of their user base and public opinion.
gruez 6y ago
>I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. The implication here is that they did it under pressure from the CCP, presumably because most (all?) of their programmers are from China. Blizzard got raked over the coals as well over a similar incident (search "blizzard blitzchung").
ican1 6y ago
This xkcd comic didn't age well: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/. Liberals used to cheerfully link to this whenever a conservative was deplatformed. I don't think they'll trot out this xkcd anymore when their favored people are being censored.
- lame-robot-hoax 6y ago
  There’s a difference between a private company doing that on their own accord, and bowing to the CCP.
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    Private company does not reduce their client base by itself . Either way it's outside pressure, by vocal minority , in case of youtube/twitter , or powerful minority, in case of zoom. Either way it's bad
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Nope, it's still a great illustrative comic. The people that disagree with the censorship are the ones showing Zoom the door. It's all individual choice, from Zoom and from those who agree / disagree. I don't agree with Zoom's censorship because I don't agree with China's laws. But I'm not in China, so I have the luxury of expressing my opinion about pretty much anything. Zoom, having operations in China, chose their path. Fine with me, it just means Zoom are lower down my list. That's precisely the scenario depicted in the comic.
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  This has always been a really stupid comic. I like most of Randal Munroe's work, but this one has always rubbed me the wrong way. But then again, Americans are always conflating the principe of free speech with your first amendment. Exluding private companies from free speech discussions has no real use when they have monopolies or oligopolies, and your websites keep getting shit down because people are complaining to your ISP about content, or when payment services such as Visa and Mastercard refuse to do business with you.
modeless 6y ago
It's not a violation of the free speech guarantees of the constitution, which is what people are usually discussing when that line comes out. I don't think what Zoom did should be illegal. That said... There have recently been a whole lot of apologists saying "yes their founder is from China and their developers are in China but that doesn't make them a Chinese company". Fair enough, but when that company further starts intentionally enforcing Chinese law on US customers, I have no problem calling it a Chinese company. And I will not use a Chinese company's communication product unless forced to.
dgellow 6y ago
> The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech How do you know they are the same people?
kabacha 6y ago
Is censoring hate speach really the same as censoring discussion of genocides? Really?
mr_toad 6y ago
> it is only censorship if the government does it Or if a government forces a private company to do it.
intopieces 6y ago
Are Zoom events like the one in the article public, such that any person who logs into Zoom can access as part of their interface, with out looking for it, the event in question? Does the content of the event persist in a way that makes it easily sharable, with comments? If the answer to both of these is “no,” I contend that the communications on these platforms is “private” and should be regulated by the US Government against censorship (though I have no hope that it will be). My reasoning is this: (1) Zoom has no expectation that private communications will harm their business. In the same way Ma Bell never took responsibility for the zillions or drug deals and kidnappings that got coordinated over their system. (2) Lack of viral potential means the possibility of inciting violence, cyber bullying, and other negative consequences of mass internet communication is diminished. Both of these points have a correlating contention about censorship on Twitter, Facebook, etc: they (not the government) ought to censor content that has the potential for negative outcomes like those I mentioned. Is it difficult? Absolutely. Will there be disagreements? For sure. But, they can afford to figure it out, and our society can’t afford for them to not to. NB: We need nuance and reasoning here. Falling back on first principles and calling it a day is not enough; those principles were articulated at a time where speech replication depended on industrial machines and were limited by how fast a pony could run. We’re talking the ability to beam information practically into every child’s brain 24/7 anywhere on the planet using psychological tricks to engage them.
pas 6y ago
Isn't the base argument is tolerance/inclusivity good, intolerance bad. (Intolerance like inciting violence, suppressing criticism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, the usual.) And simply taking steps that make make the world better according to this base argument is also good? This of course can become slippery and slope-y eventually, if a propaganda machine takes over as the tolerance authority, but I don't think that's a real problem compared to what the other problems the argument is trying to address.

vikramkr 6y ago

They can do whatever they want as a private company. I can do whatever I want as well. Including leaving zoom. They should have the right to enforce whatever standards they want, and we have the right to disagree and leave.

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
I really don't understand this. I am not American so may have a different perspective, but if by being private, you are ok with censoring, then you are ok with anyone banning blacks from their businesses, or not hiring gays, or only allowing women to go up the corporate ladder if they sleep around. After all, it is their private company, so why should I care about sexual harassment, blocking people, etc as long I am not the target? Heck, lets have white-men only private schools again, let's leave those blacks/gypsies/whatever out, after all, it is a private school so it should be able to discriminate against anyone.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I can anticipate the counter-argument to this: "well, discrimination based on race and gender is illegal, so they can't do that". Which is true, but kinda misses the point: it amounts to a position that discrimination and censorship is ok as long as it doesn't run afoul of local laws. If local laws reflect the totality of ethical and moral positions, that would be fine, but I think we all know that laws tend to fall far short on that metric. But I'm also sympathetic to the overall thrust of this. Let's say for a minute that hosting/distributing child porn wasn't illegal. Would you then call Zoom out as somehow evil for shutting down accounts that broadcast child porn live? I'll assume that people would be happy with Zoom shutting down something like that, and are also generally fine that there are laws banning child porn. So then it's impossible to hold a "no censorship at all" position, at least not without being a hypocrite. It's really "I don't like censorship, but it's appropriate in some narrowly-defined cases". Once we agree on that -- which we kinda have to, because that's the reality of the situation -- then it just becomes a matter of agreeing on what those "narrowly-defined cases" are, and of course I'd expect there to be disagreement. For example, I'm fine with a private company deciding they don't want to be used as a platform to distribute racist hate speech. But I'm not ok with a private company shutting down the account of someone organizing events around the Tiananmen massacre. But as long as people (including myself) are willing to say "well, none of the other videoconferencing solutions are good enough for my needs, so I'll look the other way", they can get away with whatever they want.
  - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
    The thing is, imo, we need to stand up for our values. Segregation ended because people raised up. Sexual Harassment laws the same. But seems now, if it is a Tech company, people judge them differently. Wether Facebook or Twitter or Zoom, 'oh I can vote with my feet'. But if that was the case 30-40-60 years ago, we wouldn't have the 'progress' we see now. And while I am opposed to child porn, if it is legal, I am not in favour of having private companies doing the censorship, but I would ask for people to be active on changing that law. Since that is opening a door I am not comfortable opening. We had YouTube/Twitter banning/blocking content that went against WHO guidelines, but we also had WHO guidelines being retracted one day after they were published. We had for days/weeks recommendations from the WHO that were just flat wrong, and we shouldn't let private companies censor information based on 3rd parties that are not 'innocent'. And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? No, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of it. > Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech. And that's where I think you and I fundamentally differ in our beliefs. I think, absent a law either way, companies may -- and perhaps should -- feel free to exercise their own judgment about what they're comfortable broadcasting from their platform. And again, why is "the law" so revered here? The law (at least in the US) is filled with racist and racist-enabling garbage. Why do we hold it as some final word on morality? I don't think we should. Changing the law takes time, effort, and money. Companies refusing to broadcast certain types of speech can be a part of activism and lobbying in order to change laws. And if ultimately the will of society is that this refusal is wrong, there are remedies (legal and economic) for that, too. I believe I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bigphishy 6y ago
A counter argument to this would be to acknowledge that in actuality a free market is regulated. It has to be regulated in order to be free. That's because there are bad-actors who lie, manipulate the market, deceit the public, with no discrepancy and with complete impunity.
hrktb 6y ago
This is the recipe used by some agencies to avoid scrutiny: have private companies do the job for them. Your argument’s end point looks like your freedom to only use video conferencing tools that respect your ideals. Would I do that, I’d have to leave my job and stop talking to pretty much anyone.

addicted 6y ago

At least you recognize your slippery slope fallacy when you make it!

at_a_remove 6y ago
I have stopped regarding it as a fallacy. It seems to be something of a predictive measure at this point.
- smolder 6y ago
  It's a fallacy to say that with a "slope" of states A B and C, with C implying B has been reached, that moving from A to B means you'll necessarily go to C next. The fallacy doesn't mean we can't go from B to C or that it isn't easier to get to C from B than A.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Which is why it's called the "Slippery Slope," not the "Sheer Cliff" or the "Trap Door" or the "Gravity Well." Whatever ancient neckbeard decided it was a fallacy clearly didn't get out much.
CamperBob2 6y ago
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. But people aren't logical entities for the most part, and the real world doesn't even vaguely resemble a philosophy classroom.

sdinsn 6y ago

> I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. Perhaps that applies, perhaps it doesn't. Did they remove the account due to pressure from the CCP?

brnt 6y ago

Going after bigots on your platform does not equal going after activists. Please do not intentionally confuse the two.

throwaway8879 6y ago
One man's activist is another man's bigot.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  There is a world of difference between being for something and against something and you are being very disingenuous (read: trolling) to conflate the two, Mr. throwaway account
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > There is a world of difference between being for something and against something They are the same. If you are for something, you're also against not something.
ican1 6y ago
Is there an objective way of distinguishing between an activist and a bigot? The CCP can just say that they consider this activist to be a bigot. Internet platforms should never have been in the business of censorship. Unfortunately, liberals encouraged them to censor their political opponents for short term gain. The result is sad but predictable. Any speech that offends someone powerful is now subject to possible censorship.
- alexland 6y ago
  The easiest distinction between activism and bigotry is to tolerate everything except intolerance itself. Activists mostly fight for more rights/freedom, and bigots mostly look to prevent that. It's not a perfect boundary, but I've found it works well for the significant majority of cases.

gameswithgo 6y ago

i notice you say “certain kinds of speech” instead of speech promoting violence and racism. im not aware of twitter et al banning any reasonable political activism.

SeeTheTruth 6y ago
They want to dump on platforms for taking action against hate speech and instigating violence because "someone else censored political activism". It's a disgusting point of view.

beager 6y ago

I have to be internally consistent and agree that it's at Zoom's discretion as a private-sector company whether to host specific content or provide services to specific people and viewpoints, just as it is for Facebook/Twitter etc. Two things are additional considerations that may change how this sort of action ends up for Zoom: 1. Zoom will be judged in the court of public opinion for their decision to align their moderation of access to their service with the CCP. This is likely a different degree of backlash than you'd see with, say, shutting down the accounts of US-based hate groups. 2. Zoom may come under scrutiny—without concrete evidence—for introspecting the content of communications through its platform that would otherwise be presumed to be private. This is different from Facebook/Twitter etc., for which much of the content that drives moderation decisions is public. Zoom is not abridging anyone's constitutional right to free speech, nor would they be able to. How they are judged for their specific actions, though, is entirely at the discretion of their user base and public opinion.

gruez 6y ago

>I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. The implication here is that they did it under pressure from the CCP, presumably because most (all?) of their programmers are from China. Blizzard got raked over the coals as well over a similar incident (search "blizzard blitzchung").

ican1 6y ago

This xkcd comic didn't age well: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/. Liberals used to cheerfully link to this whenever a conservative was deplatformed. I don't think they'll trot out this xkcd anymore when their favored people are being censored.

lame-robot-hoax 6y ago
There’s a difference between a private company doing that on their own accord, and bowing to the CCP.
- YarickR2 6y ago
  Private company does not reduce their client base by itself . Either way it's outside pressure, by vocal minority , in case of youtube/twitter , or powerful minority, in case of zoom. Either way it's bad
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Nope, it's still a great illustrative comic. The people that disagree with the censorship are the ones showing Zoom the door. It's all individual choice, from Zoom and from those who agree / disagree. I don't agree with Zoom's censorship because I don't agree with China's laws. But I'm not in China, so I have the luxury of expressing my opinion about pretty much anything. Zoom, having operations in China, chose their path. Fine with me, it just means Zoom are lower down my list. That's precisely the scenario depicted in the comic.
AllegedAlec 6y ago
This has always been a really stupid comic. I like most of Randal Munroe's work, but this one has always rubbed me the wrong way. But then again, Americans are always conflating the principe of free speech with your first amendment. Exluding private companies from free speech discussions has no real use when they have monopolies or oligopolies, and your websites keep getting shit down because people are complaining to your ISP about content, or when payment services such as Visa and Mastercard refuse to do business with you.

modeless 6y ago

It's not a violation of the free speech guarantees of the constitution, which is what people are usually discussing when that line comes out. I don't think what Zoom did should be illegal. That said... There have recently been a whole lot of apologists saying "yes their founder is from China and their developers are in China but that doesn't make them a Chinese company". Fair enough, but when that company further starts intentionally enforcing Chinese law on US customers, I have no problem calling it a Chinese company. And I will not use a Chinese company's communication product unless forced to.

dgellow 6y ago

> The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech How do you know they are the same people?

kabacha 6y ago

Is censoring hate speach really the same as censoring discussion of genocides? Really?

mr_toad 6y ago

> it is only censorship if the government does it Or if a government forces a private company to do it.

intopieces 6y ago

Are Zoom events like the one in the article public, such that any person who logs into Zoom can access as part of their interface, with out looking for it, the event in question? Does the content of the event persist in a way that makes it easily sharable, with comments? If the answer to both of these is “no,” I contend that the communications on these platforms is “private” and should be regulated by the US Government against censorship (though I have no hope that it will be). My reasoning is this: (1) Zoom has no expectation that private communications will harm their business. In the same way Ma Bell never took responsibility for the zillions or drug deals and kidnappings that got coordinated over their system. (2) Lack of viral potential means the possibility of inciting violence, cyber bullying, and other negative consequences of mass internet communication is diminished. Both of these points have a correlating contention about censorship on Twitter, Facebook, etc: they (not the government) ought to censor content that has the potential for negative outcomes like those I mentioned. Is it difficult? Absolutely. Will there be disagreements? For sure. But, they can afford to figure it out, and our society can’t afford for them to not to. NB: We need nuance and reasoning here. Falling back on first principles and calling it a day is not enough; those principles were articulated at a time where speech replication depended on industrial machines and were limited by how fast a pony could run. We’re talking the ability to beam information practically into every child’s brain 24/7 anywhere on the planet using psychological tricks to engage them.

pas 6y ago

Isn't the base argument is tolerance/inclusivity good, intolerance bad. (Intolerance like inciting violence, suppressing criticism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, the usual.) And simply taking steps that make make the world better according to this base argument is also good? This of course can become slippery and slope-y eventually, if a propaganda machine takes over as the tolerance authority, but I don't think that's a real problem compared to what the other problems the argument is trying to address.