8 ms·

So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerou

So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Good job Facebook, thanks for standing up for free speech.

demygale 6y ago
Most reputable media outlets will not run ads, especially political ads, that contain false information. There’s enormous latitude in this area. It hasn’t stopped attack ads or misleading information from entering political discourse. Facebook is refusing to apply any standard of editorial control over these ads. It’s their platform, their decision. I think it’s harmful to society and will happily talk shit about Facebook because of it. They control ever byte if content on the platform and censor and surveil their users with alacrity. Choosing to allow deceptive campaign advertising does not make Facebook a leader in free speech.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
Liberal society is ending, and you must swear allegiance to the People's Party, comrade. Otherwise, we will publicly denounce you, and will not permit you to engage in any business activity. There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!
- ecmascript 6y ago
  It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.
  - durkie 6y ago
    definitely no history of racism there.
    - ecmascript 6y ago
      Actually no.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    > It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Isn't that expressing free speech? Or do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? I'm dubious that's the case, and I doubt it'll affect the frameworks future success whether they post one or not.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      > do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267893460423462912 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267893460423462912 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057 Not taking any sides here.
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        I'm not aware of the who's who in the JavaScript world - is Brandon Dail of considerable influence? Because it looks the same guy asks questions twice, and in your second example the top comments are rebuking his insistence. I didn't see the original post as the user has limited who can see their tweets.
        searchableguy 6y ago
        > is Brandon Dail of considerable influence? Yes, he is from react team. > Second example the top comments are rebuking his insistence There are quite few agreeing too though. I just remember this example because brandon got fired over this since both people worked for facebook. I disagree that there is no pressure to add a BLM banner but that's it.
      - fsociety 6y ago
        And that guy is still calling people out for being racist because of “complicity” wowzers..
    - Veen 6y ago
      If a majority posts a banner, and one doesn't, it will be understood as opposition. As we've been hearing a lot of late: "Silence is pro-racist" and "Silence is violence". Under those conditions, not posting a banner would be to risk being considered a racist organization. This is not quite coercion, but nor is it possible to decline to post a banner without substantial and probably unjustified cost.
  - blueterminal 6y ago
    As an European myself, I really hope we will not succumb to tyrannical movements so easily. It is super scary to see what's happening in the USA at the moment with leftists' unquestioned total domination.
    - kombucha111 6y ago
      You are being severely misinformed. Nothing even close to that is happening right now. The movement is decidedly not tyrannical and certainly does not have unquestioned total domination. But the ideas behind it are very popular to be honest. People are sick of the current socio-economic arrangement, the abuse of authority and race relations on many levels.
      - blueterminal 6y ago
        When people lose their jobs if they make fun or just question certain group's behavior, what would you call it?
        onion2k 6y ago
        Justice.
        ben_w 6y ago
        Now I’m confused, are you describing the police or BLM?
        s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
        The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.
        ben_w 6y ago
        I am confused because to me it doesn’t seem like OP is describing either. One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs. The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of their friends or family. Neither of these groups matches OPs description.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Do you think humanity and empathy ends at a geographical border? You don't feel that the plight of people living under oppression is anything to do with you because they're far away? The reason why everyone, everywhere is saying BLM is important is because we live in a globally connected world now, and ignoring people due to borders and distance is no longer reasonable. We are all citizens of the world.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      It's not a question of whether people have empathy. It's a question of whether they're going to fire you from your job or boycott your business if you aren't actively celebrate the cause de jure in the approved manner.
      - onion2k 6y ago
        That's nonsense. No one is going to be fired and no one is going to be boycotted for not joining in. People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        > No one is going to be fired and no one is going to be boycotted for not joining in. I suspect if this were true this letter would not have been needed. http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/06/on-the-college-and-silence-a-letter-from-hillsdale-college/ http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/06/on-the-college-and-sil... > People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired. Black Lives Matter, as a movement generally, is riddled with Marxists. I have seen signs from the Marxist wing at every protest in the city, calling for the end of capitalism, free subway rides, and the immediate removal of Donald Trump without recourse to an election. Marxists sent my family to Siberian labor camps, and I have a beef with them. I expect free NYC subways would be economically inefficient. There are many other parts of BLM to which I object. I object to the charge that silence is violence. I object to the destruction of property, and to the statement that destruction of property is not violence. I object to those who have pulled down certain statues, like Grant and Washington. I object to the march slogan, which I have heard at half a dozen protests: "No cops! No KKK, No Racist USA"; the KKK are more than abstract bogeymen, but are real, and sometimes dangerous, and I have family who have been targeted by persons who I reasonably suspect to be bona fide members, as one of their other objects of hate: Roman Catholics. Perhaps this chant would be powerful in the American south, but I respectfully doubt that the half-white protest crowds of New York City are qualified to know the first thing about such matters. I further object to those who, in the name of BLM, head on to Twitter to solicit allegations of racism and names of people to doxx, harass, and get fired. All of these have taken place under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Perhaps some of them shouldn't have. Perhaps the brand should be more protected; in what I have witnessed, it's not. I have not previously raised these matters in any venue whatsoever, because I do not wish to undermine the reform of police impunity underway. My objections are typically not a matter of general interest, and I would not impose on people to subject them to such things. But for the purpose of this conversation right here, that I may rebuke you vigorously, I will freely admit to you: I am opposed to Black Lives Matter. I am opposed to them as a specific reification of needed reforms. I wish to be outside the group of BLM supporters. I have not blackened my profile picture, I have not used the hashtag anywhere in particular. You suggest this is sufficient to merit firing — or at least, your suggestion of what merits firing is not structured so that I might infer that my position ought to be safe. How dare you? How dare you presume that you or anyone like you are entitled to pass any judgment on my employment whatsoever? What right have you lot to threaten me, or to threaten anyone, like this? How fortunate for the world that your dreams of ideological tyranny should be thwarted! How fortunate are those of us still sufficiently blessed by liberty with the privilege to ignore those of like persuasion, to dismiss your empty screed, to cast you all down off the high horse of self-righteousness and be rid of your moralizing. Let all people strive to keep you from power. Let us never mistake loyalty for righteousness. Let us work instead to extend such blessings to all the world. (I hear, for instance, that black people often experience barriers which keep them from such blessings. Let us reach out to them in brotherhood.) I will further add that my CEO is African-American. I am proud of him. He's spoken out about racism in America, giving interviews to major news outlets, penning articles for high-profile publications. I dare not say that I speak for him, yet I would guess that if it you asked him to fire me, showed him what I have written here, that he would rebuke you: for I know he has passed through the fires of ideological scrutiny firsthand, and I think he has experienced personally these forces which your lot aspires to channel — seen how little they care for mercy, or even decency.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe. Everybody knows there are no black people in Europe! Problem solved!
dmos62 6y ago
Well that's good and well that you are independent, but the sad fact is that on average misinformation works, especially at scale. We don't really have a good grasp on the issue. It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media, but we're coming to terms with the fact that this can be turned against us.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media I disagree with that statement. For whatever it is worth, we (both the government and private sectors) have a long history of putting "explicit lyrics" stickers on CD's, censoring lyrics for the radio, editing scenes out of movies on TV, threatening to prevent movies from release if scenes aren't taken out, adding age ratings on videogames and films, see also the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Exactly. The right demanded those "parental advisory: explicit lyrics" be imposed, and then complain when people voluntarily put "trigger warnings" on their material. (the originator of the campaign was actually Tipper Gore, wife of Al; reminder that the US Democrats mostly operate as a center-right party roughly corresponding to Merkel's Christian Democrats)
abtom 6y ago
Facebook as a bastion of free speech? That's not something you hear often. I don't even even want to dig up the old examples of Zuckerberg bending over backwards for China, here's a recent example from Vietnam - https://in.reuters.com/article/vietnam-facebook/exclusive-facebook-agreed-to-censor-posts-after-vietnam-slowed-traffic-sources-idINKCN2232KP https://in.reuters.com/article/vietnam-facebook/exclusive-fa...
- bzb3 6y ago
  They only censor when the government forces them to. In other words they do the minimum to comply with the local law. Isn't that what we were looking for?
  - abtom 6y ago
    If they were only complying with court orders / subpoenas that's what would be called doing the minimum to comply with the law. They have done way more than that in the past - giving out tools to governments to enable mass surveillance and takedown of posts/accounts. Whatever content any government agency has a problem with is taken down immediately. Don't be mistaken. This is not Facebook standing up for your rights. It's them not wanting to stop fake news from spreading on their platform because that would hurt the bottomline.
- ecmascript 6y ago
  Exactly, I wrote "for once". I don't have a facebook account but I may even create one in the future if they continue down this path.
AlexandrB 6y ago
> Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Let's not pretend. Facebook and other social media already do that for you by deciding what content ends up getting surfaced and promoted. If what's true never ends up in your feed, how can you decide?
- ecmascript 6y ago
  I'm not sure exactly how the facebook feed works since I am not a user, but I assume I can "follow" people and orgs that interest me and not follow those who don't? Do you really think I would start to believe the state media in my country for example even if they promoted it as truth? I would simply just ignore it or use it as proof as why they are spreading fake news.
new_realist 6y ago
Societies have always had ways to determine what is true and what is lies. Facebook bypasses all of these, by allowing someone a direct connection into your open mind, where they can then take a shit. I prefer my mind shit free.
- op03 6y ago
  And they get rewarded in dopamine and influence for doing it. Facebook basically sells this drug unregulated. Its basically a drug cartel defending the right of the peddlers to push the drug.
cowpig 6y ago
Like everything else in life, blanket rules don't hold up to the messy reality of the real world. "Free speech" doesn't mean you should enable people to say literally anything. At the extreme: direct credible physical threats on peoples' safety. These are explicitly illegal. A bit less extreme: statements in indirect support of physical threats on groups of people, e.g. neonazis. The USA chooses not to govern these legally, but instead the responsibility becomes that of the people. For example, many would argue (rightly) that it's Facebook's responsibility as a de facto news platform not to distribute/publish that kind of speech.
chooseaname 6y ago
>Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. > Let me decide what is true and false... Yes. But... Facebook's algorithms do not give you both sides of the story. You may end up being presented with only ads, statements, opinions, etc from one side of the isle. Now, if you don't mind being inside an echo chamber, then you're good. But a lot of people can't tell that there inside an echo chamber and this ... is problematic. I don't think the answer is censorship. I don't think there is a correct way to fix this without someone getting their who-ha tied in a knot. But leaving it as it is is just not healthy.
unclebucknasty 6y ago
>So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? No. He's complicit in spreading fake news and hate because he operates a platform that traffics in fake news and hate. >Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Decide? There are objective facts. How is society served when the world's largest megaphone knowingly amplifies hateful lies as truth? How does it help people to remain free if they can no longer determine what's real? >Good job Facebook, thanks for standing up for free speech And advertisers are exercising their free speech. Never understood why the "it's ok to scream fire in the theater"-level free speech advocates also want that speech to be free of consequences to the point of curtailing others' rights. FB is free to try profiting from lies and hate and advertisers are free to opt-out.
SoylentOrange 6y ago
The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1]. Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself. Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see. I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checking-exemptions-for-opinion-and-satire-11569875314 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checkin...
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
  We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in the conversation. People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it. If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. Is it wrong to want to be lied to? I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. It's a real problem from the perspective of the social fabric and the shared narratives that hold it together, although the alternative - the government regulating non-violent speech - is arguably even more worrisome.
incangold 6y ago
So you’re saying that we should promote fascism to our children? ...obviously you did not say that- it’s a ridiculous straw man. As is your first paragraph. This whole area is rife with complexity, nuance and extremely difficult trade-offs. There are bad actors to contend with, extreme asymmetries of information, and asymmetries in the effort required to produce and to police misinformation. No analysis as simplistic as your comment is going to cut it.
scarface74 6y ago
But FB will. There was a story where a random FB user copied Trump’s posts verbatim. The user got censored. Trump didn’t.
- woadwarrior01 6y ago
  I don't know what FB's content moderation policy on plagiarism is. To give them the benefit of the doubt: perhaps the user was censored for plagiarising a celebrity's post? There's a cler distinction between parody and plagiarism.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    No, they were censored for hate speech (IIRC). In the case of Trump, FB claims the president's words are newsworthy, even if they qualify as hate speech. I don't necessarily disagree with that premise. However, I do believe a Twitter-like "this is biased" or "this is hate speech" label is appropriate. I have no idea if that's the "correct" solution, but at least it's an effort.
meroes 6y ago
Facebook censors a thousand different thing before it presents your feed.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
Censorship only applies to the extent that public authorities are willing to actively curb free speech through law enforcement. That's not what's happening here. Regardless whether you're Facebook or an administrator of a small time forum, it's entirely up to you to decide how you are going to moderate whatever people want to host and share on your own very private (!) infrastructure. And the private choice to host a public forum for other people does come with it's own special set of consequences. Both Facebook and a small time forum are very much comparable to private Saturday night parties. It's the host who decides to get in and how they respond to their guests' behaviour is their personal responsibility. Now, if some of those guests end up espousing questionable opinions which sour the overall mood of the party, the host can respond to that in several ways. One way is to step in and moderate or even kick out those guests at the behest of the others who simply want to chill and enjoy themselves. Another way is to excuse their behaviour and simply leave them be because of the host's whatever many personal motivations, intentions and beliefs. Facebook - or any small time forum admin - choosing for the latter option is entirely their prerogative. Freedom of speech means they are free to ignore whatever and state that they don't want to step in. It just so happens that this keeps on souring the mood at the party they host to the point where some guests will simply leave out of themselves - these companies - and that other guests leave only to return with cardboard signs voicing their disdain in front of the door of the venue. Facebook can't stop that kind of criticism from happening either: that's free speech too. It just works both ways, as intended. Nobody bats an eye if a small time forum administrator with 100 users ends up doing a shoddy job at moderation to the point where half their users end up leaving the forum disgruntled. Plenty of groups or private individuals break up over disagreements all the time. Literally the only difference between a small time forum administrator and Facebook is that the latter hosts a very private party with 2 billion attendees. It just so happens that at that scale, the way you moderate debates and behaviour of guests at your party decides the fate of entire nations and tugs at the bedrock of all kinds of important values and principles up to and including, ironically, free speech. It's not unreasonable to point out that the management of Facebook does carry a certain measure of personal responsibility in that regard.
sp332 6y ago
Why would advertisers want their ads to run next to content they don't support? Free speech means they are free not to advertise if they don't like the content. Facebook is allowed to avoid censoring posts if that's what they want to do, but they don't have a right to advertisers' money.

demygale 6y ago

Most reputable media outlets will not run ads, especially political ads, that contain false information. There’s enormous latitude in this area. It hasn’t stopped attack ads or misleading information from entering political discourse. Facebook is refusing to apply any standard of editorial control over these ads. It’s their platform, their decision. I think it’s harmful to society and will happily talk shit about Facebook because of it. They control ever byte if content on the platform and censor and surveil their users with alacrity. Choosing to allow deceptive campaign advertising does not make Facebook a leader in free speech.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Liberal society is ending, and you must swear allegiance to the People's Party, comrade. Otherwise, we will publicly denounce you, and will not permit you to engage in any business activity. There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!

ecmascript 6y ago
It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.
- durkie 6y ago
  definitely no history of racism there.
  - ecmascript 6y ago
    Actually no.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  > It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Isn't that expressing free speech? Or do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? I'm dubious that's the case, and I doubt it'll affect the frameworks future success whether they post one or not.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    > do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267893460423462912 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267893460423462912 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057 Not taking any sides here.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      I'm not aware of the who's who in the JavaScript world - is Brandon Dail of considerable influence? Because it looks the same guy asks questions twice, and in your second example the top comments are rebuking his insistence. I didn't see the original post as the user has limited who can see their tweets.
      - searchableguy 6y ago
        > is Brandon Dail of considerable influence? Yes, he is from react team. > Second example the top comments are rebuking his insistence There are quite few agreeing too though. I just remember this example because brandon got fired over this since both people worked for facebook. I disagree that there is no pressure to add a BLM banner but that's it.
    - fsociety 6y ago
      And that guy is still calling people out for being racist because of “complicity” wowzers..
  - Veen 6y ago
    If a majority posts a banner, and one doesn't, it will be understood as opposition. As we've been hearing a lot of late: "Silence is pro-racist" and "Silence is violence". Under those conditions, not posting a banner would be to risk being considered a racist organization. This is not quite coercion, but nor is it possible to decline to post a banner without substantial and probably unjustified cost.
- blueterminal 6y ago
  As an European myself, I really hope we will not succumb to tyrannical movements so easily. It is super scary to see what's happening in the USA at the moment with leftists' unquestioned total domination.
  - kombucha111 6y ago
    You are being severely misinformed. Nothing even close to that is happening right now. The movement is decidedly not tyrannical and certainly does not have unquestioned total domination. But the ideas behind it are very popular to be honest. People are sick of the current socio-economic arrangement, the abuse of authority and race relations on many levels.
    - blueterminal 6y ago
      When people lose their jobs if they make fun or just question certain group's behavior, what would you call it?
      - onion2k 6y ago
        Justice.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Now I’m confused, are you describing the police or BLM?
        s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
        The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.
        ben_w 6y ago
        I am confused because to me it doesn’t seem like OP is describing either. One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs. The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of their friends or family. Neither of these groups matches OPs description.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Do you think humanity and empathy ends at a geographical border? You don't feel that the plight of people living under oppression is anything to do with you because they're far away? The reason why everyone, everywhere is saying BLM is important is because we live in a globally connected world now, and ignoring people due to borders and distance is no longer reasonable. We are all citizens of the world.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    It's not a question of whether people have empathy. It's a question of whether they're going to fire you from your job or boycott your business if you aren't actively celebrate the cause de jure in the approved manner.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      That's nonsense. No one is going to be fired and no one is going to be boycotted for not joining in. People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        > No one is going to be fired and no one is going to be boycotted for not joining in. I suspect if this were true this letter would not have been needed. http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/06/on-the-college-and-silence-a-letter-from-hillsdale-college/ http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/06/on-the-college-and-sil... > People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired. Black Lives Matter, as a movement generally, is riddled with Marxists. I have seen signs from the Marxist wing at every protest in the city, calling for the end of capitalism, free subway rides, and the immediate removal of Donald Trump without recourse to an election. Marxists sent my family to Siberian labor camps, and I have a beef with them. I expect free NYC subways would be economically inefficient. There are many other parts of BLM to which I object. I object to the charge that silence is violence. I object to the destruction of property, and to the statement that destruction of property is not violence. I object to those who have pulled down certain statues, like Grant and Washington. I object to the march slogan, which I have heard at half a dozen protests: "No cops! No KKK, No Racist USA"; the KKK are more than abstract bogeymen, but are real, and sometimes dangerous, and I have family who have been targeted by persons who I reasonably suspect to be bona fide members, as one of their other objects of hate: Roman Catholics. Perhaps this chant would be powerful in the American south, but I respectfully doubt that the half-white protest crowds of New York City are qualified to know the first thing about such matters. I further object to those who, in the name of BLM, head on to Twitter to solicit allegations of racism and names of people to doxx, harass, and get fired. All of these have taken place under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Perhaps some of them shouldn't have. Perhaps the brand should be more protected; in what I have witnessed, it's not. I have not previously raised these matters in any venue whatsoever, because I do not wish to undermine the reform of police impunity underway. My objections are typically not a matter of general interest, and I would not impose on people to subject them to such things. But for the purpose of this conversation right here, that I may rebuke you vigorously, I will freely admit to you: I am opposed to Black Lives Matter. I am opposed to them as a specific reification of needed reforms. I wish to be outside the group of BLM supporters. I have not blackened my profile picture, I have not used the hashtag anywhere in particular. You suggest this is sufficient to merit firing — or at least, your suggestion of what merits firing is not structured so that I might infer that my position ought to be safe. How dare you? How dare you presume that you or anyone like you are entitled to pass any judgment on my employment whatsoever? What right have you lot to threaten me, or to threaten anyone, like this? How fortunate for the world that your dreams of ideological tyranny should be thwarted! How fortunate are those of us still sufficiently blessed by liberty with the privilege to ignore those of like persuasion, to dismiss your empty screed, to cast you all down off the high horse of self-righteousness and be rid of your moralizing. Let all people strive to keep you from power. Let us never mistake loyalty for righteousness. Let us work instead to extend such blessings to all the world. (I hear, for instance, that black people often experience barriers which keep them from such blessings. Let us reach out to them in brotherhood.) I will further add that my CEO is African-American. I am proud of him. He's spoken out about racism in America, giving interviews to major news outlets, penning articles for high-profile publications. I dare not say that I speak for him, yet I would guess that if it you asked him to fire me, showed him what I have written here, that he would rebuke you: for I know he has passed through the fires of ideological scrutiny firsthand, and I think he has experienced personally these forces which your lot aspires to channel — seen how little they care for mercy, or even decency.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe. Everybody knows there are no black people in Europe! Problem solved!

dmos62 6y ago

Well that's good and well that you are independent, but the sad fact is that on average misinformation works, especially at scale. We don't really have a good grasp on the issue. It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media, but we're coming to terms with the fact that this can be turned against us.

dfxm12 6y ago
It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media I disagree with that statement. For whatever it is worth, we (both the government and private sectors) have a long history of putting "explicit lyrics" stickers on CD's, censoring lyrics for the radio, editing scenes out of movies on TV, threatening to prevent movies from release if scenes aren't taken out, adding age ratings on videogames and films, see also the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Exactly. The right demanded those "parental advisory: explicit lyrics" be imposed, and then complain when people voluntarily put "trigger warnings" on their material. (the originator of the campaign was actually Tipper Gore, wife of Al; reminder that the US Democrats mostly operate as a center-right party roughly corresponding to Merkel's Christian Democrats)

abtom 6y ago

Facebook as a bastion of free speech? That's not something you hear often. I don't even even want to dig up the old examples of Zuckerberg bending over backwards for China, here's a recent example from Vietnam - https://in.reuters.com/article/vietnam-facebook/exclusive-facebook-agreed-to-censor-posts-after-vietnam-slowed-traffic-sources-idINKCN2232KP https://in.reuters.com/article/vietnam-facebook/exclusive-fa...

bzb3 6y ago
They only censor when the government forces them to. In other words they do the minimum to comply with the local law. Isn't that what we were looking for?
- abtom 6y ago
  If they were only complying with court orders / subpoenas that's what would be called doing the minimum to comply with the law. They have done way more than that in the past - giving out tools to governments to enable mass surveillance and takedown of posts/accounts. Whatever content any government agency has a problem with is taken down immediately. Don't be mistaken. This is not Facebook standing up for your rights. It's them not wanting to stop fake news from spreading on their platform because that would hurt the bottomline.
ecmascript 6y ago
Exactly, I wrote "for once". I don't have a facebook account but I may even create one in the future if they continue down this path.

AlexandrB 6y ago

> Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Let's not pretend. Facebook and other social media already do that for you by deciding what content ends up getting surfaced and promoted. If what's true never ends up in your feed, how can you decide?

ecmascript 6y ago
I'm not sure exactly how the facebook feed works since I am not a user, but I assume I can "follow" people and orgs that interest me and not follow those who don't? Do you really think I would start to believe the state media in my country for example even if they promoted it as truth? I would simply just ignore it or use it as proof as why they are spreading fake news.

new_realist 6y ago

Societies have always had ways to determine what is true and what is lies. Facebook bypasses all of these, by allowing someone a direct connection into your open mind, where they can then take a shit. I prefer my mind shit free.

op03 6y ago
And they get rewarded in dopamine and influence for doing it. Facebook basically sells this drug unregulated. Its basically a drug cartel defending the right of the peddlers to push the drug.

cowpig 6y ago

Like everything else in life, blanket rules don't hold up to the messy reality of the real world. "Free speech" doesn't mean you should enable people to say literally anything. At the extreme: direct credible physical threats on peoples' safety. These are explicitly illegal. A bit less extreme: statements in indirect support of physical threats on groups of people, e.g. neonazis. The USA chooses not to govern these legally, but instead the responsibility becomes that of the people. For example, many would argue (rightly) that it's Facebook's responsibility as a de facto news platform not to distribute/publish that kind of speech.

chooseaname 6y ago

>Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. > Let me decide what is true and false... Yes. But... Facebook's algorithms do not give you both sides of the story. You may end up being presented with only ads, statements, opinions, etc from one side of the isle. Now, if you don't mind being inside an echo chamber, then you're good. But a lot of people can't tell that there inside an echo chamber and this ... is problematic. I don't think the answer is censorship. I don't think there is a correct way to fix this without someone getting their who-ha tied in a knot. But leaving it as it is is just not healthy.

unclebucknasty 6y ago

>So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? No. He's complicit in spreading fake news and hate because he operates a platform that traffics in fake news and hate. >Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Decide? There are objective facts. How is society served when the world's largest megaphone knowingly amplifies hateful lies as truth? How does it help people to remain free if they can no longer determine what's real? >Good job Facebook, thanks for standing up for free speech And advertisers are exercising their free speech. Never understood why the "it's ok to scream fire in the theater"-level free speech advocates also want that speech to be free of consequences to the point of curtailing others' rights. FB is free to try profiting from lies and hate and advertisers are free to opt-out.

SoylentOrange 6y ago

The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1]. Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself. Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see. I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checking-exemptions-for-opinion-and-satire-11569875314 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checkin...

s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.
- danans 6y ago
  > Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in the conversation. People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it. If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. Is it wrong to want to be lied to? I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. It's a real problem from the perspective of the social fabric and the shared narratives that hold it together, although the alternative - the government regulating non-violent speech - is arguably even more worrisome.

incangold 6y ago

So you’re saying that we should promote fascism to our children? ...obviously you did not say that- it’s a ridiculous straw man. As is your first paragraph. This whole area is rife with complexity, nuance and extremely difficult trade-offs. There are bad actors to contend with, extreme asymmetries of information, and asymmetries in the effort required to produce and to police misinformation. No analysis as simplistic as your comment is going to cut it.

scarface74 6y ago

But FB will. There was a story where a random FB user copied Trump’s posts verbatim. The user got censored. Trump didn’t.

woadwarrior01 6y ago
I don't know what FB's content moderation policy on plagiarism is. To give them the benefit of the doubt: perhaps the user was censored for plagiarising a celebrity's post? There's a cler distinction between parody and plagiarism.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  No, they were censored for hate speech (IIRC). In the case of Trump, FB claims the president's words are newsworthy, even if they qualify as hate speech. I don't necessarily disagree with that premise. However, I do believe a Twitter-like "this is biased" or "this is hate speech" label is appropriate. I have no idea if that's the "correct" solution, but at least it's an effort.

meroes 6y ago

Facebook censors a thousand different thing before it presents your feed.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

Censorship only applies to the extent that public authorities are willing to actively curb free speech through law enforcement. That's not what's happening here. Regardless whether you're Facebook or an administrator of a small time forum, it's entirely up to you to decide how you are going to moderate whatever people want to host and share on your own very private (!) infrastructure. And the private choice to host a public forum for other people does come with it's own special set of consequences. Both Facebook and a small time forum are very much comparable to private Saturday night parties. It's the host who decides to get in and how they respond to their guests' behaviour is their personal responsibility. Now, if some of those guests end up espousing questionable opinions which sour the overall mood of the party, the host can respond to that in several ways. One way is to step in and moderate or even kick out those guests at the behest of the others who simply want to chill and enjoy themselves. Another way is to excuse their behaviour and simply leave them be because of the host's whatever many personal motivations, intentions and beliefs. Facebook - or any small time forum admin - choosing for the latter option is entirely their prerogative. Freedom of speech means they are free to ignore whatever and state that they don't want to step in. It just so happens that this keeps on souring the mood at the party they host to the point where some guests will simply leave out of themselves - these companies - and that other guests leave only to return with cardboard signs voicing their disdain in front of the door of the venue. Facebook can't stop that kind of criticism from happening either: that's free speech too. It just works both ways, as intended. Nobody bats an eye if a small time forum administrator with 100 users ends up doing a shoddy job at moderation to the point where half their users end up leaving the forum disgruntled. Plenty of groups or private individuals break up over disagreements all the time. Literally the only difference between a small time forum administrator and Facebook is that the latter hosts a very private party with 2 billion attendees. It just so happens that at that scale, the way you moderate debates and behaviour of guests at your party decides the fate of entire nations and tugs at the bedrock of all kinds of important values and principles up to and including, ironically, free speech. It's not unreasonable to point out that the management of Facebook does carry a certain measure of personal responsibility in that regard.

sp332 6y ago

Why would advertisers want their ads to run next to content they don't support? Free speech means they are free not to advertise if they don't like the content. Facebook is allowed to avoid censoring posts if that's what they want to do, but they don't have a right to advertisers' money.