5 ms·

"To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites violence or suppresses voting. Even if a politician or government official s

"To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites violence or suppresses voting. Even if a politician or government official says it, if we determine that content may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote, we will take that content down. Similarly, there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing here today." To me, this is the most interesting development. It'll be interesting to see where the line gets drawn in practice on what constitutes voter suppression and/or speech that could lead to violence. The bigger question is whether we should be entrusting Facebook to draw that line in the first place.

GloriousKoji 6y ago
No, we should not trust Facebook to draw the line.
- krapp 6y ago
  Why shouldn't Facebook draw the line on their own platform?
  - totony 6y ago
    Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when they become monopolies.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Facebook isn't a monopoly. they aren't the only social media platform, nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. What definition of monopoly are you using here? Also, what does "free passes of free speech suppression" even mean? Your language here is emotional and clearly carries its own bias. "manipulating votes" implies vote tampering or some kind other kind of fraud, when what I think you mean is "manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. And "free speech suppression" appears to mean moderation, but Facebook and all other platforms moderate their content under whatever arbitrary means they choose all the time, notwithstanding being legally require to "suppress" content already deemed illegal. This isn't an entirely black and white matter, because moderation and, to some degree, manipulation are aspects of free speech. If Facebook doesn't have the right to set their own terms of service and moderate content under those terms, then who does is for them? The government? Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?
      - totony 6y ago
        Every person I encounter has a Facebook. Even my ~100 years old grandma has one. Not sure what other social media has the same presence in the life of people. Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter are not even close and quite niche in the grand scheme of things. >nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. Of course there are niche websites for some people, doesn't take away from how big Facebook is. Perhaps not technically a monopoly, but their influence is real and there should be barriers so it's not abused. >"manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. Yeah of course, law has had trouble adjusting to the omnipresence of Internet for a while now. >Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it? The government should not restrict free speech as much as Facebook is allowed to right now. Some laws prevent some sorts of extreme speech, e.g. hate speech, but I'd rather society come to a consensus on what's out of bounds than some corp choose them to cater to advertisers/their bottom line.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  I fully support that. But the sad alternative we have now, is to have Trump draw the line (he's already trying to do that with executive orders targeting social media).
- Lutger 6y ago
  What is the alternative? Trump moderating content?
cryptoz 6y ago
One sentence uses 'suppress'. The other uses 'deprive'. Those are completely different things and will cause enormous confusion unless clarified. (ie, there is a lot that suppresses the vote but does not deprive it; will those instances be ignored, as this text suggests?)
cecja 6y ago
Facebook is not the public place you want it to be if you want to regulate it do it. Otherwise it's just a pub and if you don't behave like the pub owner wants you to he can kick you out. All this shitty discussions about freedom of speech look at rome, look at fucking history books look at the german media landscape when hitler came to might you literally make an argument for it to be like that again. go fuck yourself.
wwweston 6y ago
Facebook should be trusted to draw the line on Facebook. Other institutions should be trusted to draw lines where they have responsibility. Including courts, which have been handling questions like this since we had a first amendment, and affirming that exceptions exist including incitement to violence.
- cowpig 6y ago
  > Facebook should be trusted to draw the line on Facebook. Facebook can draw the line in some cases, but should certainly not be trusted

GloriousKoji 6y ago

No, we should not trust Facebook to draw the line.

krapp 6y ago
Why shouldn't Facebook draw the line on their own platform?
- totony 6y ago
  Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when they become monopolies.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Facebook isn't a monopoly. they aren't the only social media platform, nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. What definition of monopoly are you using here? Also, what does "free passes of free speech suppression" even mean? Your language here is emotional and clearly carries its own bias. "manipulating votes" implies vote tampering or some kind other kind of fraud, when what I think you mean is "manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. And "free speech suppression" appears to mean moderation, but Facebook and all other platforms moderate their content under whatever arbitrary means they choose all the time, notwithstanding being legally require to "suppress" content already deemed illegal. This isn't an entirely black and white matter, because moderation and, to some degree, manipulation are aspects of free speech. If Facebook doesn't have the right to set their own terms of service and moderate content under those terms, then who does is for them? The government? Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?
    - totony 6y ago
      Every person I encounter has a Facebook. Even my ~100 years old grandma has one. Not sure what other social media has the same presence in the life of people. Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter are not even close and quite niche in the grand scheme of things. >nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. Of course there are niche websites for some people, doesn't take away from how big Facebook is. Perhaps not technically a monopoly, but their influence is real and there should be barriers so it's not abused. >"manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. Yeah of course, law has had trouble adjusting to the omnipresence of Internet for a while now. >Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it? The government should not restrict free speech as much as Facebook is allowed to right now. Some laws prevent some sorts of extreme speech, e.g. hate speech, but I'd rather society come to a consensus on what's out of bounds than some corp choose them to cater to advertisers/their bottom line.
justapassenger 6y ago
I fully support that. But the sad alternative we have now, is to have Trump draw the line (he's already trying to do that with executive orders targeting social media).
Lutger 6y ago
What is the alternative? Trump moderating content?

cryptoz 6y ago

One sentence uses 'suppress'. The other uses 'deprive'. Those are completely different things and will cause enormous confusion unless clarified. (ie, there is a lot that suppresses the vote but does not deprive it; will those instances be ignored, as this text suggests?)

cecja 6y ago

Facebook is not the public place you want it to be if you want to regulate it do it. Otherwise it's just a pub and if you don't behave like the pub owner wants you to he can kick you out. All this shitty discussions about freedom of speech look at rome, look at fucking history books look at the german media landscape when hitler came to might you literally make an argument for it to be like that again. go fuck yourself.

wwweston 6y ago

Facebook should be trusted to draw the line on Facebook. Other institutions should be trusted to draw lines where they have responsibility. Including courts, which have been handling questions like this since we had a first amendment, and affirming that exceptions exist including incitement to violence.

cowpig 6y ago
> Facebook should be trusted to draw the line on Facebook. Facebook can draw the line in some cases, but should certainly not be trusted