4 ms·

Not really true. Content policy can take a lot of different forms. There’s a purely compliant approach — only respecting the legal requirements, like illegal co

Not really true. Content policy can take a lot of different forms. There’s a purely compliant approach — only respecting the legal requirements, like illegal content — and then there’s an approach of being Big Brother, taking a censorship role. Facebook seems to want to be at least a little bit of a censor.

andrewflnr 6y ago
This article is about Facebook trying not to be a censor, and consequently getting slammed for not acting strongly enough against "Fake News". Changing to lower or higher levels of censorship will just result in different amounts of yelling from one side or the other. The middle of the road is a no-mans-land where you get shelled by both sides of the political spectrum.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  The “middle of the road” is actually impossible — there’s no Goldilocks level of censorship. Once your policy becomes less permissive than the legal minimum you are inciting a whole world of criticism.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    I mean, that's basically another way of stating the same point I'm making, except that I think "legal minimum" is also non-viable for similar reasons (unless you're 4chan apparently). I can't see any safe ground, any way that for-profit social media can scale sustainably.
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  I would argue that it is censoring. By being more lenient to right wing sources compared to other sources who carry out the same infraction you create a bias and are censoring in favour of those right wing sources.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Social media neutrality isn't a 'both political sides bad' problem but rather an issue that ties into differences in strategies between conservative and non-conservative political blocs. Conservatives, not just in the United States but globally, pour vast resources into using social media platforms to propagate ideas that are objectively false and to embed those ideas into the minds of vulnerable people. There is no equivalent effort by non-conservatives in any English-speaking country. Non-conservatives see ample ammunition in the actual behavior of their opponents and see no need to use falsehoods to help their cause. Compare: Trump claiming that Biden will destroy the suburbs by letting non-whites liven in them vs anti-Trump forces using actual pictures of actual children in actual cages. Also compare: the lies used to manufacture support for Brexit vs. the actual truths about what would happen. Rampant dishonesty is seen by many, particularly non-conservatives, as social cheating and social media platforms that enable it are condemned by non-conservatives for pro-conservative bias. On the other hand, social media networks that do not tolerate political lies will, purely because most political lying is done by conservatives, more heavily restrict pro-conservative ideas and be condemned by conservatives for anti-conservative bias. There's no way to square the circle of responding to habitual conservative dishonesty without favoring either conservatives or non-conservatives any more than there's a way to be neutral in the face of a wildfire: you either put it out or you don't.
  - intended 6y ago
    Agreed! Well said If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter - and then they will evolve to dodge the new filters, or cause filters to create collateral damage. Deplatforming these voices also plays into their strategy of calling themselves victims. Since most people don’t know the ins and outs of frequency of rule breaking, and the disproportionate amount of false information in conservative circles, people assume (wrongly) that it can’t be “that bad.” I wish someone had a cost benefit analysis on what is the most effective way to resolve this, but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. Perhaps it’s a civilization level issue - we have the technology and structures to create platforms - servers, networks, computer science theories. We don’t have a solution or science for handling the structures that come on top of it, like what is the societal cost of keeping crazy theories on a network, vs the cost or methods required to stamp it out, and the philosophical arguments that support or prohibit such action.
Covzire 6y ago
It's well beyond Facebook too, it's actually silicon valley culture by and large, big tech has been increasingly capitulating and adopting stances and policies of the Chinese Communist Party over American values and interests. With COVID19, Twitter and Youtube are great examples where espousing any views in disagreement with the World Health Organization will get your content censored and possibly your account banned.
JamisonM 6y ago
I believe there are no examples of platforms with any significant reach that can possibly take a purely compliance approach. Speech permissible by law in many jurisdictions is well beyond what is tolerable in public forums - or tolerable in your office meeting room.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  Speech is protected by law in many cases and that makes it tolerable; it can be inappropriate in some cases, but that is not a reason to censor it. The recent discussions about applying the first amendment to companies like Facebook have some logic behind.
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    If someone walked into their place of work and spent the whole day shouting obscenities and racial slurs I think their speech would be deemed intolerable.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  There is no such thing as "tolerable" - there is only what one can tolerate. To phrase it that way asks the question who claims they're incapable of tolerating what. "Intolerable speech" makes it sound like it's the speech's fault.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    "Fire in a crowded theater" is intolerable speech, and so is publicly calling for executions. It's enshrined in jurisprudence. US only, other nations probably have larger lists of free speech exclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_educator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - mardifoufs 6y ago
      >"Fire in a crowded theater" is intolerable speech, and so is publicly calling for executions. It's enshrined in jurisprudence. Directly threathening to execute someone maybe. But "Fire in a crowded theater" has not been part of jurisprudence for... 40 years. The US has very, very limited free speech restrictions. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
snowwrestler 6y ago
Facebook is perfectly happy to censor legal content; try posting a picture of a topless woman, or even of a woman breast-feeding without a covering. Try posting a short video of consenting adults having sex. I think it's very illuminating that so many people accept these speech restrictions without question or fuss (although breast-feeding advocacy groups have fought the good fight on their pictures), but, as soon as FB blocks an article falsely claiming that Joe Biden will dynamite churches if he becomes president or whatever, it's suddenly Very Important That Facebook Not Practice Censorship. Can we all imagine for a minute how conservatives would react if Facebook took a 100% compliance approach to speech and allowed anyone to post porn into their newsfeed?

andrewflnr 6y ago

This article is about Facebook trying not to be a censor, and consequently getting slammed for not acting strongly enough against "Fake News". Changing to lower or higher levels of censorship will just result in different amounts of yelling from one side or the other. The middle of the road is a no-mans-land where you get shelled by both sides of the political spectrum.

thehappypm 6y ago
The “middle of the road” is actually impossible — there’s no Goldilocks level of censorship. Once your policy becomes less permissive than the legal minimum you are inciting a whole world of criticism.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  I mean, that's basically another way of stating the same point I'm making, except that I think "legal minimum" is also non-viable for similar reasons (unless you're 4chan apparently). I can't see any safe ground, any way that for-profit social media can scale sustainably.
qtplatypus 6y ago
I would argue that it is censoring. By being more lenient to right wing sources compared to other sources who carry out the same infraction you create a bias and are censoring in favour of those right wing sources.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Social media neutrality isn't a 'both political sides bad' problem but rather an issue that ties into differences in strategies between conservative and non-conservative political blocs. Conservatives, not just in the United States but globally, pour vast resources into using social media platforms to propagate ideas that are objectively false and to embed those ideas into the minds of vulnerable people. There is no equivalent effort by non-conservatives in any English-speaking country. Non-conservatives see ample ammunition in the actual behavior of their opponents and see no need to use falsehoods to help their cause. Compare: Trump claiming that Biden will destroy the suburbs by letting non-whites liven in them vs anti-Trump forces using actual pictures of actual children in actual cages. Also compare: the lies used to manufacture support for Brexit vs. the actual truths about what would happen. Rampant dishonesty is seen by many, particularly non-conservatives, as social cheating and social media platforms that enable it are condemned by non-conservatives for pro-conservative bias. On the other hand, social media networks that do not tolerate political lies will, purely because most political lying is done by conservatives, more heavily restrict pro-conservative ideas and be condemned by conservatives for anti-conservative bias. There's no way to square the circle of responding to habitual conservative dishonesty without favoring either conservatives or non-conservatives any more than there's a way to be neutral in the face of a wildfire: you either put it out or you don't.
- intended 6y ago
  Agreed! Well said If you moderate by common decency values, massive chunks of conservative voices would be off Reddit, FB, Twitter - and then they will evolve to dodge the new filters, or cause filters to create collateral damage. Deplatforming these voices also plays into their strategy of calling themselves victims. Since most people don’t know the ins and outs of frequency of rule breaking, and the disproportionate amount of false information in conservative circles, people assume (wrongly) that it can’t be “that bad.” I wish someone had a cost benefit analysis on what is the most effective way to resolve this, but right now social media firms are forced to treat outright conspiracy theories at the same level as science and research. Perhaps it’s a civilization level issue - we have the technology and structures to create platforms - servers, networks, computer science theories. We don’t have a solution or science for handling the structures that come on top of it, like what is the societal cost of keeping crazy theories on a network, vs the cost or methods required to stamp it out, and the philosophical arguments that support or prohibit such action.

Covzire 6y ago

It's well beyond Facebook too, it's actually silicon valley culture by and large, big tech has been increasingly capitulating and adopting stances and policies of the Chinese Communist Party over American values and interests. With COVID19, Twitter and Youtube are great examples where espousing any views in disagreement with the World Health Organization will get your content censored and possibly your account banned.

JamisonM 6y ago

I believe there are no examples of platforms with any significant reach that can possibly take a purely compliance approach. Speech permissible by law in many jurisdictions is well beyond what is tolerable in public forums - or tolerable in your office meeting room.

AdrianB1 6y ago
Speech is protected by law in many cases and that makes it tolerable; it can be inappropriate in some cases, but that is not a reason to censor it. The recent discussions about applying the first amendment to companies like Facebook have some logic behind.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  If someone walked into their place of work and spent the whole day shouting obscenities and racial slurs I think their speech would be deemed intolerable.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
There is no such thing as "tolerable" - there is only what one can tolerate. To phrase it that way asks the question who claims they're incapable of tolerating what. "Intolerable speech" makes it sound like it's the speech's fault.
- r00fus 6y ago
  "Fire in a crowded theater" is intolerable speech, and so is publicly calling for executions. It's enshrined in jurisprudence. US only, other nations probably have larger lists of free speech exclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_educator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - mardifoufs 6y ago
    >"Fire in a crowded theater" is intolerable speech, and so is publicly calling for executions. It's enshrined in jurisprudence. Directly threathening to execute someone maybe. But "Fire in a crowded theater" has not been part of jurisprudence for... 40 years. The US has very, very limited free speech restrictions. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

snowwrestler 6y ago

Facebook is perfectly happy to censor legal content; try posting a picture of a topless woman, or even of a woman breast-feeding without a covering. Try posting a short video of consenting adults having sex. I think it's very illuminating that so many people accept these speech restrictions without question or fuss (although breast-feeding advocacy groups have fought the good fight on their pictures), but, as soon as FB blocks an article falsely claiming that Joe Biden will dynamite churches if he becomes president or whatever, it's suddenly Very Important That Facebook Not Practice Censorship. Can we all imagine for a minute how conservatives would react if Facebook took a 100% compliance approach to speech and allowed anyone to post porn into their newsfeed?