4 ms·

This removal is a conspiracy in a literal sense. The decision to interrupt the communications of 200,000 people was made in secret by an unknown group of Facebo

by beefee 6y ago

This removal is a conspiracy in a literal sense. The decision to interrupt the communications of 200,000 people was made in secret by an unknown group of Facebook personnel. Even Ma Bell, in its most powerful and abusive days as a monopolist, would never have dreamed of enacting such hostility towards its users. It's worth asking, for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?

conspiracyexla1 6y ago
My ISP service is still working just fine. Facebook isn’t necessary infrastructure for communication. It’s an ad platform. Anyone using it accepted an arrangement where Facebook is under no obligation to permit them to continue to use Facebooks property (Facebooks servers). You should really climb out of the web and read up on the laws that you tacitly give control over you by your ignorance of how they work. The historical root of power in America is owning real property. The masses seem happy to sign theirs over to employers and banks.
def_true_false 6y ago
Is this meaningfully different from previous instances of censorship by social media platforms?
- yakireev 6y ago
  No, it isn't. Also, censorship is bad, and the fact that there's so much public demand for it nowadays is sickening. Even here at HN there are plenty of people who'd praise FB for this move.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    HN "censors" posts all the time. There are moderators who go around deleting posts, and even the users here dare to downvote, suppressing the speech of others!
  - def_true_false 6y ago
    Indeed, I'm just perplexed by people being so concerned with this specific instance of censorship. I would expect people to only get outraged by more mainstream stuff getting banned at this point, considering reddit and youtube started banning much more benign content ages ago (e.g. most gun related content).
res0nat0r 6y ago
You don't have any right to use Facebooks platform that is against their TOS, that they likely can change at any time. Ma Bell was regulated as as utility, Facebook is not a utility.
jeanvalmarc 6y ago
And by "interrupt the communications of 200,000 people" you mean "interrupt the circle-jerking of 200,000 morons before they shoot up another pizza parlor." I understand the libertarian impulse, but Facebook is in no way AT&T here.
keyme 6y ago
Facebook, Google and Twitter must be stripped of section 230 protections yesterday! How this is allowed to continue is beyond me.
- basch 6y ago
  230 protections protect companies who make editorial decisions from being treated as speakers of the remaining content they do allow on their platforms. It's entire purpose is to sanction and protect exactly what actions happened here. It's design is to have your cake and eat it too. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 In short: (C)(1) - publishers are not speakers (C)(2) - publishers can remove content at their discretion. How did the law come to be understood to do the exact opposite of what it does? There is also no requirement for them to be transparent or fair.
jariel 6y ago
Facebook is not a 'communications infrastructure', is not a 'public square' and they have no obligation to do anything other than act lawfully, and then, to act roughly consistent with their own guidelines, which is what they are doing. The comparison to 'Ma Bell' is irrelevant. 'Verizon or AT&T' - the actual modern incarnations of 'Ma Bell' are not intervening here, nor will they. If you want to make up stories about people raping children in basements, then yo can do that on your own website. " for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?" This question is upside down. The real question is 'How long will most people tolerate a social network full of stupidity, make up stuff, fake news, and other garbage'? QAnon is not the reason people use FB, it's the reason they leave.
- yakireev 6y ago
  > Facebook is not a 'communications infrastructure', is not a 'public square' and they have no obligation to do anything other than act lawfully De-facto it is both a 'communications infrastructure' and a 'public square' - due to the simple fact that it is used as such by hundreds of millions of people. The fact that they get away with pretending that they aren't is unfortunate. The fact that so many people are eager to defend this is sad, to say the least.
  - jariel 6y ago
    They absolutely not a public square, and it's sad that anyone thinks they have any right whatsoever to propagate invented lies about 'child molestors, secret rituals and anti-vaxx' information in any controlled community. Facebook has always had policies concerning content, that was never up for debate. There's really little to argue about here. If you want to talk about Lizards in control of the White House, you can make your own web site.
elliekelly 6y ago
If this group wanted to communicate in secret then using a Facebook group for clandestine conversation in 2020 feels like the equivalent of using bullhorns in 1990. I don’t think they really care about secret conversation, though. I think they want to recruit new followers. Every new recruit reaffirms that they’re “correct” in their thinking and solidifies the sense of belonging.

by beefee 6y ago

conspiracyexla1 6y ago

My ISP service is still working just fine. Facebook isn’t necessary infrastructure for communication. It’s an ad platform. Anyone using it accepted an arrangement where Facebook is under no obligation to permit them to continue to use Facebooks property (Facebooks servers). You should really climb out of the web and read up on the laws that you tacitly give control over you by your ignorance of how they work. The historical root of power in America is owning real property. The masses seem happy to sign theirs over to employers and banks.

def_true_false 6y ago

Is this meaningfully different from previous instances of censorship by social media platforms?

yakireev 6y ago
No, it isn't. Also, censorship is bad, and the fact that there's so much public demand for it nowadays is sickening. Even here at HN there are plenty of people who'd praise FB for this move.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  HN "censors" posts all the time. There are moderators who go around deleting posts, and even the users here dare to downvote, suppressing the speech of others!
- def_true_false 6y ago
  Indeed, I'm just perplexed by people being so concerned with this specific instance of censorship. I would expect people to only get outraged by more mainstream stuff getting banned at this point, considering reddit and youtube started banning much more benign content ages ago (e.g. most gun related content).

res0nat0r 6y ago

You don't have any right to use Facebooks platform that is against their TOS, that they likely can change at any time. Ma Bell was regulated as as utility, Facebook is not a utility.

jeanvalmarc 6y ago

And by "interrupt the communications of 200,000 people" you mean "interrupt the circle-jerking of 200,000 morons before they shoot up another pizza parlor." I understand the libertarian impulse, but Facebook is in no way AT&T here.

keyme 6y ago

Facebook, Google and Twitter must be stripped of section 230 protections yesterday! How this is allowed to continue is beyond me.

basch 6y ago
230 protections protect companies who make editorial decisions from being treated as speakers of the remaining content they do allow on their platforms. It's entire purpose is to sanction and protect exactly what actions happened here. It's design is to have your cake and eat it too. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 In short: (C)(1) - publishers are not speakers (C)(2) - publishers can remove content at their discretion. How did the law come to be understood to do the exact opposite of what it does? There is also no requirement for them to be transparent or fair.

jariel 6y ago

Facebook is not a 'communications infrastructure', is not a 'public square' and they have no obligation to do anything other than act lawfully, and then, to act roughly consistent with their own guidelines, which is what they are doing. The comparison to 'Ma Bell' is irrelevant. 'Verizon or AT&T' - the actual modern incarnations of 'Ma Bell' are not intervening here, nor will they. If you want to make up stories about people raping children in basements, then yo can do that on your own website. " for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?" This question is upside down. The real question is 'How long will most people tolerate a social network full of stupidity, make up stuff, fake news, and other garbage'? QAnon is not the reason people use FB, it's the reason they leave.

yakireev 6y ago
> Facebook is not a 'communications infrastructure', is not a 'public square' and they have no obligation to do anything other than act lawfully De-facto it is both a 'communications infrastructure' and a 'public square' - due to the simple fact that it is used as such by hundreds of millions of people. The fact that they get away with pretending that they aren't is unfortunate. The fact that so many people are eager to defend this is sad, to say the least.
- jariel 6y ago
  They absolutely not a public square, and it's sad that anyone thinks they have any right whatsoever to propagate invented lies about 'child molestors, secret rituals and anti-vaxx' information in any controlled community. Facebook has always had policies concerning content, that was never up for debate. There's really little to argue about here. If you want to talk about Lizards in control of the White House, you can make your own web site.

elliekelly 6y ago

If this group wanted to communicate in secret then using a Facebook group for clandestine conversation in 2020 feels like the equivalent of using bullhorns in 1990. I don’t think they really care about secret conversation, though. I think they want to recruit new followers. Every new recruit reaffirms that they’re “correct” in their thinking and solidifies the sense of belonging.