4 ms·

Facebook is a private corporation. The first amendment has no bearing on how Facebook decides to operate their business.

soulofmischief 6y ago
We're talking about an open social platform which half the world's population uses, so it's effectively a public space and the fact that a simple political opinion could be enough to cancel my account means that when hundreds of dollars are on the line, my voice may be effectively silenced. It's a huge problem and even if you don't realize it now, it is going to be a huge political issue in the future.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  And it has a simple solution, albeit an unsavory one to many of America's more free-market minded persons: If they are effectively a public space, then nationalize them and make it official.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    That will never happen. The politician that sets it up will be voted out in the next election and everything he's done will be undone. Even as progressive as I am I will never vote for anyone who wants to nationalize a private company. That's what the CCP does, not America.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      If America is unwilling to stomach nationalizing a private company, but will stomach privatizing a previously public domain, where do you think that's going to land us?
- coldpie 6y ago
  I agree with everything you said, but the fact remains that the US constitution defines what the US government can do, and Facebook is not a part of the US government. The first amendment does not have anything to do with the policies Facebook may choose to create and enforce on their private platform.
- javagram 6y ago
  That doesn’t make it a first amendment problem. There’s only one legal case where private property was ruled to be subject to the 1st amendment - a company town where even the roads and sidewalks were owned by the company. In contrast, if you don’t want to use or get banned from facebook, you can still communicate via SMS/MMS, google chat, email, GnuSocial/ActivityPub, twitter, and dozens of other options. Actually, banning companies from moderating is probably a first amendment problem in the opposite direction - you’re forcing them to associate with you.
paulnechifor 6y ago
It's not that simple, and I hate it when it's inconsistent. For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say. But do other people get such protections? In my country, Romania, the supreme court declared that Facebook is a public space, so if you say something like "the police can blow me" you'll get a letter from the police telling you so show up at the station so that they can fine you (swearing is illegal in Romania). But Facebook can take down something I can say in public, meaning I'm not allowed free speech. It's not fair that I suffer all the consequences of a "public space", but none of the rights.
- nova22033 6y ago
  For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say IANAL but the court said Trump couldn't block you from his twitter account because his use of his feed made it a public forum. This was about Trump, not twitter. Twitter, AFAIK, wasn't forced to unblock the accounts trump had blocked.

soulofmischief 6y ago

We're talking about an open social platform which half the world's population uses, so it's effectively a public space and the fact that a simple political opinion could be enough to cancel my account means that when hundreds of dollars are on the line, my voice may be effectively silenced. It's a huge problem and even if you don't realize it now, it is going to be a huge political issue in the future.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
And it has a simple solution, albeit an unsavory one to many of America's more free-market minded persons: If they are effectively a public space, then nationalize them and make it official.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  That will never happen. The politician that sets it up will be voted out in the next election and everything he's done will be undone. Even as progressive as I am I will never vote for anyone who wants to nationalize a private company. That's what the CCP does, not America.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    If America is unwilling to stomach nationalizing a private company, but will stomach privatizing a previously public domain, where do you think that's going to land us?
coldpie 6y ago
I agree with everything you said, but the fact remains that the US constitution defines what the US government can do, and Facebook is not a part of the US government. The first amendment does not have anything to do with the policies Facebook may choose to create and enforce on their private platform.
javagram 6y ago
That doesn’t make it a first amendment problem. There’s only one legal case where private property was ruled to be subject to the 1st amendment - a company town where even the roads and sidewalks were owned by the company. In contrast, if you don’t want to use or get banned from facebook, you can still communicate via SMS/MMS, google chat, email, GnuSocial/ActivityPub, twitter, and dozens of other options. Actually, banning companies from moderating is probably a first amendment problem in the opposite direction - you’re forcing them to associate with you.

paulnechifor 6y ago

It's not that simple, and I hate it when it's inconsistent. For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say. But do other people get such protections? In my country, Romania, the supreme court declared that Facebook is a public space, so if you say something like "the police can blow me" you'll get a letter from the police telling you so show up at the station so that they can fine you (swearing is illegal in Romania). But Facebook can take down something I can say in public, meaning I'm not allowed free speech. It's not fair that I suffer all the consequences of a "public space", but none of the rights.

nova22033 6y ago
For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say IANAL but the court said Trump couldn't block you from his twitter account because his use of his feed made it a public forum. This was about Trump, not twitter. Twitter, AFAIK, wasn't forced to unblock the accounts trump had blocked.