5 ms·

I mean, by that logic, the US government allowing anti-vaccination sentiment to proliferate without legal/policy action (read: the First Amendment), is also "un

by bhupy 6y ago

I mean, by that logic, the US government allowing anti-vaccination sentiment to proliferate without legal/policy action (read: the First Amendment), is also "unambiguously harmful to society". Except, the issue is way more nuanced than that. The reason this expression is enshrined as a protection in US jurisdiction is because we decide that free expression trumps every other social need — with the narrow exceptions as laid out in Brandenburg v Ohio (imminent lawless action). To the extent that this is undesirable, if the political will to amend the Constitution is absent, then you'd also have a hard time convincing people that Facebook should not exercise the same principle.

deminature 6y ago
My point is that true freedom of speech of already only partially possible on the platform owing to moderators selectively taking down millions of posts daily that violate the 'community guidelines'. Extending this to anti-vaccination rhetoric seems like a small expansion of existing policy, and addresses a problem causing real harm in society. Cities are paying millions to stop outbreaks of previously defeated diseases like measles and counteract disinformation primarily being spread on social networks [1]. Should social networks not be somewhat culpable for their quantifiable externalities on society? [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measles-cases-hit-1234-brooklyn-outbreak-called-over https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measl...
- bhupy 6y ago
  Right, and that's just as easily an argument in favor of loosening the existing restrictions, not tightening them even further. Epistemologically, where you come out on this all depends on which axiom you start from. Also, there's a subtle difference between the existing guidelines and what you're proposing: the existing guidelines exist to maintain a positive experience directly for those consuming the platform (eg I don't want to see ISIS beheadings on FB). The new guidelines you're proposing exist solely to indirectly prevent others from seeing things you think they should not be seeing (eg I don't want my aunt to see this post). It's a very important distinction.

by bhupy 6y ago

deminature 6y ago

My point is that true freedom of speech of already only partially possible on the platform owing to moderators selectively taking down millions of posts daily that violate the 'community guidelines'. Extending this to anti-vaccination rhetoric seems like a small expansion of existing policy, and addresses a problem causing real harm in society. Cities are paying millions to stop outbreaks of previously defeated diseases like measles and counteract disinformation primarily being spread on social networks [1]. Should social networks not be somewhat culpable for their quantifiable externalities on society? [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measles-cases-hit-1234-brooklyn-outbreak-called-over https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measl...

bhupy 6y ago
Right, and that's just as easily an argument in favor of loosening the existing restrictions, not tightening them even further. Epistemologically, where you come out on this all depends on which axiom you start from. Also, there's a subtle difference between the existing guidelines and what you're proposing: the existing guidelines exist to maintain a positive experience directly for those consuming the platform (eg I don't want to see ISIS beheadings on FB). The new guidelines you're proposing exist solely to indirectly prevent others from seeing things you think they should not be seeing (eg I don't want my aunt to see this post). It's a very important distinction.