21 ms·

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others...

dheera 6y ago
> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. Not only that, but they seem to be responsible for policing political opinions in the US alone. Also, I never told them what citizenship I have in the process of creating my account. Why do I get so many US election reminders on Facebook but not election reminders for the 97 other democracies in the world?
xkcd-sucks 6y ago
> people in general these days Wait till you read some 19th century US history, you're in for a treat
shadowgovt 6y ago
I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology. Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint. Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time to plead their case? The world of decentralized bidirectional near-lightspeed mass-communication, where there is often not a gatekeeper, is relatively new. It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society. I would say there have been a lot of positive consequences. Negative consequences are also stacking up quickly.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  The problem is that facebook has partially replaced both broadcast television and private conversations people would have in person or on the phone. Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call. Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.
  - pm90 6y ago
    Solutions exist, more likely Facebook is not interested in them, as it may affect their bottom line.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 6y ago
  Very nuanced analysis! Fantastic. In the past, the effects of freedom of speech were bounded by the cost of communication. Very few people could afford a soapbox with which to reach the world, so only certain messages were broadcast widely. Now everyone can send (and even amplify) messages quickly and easily. Previously celebrities, politicians, the media, and advertisers had a wide channel. Now interest groups, state actors, echo chambers, and individuals with access to technology such as GPT-3 can do the same. There's a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. We're now testing how humans respond to this deluge. It's fascinating (and somewhat worrying) to watch unfold. My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want.
  - slg 6y ago
    >My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want. Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.
qppo 6y ago
Their entire existence is predicated on policing opinions for the highest bidder, or in a way that benefits the highest bidder. Should ethics and morality not be integrated into that model?
saeranv 6y ago
This is a strawman argument. No one cares about other people having and sharing different opinions. However the argument for moderating content on Facebook is centered around misinformation, and incitement of violence. There has now been multiple instances where right-wing populists have posted fake information on Facebook with political consequences. In Myanmar this incited in genocide[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- hnatitagain 6y ago
  This is a disingenuous argument that neglects to include the fact that 'misinformation' and 'violence' are stretched beyond the pale by ideologues in order to justify why something they disagree with politically should be removed on these platforms.
  - zbentley 6y ago
    People certainly do falsely assert that things are more harmful than they are to justify taking them down. But it's not disingenuous to point out that there are many cases where disinformation really is deeply harmful (as in it results in death or bodily harm to many, many people).
  - notyocheese 6y ago
    people have been murdered because of misinformation on facebook: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... That's pretty unambiguous to me.
starkred 6y ago
I still don't get it and I can't get away from 'printing press' analogies. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" resulted in countless deaths but who owns that responsibly besides whoever wrote it, read it, and acted on the information within? You could blame it's publishers but that seems pretty off-track. Also every company I've ever worked at has angry, self-righteous employees who disagree with upper management. We all think we're smarter than everyone else and most of us aren't afraid to share it.
- chris11 6y ago
  There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was republished by Henry Ford as part of a series of anti-semitic articles. The decision to publish them was immoral and is evidence of Ford's racism. I'm sure employers at the Economist would be angry if it started to run articles that would be a better fit for the National Enquirer. Facebook is kind of different, it argues that it's a platform not a publisher. They do have some ground to argue for looser guidelines. But their business model targeting engagement incentivises them to promote divisive and false information. I'd be much more comfortable with Facebook if they didn't promote extreme and dangerous content. What those standards should be is a thorny issue, but better moderation would be an improvement.
  - starkred 6y ago
    > There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law I don't necessarily disagree and I'm sure there were plenty of reputable publishers who wouldn't touch the protocols. But should the agency who did published it have been hauled up before a congressional investigating committee?
    - chris11 6y ago
      I wouldn't expect much from a congressional hearing. Especially since it would start out extremely political. But Facebook should be questioned over things like how they handle things like health conspiracy theories and blatantly fake political conspiracies.
vkou 6y ago
As long as Facebook picks and chooses what content it displays on my feed, it is not at all inconsistent for it to pick and choose what content it will not display on my feed. Facebook isn't a dumb pipe. If it feels like it can fiddle with my feed to maximize its profit, its perfectly reasonable for its employees to demand that it does so in an ethical way. Your argument would work if it were a dumb pipe (Like my phone line is.)
okprod 6y ago
Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.
- Jerry2 6y ago
  Sure, but then it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Section 230.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    For the 500 millionth time Section 230 does not say "censorship makes you a publisher". It says the exact opposite. An information service cannot be held liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Translation: they can "censor" or moderate or remove spam to their heart's content, even beyond what's legally required.
    - Jerry2 6y ago
      Then Section 230 needs to be revoked fully.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Be careful what you wish for. Without the safe harbor, activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on religious or parenting forums or support groups for cancer, grief, PTSD, or addiction. Practically any Internet message board would become unusable.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  You completely missed the point of GP's comment. They never said Facebook can't do whatever they want. Just that Facebook employees shouldn't feel like they get a say in it. edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.
asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago
If it's in your house (server) you can do what you want with it (granted there are no laws preventing it). It's an independent for-profit company. You can kick someone out of a physical store for what they do or say all the same.
thissitecensors 6y ago
People criticizing censorship on this website make me laugh. Hackernews is the most heavily censored website I've ever encountered. The way this website treats unpopular opinions is like Mao's China.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I wouldn't go that far, but the website has a purpose and dang is very clear about keeping conversation within the guardrails of that purpose. It's not an open forum to discuss anything.
  - thissitecensors 6y ago
    Give me a break. Guidelines that are selectively enforced is just power tripping censorship. This is a website that allows people to post advertisements for cigarettes while stamping down on anything that shakes the boat when it comes to China or labor rights in the USA. I don't see anyone using your logic to defend FB although it would be just as applicable. And to preempt people https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364535
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      No, I agree; this site regulates what topics are valid for conversation. It's the rest of your comment I take issue with. Wake me when dang rolls tanks into a public square. (... and I'll use my own logic to defend Facebook any day of the week. It's their site and their rules. If anything, I think the employees who believe they should be responsible and forthright about their policies there instead of pretending to neutrality are in the right).
      - thissitecensors 6y ago
        I'm sorry but saying it's not censorship unless a goon is putting gun to your head is sinply retarded.
RobRivera 6y ago
In my conversations, such employees don't believe they have the right, they believe their political positions are objectively morally superior and hold an 'ends justifies the means' opinion on influence.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  Well, I think the Holocaust taught us that is true, no?
  - nxc18 6y ago
    You're being downvoted, but Facebook is actively facilitating genocide and has a shockingly high body count already, on top of interfering with any attempt to seek justice for victims of atrocities. https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-problem https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro... https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zuckerberg-says-facebook-erred-in-not-removing-militia-post/507-83fc429d-827b-404c-8372-6371b8397cea https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zu... https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-rumours-spread-on-facebook-overload-911-spur-calls-to-violence/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebook-is-pushing-ethiopia-dangerously-close-to-a-genocide https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac... https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia-doc-bid-would-set-bad-precedent https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia... https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in...
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      A lot of people want to complain about censorship, then totally ignore the consequences of malevolent propaganda.
      - Avicebron 6y ago
        And often the line of "malevolent propaganda" is variable and moves depends on who is interpreting that.
onlyfa1r00 6y ago
Fair point. But I mean in America that’s all about “buy now!”, “save now!”, “treat yourself!” and only now it’s changed? I think what’s changed is you sit in front of it all day. So it FEELS like it’s increased, but really it’s just your time economy is being spent watching the nonsense flow. You want a different experience? Live differently. Let the neuron receptors cool off. ...At some point a baseline has to be agreed upon. And it changes as generations roll over. Raw logistics for the masses, de-coupled from daddies historical baseline of bawdy haggling, to prove how bold he is for expropriating others work, would be nice. I get none of that and have to pander to other people brand building, job life is all about emotional culture worship. I no longer believe in billionaires as necessary features of a society where the wealth is built on the emotional indoctrination of the masses to believe a dollar holds value. Largely because it creates a social distortion effect that non godly men by any scientific measure are unique. Are we about science or ideological worship? I no longer need your products and services and don’t care if you have a job, those are your problems, not mine. America no longer exists. Russia isn’t real. EU is just old people clustering in confusion, thinking like the old days when you had to go downtown to work. That’s how I see it and you all should stay out of the way of that. Cause I wanna believe only what I choose.
oxymoran 6y ago
What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    The simple solution would be to stop recommending posts - either from within our social circle, or from people and organizations we aren't affiliated with. At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control. But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish. BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.
isoprophlex 6y ago
Some opinions are toxic due to their memetic power, their ability to rapidly spread amongst a population whilst evading critical reflection. We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm. "Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms can push us into filter bubbles, there's no reason why they can't police toxic views by injecting counter arguments or labeling (not censoring) rampant misinformation as such
- dimgl 6y ago
  You're actually advocating for censorship on a global scale. We've truly regressed.
  - ant6n 6y ago
    Uh no. Changing the algorithms to not push you into filter bubbles isn’t censorship.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - isoprophlex 6y ago
      This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Downvoters: please explain why censorship would be identical to moving feeds away from filter bubbles.
- carterklein13 6y ago
  I think the question isn't about "can or can't" but about "should or shouldn't." In my opinion, 24-year-old Stanford grads getting paid upwards of six figures directly out of college should not have any say in what people are or are not privy to seeing, hearing, or reading. You mention it is "our" moral duty - who is the "our" here?
  - 6y ago
dgregd 6y ago
> Actually, just people in general these days This is how people almost always behaved. In the Middle Ages the term "heresy" was used, today only slogans have changed, the social mechanisms are the same. Of course there is a group of opportunists, but there is also a large group that really believes their ideology (it used to be some religion) will do good.
quattrofan 6y ago
Because it's their platform not "ours", if you decided to start Twatbook for instance you could decide what was acceptable to post on your platform.
jariel 6y ago
It's worth considering: 1) A distinction between 'opinions' 'facts' and 'hate speech'. and 2) Media is an existential power, almost like a wing of government. If you control the media, you can control a nation. Which is why authoritarian states take a very active role. FB and others already do have policies against very aggressive speech, for example, if you start calling people the 'N-word' - you'll get banned. But where 1 and 2 collide is on the issue of factuality. Take the pandemic: it would be quite easy for 'big name politicians' and others to outright lie about the nature of COVID. These lies perpetuate into behaviours and outcomes which are very bad for everyone. I'm not sure if the statement 'COVID doesn't kill anyone' is much of an opinion, more or less statement of fact. (Edit: which is wrong of course, I hope that is obvious) When you take this information and push it into the political arena, where facts are harder to discern ... it becomes a problem. This ultimately is the crux of the issue. We have no choice but to 'call out bad information' or it will hurt us severely. We did this traditionally by forcing some kind of consent and responsibility with the major news outlets - they were 'free' but responsibly managed. Press owners, are kind of 'part of the elite' - they have a kind of status of responsibility. Once there's no control, you have 'Democracy by TikTok' and it's not good. It's an issue we have to deal with.
ravenstine 6y ago
> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. There's tons of software engineers, product designers, etc. on an ideological bent. If companies like Facebook and Netflix hire these types of people, even if they think they're on the same side, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees begin making collective demands. > I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? Intellectual types tend towards seeing every issue in life as an engineering problem that can be solved with code or mathematics, so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them and appeals to their ego sense that their intelligence gives them. It's just more apparent than ever because our environment rewards the ego in ways we didn't see even 5 years ago. We haven't even reached peak ego yet.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'. What makes an idea dangerous? If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas? What makes an idea safe? Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea? Who decides which ideas are safe and which ones are dangerous? Is this a static thing? Like once an idea is declared either safe or dangerous, do they stay that way or can a safe idea become a dangerous idea or vice versa? That's not even beginning to get into the definition of 'dangerous'. It seems like a pretty vague and arbitrary term to me. Say for example, if I decided to go free climbing, I'd be in a lot of danger. I have no experience, for me that would be a dangerous thing to do. But, for my Buddy who's been climbing most of their life, it's not so dangerous. So can one build up skills that let them deal with these dangerous ideas effectively, such as with other dangerous things or is the danger of ideas just beyond anyone to deal with? Is there some kind of elite group of people who can handle these dangerous ideas that us normal folks can't? I hope you see where i'm going with all this.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    I don't have the time to get into the nuts and bolts of an argument, but just from a personal emotional opinion, fascism is a dangerous idea because it led to the genocide of my people, anti-semitism in general has led to even more genocide of my people over millenia and continues to be a significant lingering threat to myself and family. Id consider these dangerous ideas, but I'm not sure id they should be outright banned, but maybe not treated equally to less dangerous ideas like excersize and drinking water. I do think that can be handled at the social level without laws, and I think that a company has the right to decide amongst itself, how it wants to place itself in society. Certain ideas that its morally right to eliminate some people who happened to be born a certain way seems to me to fall into that category of dangerous ideas, primary because it offers no appeal, no rectification, you cant convert/repent your way out of death.
matz1 6y ago
Right doesn't just magically exist, every right has to be fight for. These facebook employees are fighting for the right to censor thing their disagree with. Sure, some people may disagree. If you disagree then you have to to fight it back.
jrm4 6y ago
This, rather incorrectly, presumes that the default mode of Facebook is "non-censorship," i.e. something resembling fairness in terms of what gets popular and what doesn't. This is a huge farce, of course, it's all completely unfair pay to play and black-box algorithms. Now, I could be wrong about this -- but it would be incumbent UPON THEM to prove that, by opening up and showing us how they do things. Barring that, I very much welcome insiders in Facebook applying pressure.
- wayne_skylar 6y ago
  This is the way I see it. Ever since Facebook started "optimizing" the timeline order they have been showing you a distorted picture of the world. Honestly it would probably be enough to default everyone back to a world where nobody gets preferential treatment on your feed and everything is chronological.
jarpadat 6y ago
It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and we don't need any analysis of what specifically the discourse was to make our determination, which is why your comment abstracts over any value it could be. Full disclosure, I don't fully understand this worldview because it seems to enforce a particular discourse on Mark Zuckerberg, which seems a bit contradictory to me although I assume there must be some way philosophically to resolve this objection. The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system. Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis, and we don't need any analysis of what Zuckerberg "disagrees with" to decide if it's right to limit. Obviously the people who will advocate for removing a discourse are people who don't like it, but that's separate from analysis of whether the discourse itself is a force against democracy. These ideas are at cross purposes, and success of the one is often at the expense of the other. For this reason we seem reluctant to just lay out the underlying value systems the way I did here, which is unfortunate, because I think the fundamental disagreement is really important to discuss.
- samatman 6y ago
  You're doing a poor job of explaining the first worldview. Which is okay, you've acknowledged that you have trouble understanding it. This worldview has been called the "liberal consensus". What it holds is that the power to determine a discourse is inherently against freedom is corrupting, and by allowing an authority to determine that, it will inevitably be used as a weapon. Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin. Look, both of those things might be false, but surely we can agree that if so they are false in a different way. There were many experiments with official truth in the 20th century. The general consensus was that they were unpleasant to live under and did a poor job of actually separating truth from falsehood. Many of us don't care to repeat those experiments, the effect size was large. If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.
leftyted 6y ago
I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing to "fact check" content in the first place. > Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others... Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this. Isiah Berlin: > It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity. I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.
RangerScience 6y ago
> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit? > believe it's their right to enforce their views IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl". Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee. What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "goes for masks as well as ideas" Since physical actions don't equal thoughts/opinions, well, clearly no. > "since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am"" Except they flipped right around and started telling other people in the center and right who they are, at full volume. Hard to blame people for not taking them seriously.
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    > physical As a friend says, "genocide is not an opinion". IMO it's clear one should police speech advocating for it; between here and there is a gray zone. IMO that gray zone looks awfully similar (although def not to the same severity on the far side) to the one between here and "I have COVID and will not wear a mask." > flip Aye. Appearances (and recent events) aside, the "right" does not have monopoly on hypocrisy.
staticassertion 6y ago
Do you not believe in content moderation? When someone posts spam, or a virus, should it not be removed? If it should be, what about propaganda? What about dangerous disinformation?
rtlfe 6y ago
> In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. Of course they have the right to. Any website can make whatever rules they want about what's allowed. HN has rules too.
subsaharancoder 6y ago
Just joined FB and I can tell you that the company is a microcosm of what's happening in the larger U.S. right now but amplified by a very vocal majority that is hell bent on having Zuckerberg clamp down on every single item/topic they don't agree with. Other than that the company is awesome :-)
throw_m239339 6y ago
Yes, it's the new fad in US IT. Privileged workers making more than 100K a year demand they have a say in what their employer can or cannot publish. Same thing happened at Kickstarter, and is happening at Spotify regarding Joe Rogan's podcast. Employees demand having a say in the editorial policies of these websites and the power to interfere with contracts. I guess they tried that at Amazon too, but Bezos didn't fold and fired a few of them. I am all for collective bargaining and unions, but this has absolutely nothing to do with working conditions. These employees just want to use these platforms as their own propaganda outlets (and yes, it is a slippery slope).
xenospn 6y ago
I think it's very much agreed upon that we shouldn't market cigarettes/liquor/drugs to children since they're vulnerable. Apparently, we have a country full of adults who are unable to tell fact from fiction - shouldn't we protect them as well?
hintymad 6y ago
I don't like being so hell-bent on ideologies either, but if I understand it correctly, a company has every right to be politically biased and therefore can moderate the hell out of its users' content? To be fair, of course, such moderation is really editorialization, right? If so, the companies should get less protection from Section 230, and people should be able to sue the companies left and right as well. edit: s/censor/moderate
yuin278 6y ago
What's worse is that a lot of these people are terribly hypocritical and I don't think they realize it. Censorship bad for this issue. Censorship good for what I don't agree with. Discrimination bad in this case. Discrimination good for the sake of diversity! Racism bad. But wait, positive racism is totally different and good! Diversity is what we want! Except when it results in things I disagree with.
arrosenberg 6y ago
I think Facebook has created this problem for itself in a lot of ways. They're dependent on a two generations of people who are trending populist (in either a liberal or conservative direction), and thus they're going to feel more empowered to organize in the workplace to effect political change. Facebook has also lobbied super hard to maintain their status as the private regulators of two extremely large social media platforms and a social messaging platform, representing a substantial percentage of the US and global population. Facebook has also insisted that it is a public square and platform for free speech, but Groups, algorithmic content, and an extremely successful paid advertising model have made that claim specious at best. In the public square, everyone gets to shout equally - sure some will have a slightly larger crowd, but it will be difficult to monopolize the attention of the entire square. Facebook's model necessarily advantages some speech over others, and can be influenced by money both directly and indirectly. I agree everyone should have the right to their opinion, and no one should be able to enforce their opinion on another at the barrel end of a gun. Facebook has created a position where they (1) have the right, as a private company to censor their users; (2) as a "public square" (if you subscribe to that) they have a moral obligation not to censor their users; (3) a business model that benefits from promoting some speech over another; and (4) employees who can see the effect of this model, and disagree with it morally, socially, etc., and have no other means of redress.
heimatau 6y ago
> why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period Two things about this: 1. When FB Answers was a thing. I was very quickly banned from it, through various obscure mechanisms. All I was doing was gently being a contrarian on newsworth/fad topics. Partly contrarian because I was read up on a lot of scientific literature and other times, I just had different opinions than the 'popular' one. There is a culture of control there, full stop. Especially when your valid and potentially correct opinion goes against FB employee. I knew immediately than FB Answers wasn't going to succeed because they wouldn't allow a plurality of perspectives. 2. Let's be fully clear about this. This is entirely Zuck's decision. He runs a tight ship with clear guidelines. Zuck is playing politics right now, full stop. Saying one thing publicly and saying another privately. This 'leaked' memo isn't something that Zuck had no idea that it would be leaked. It's calculated. It's a public statement. How enforced will this leaked memo be? Will that be leaked? Doubtful. Zuck is trying to skirt responsibility with this 1st amendment problem. If FB really allowed dissent then Alex Jones and others would be allowed on the platform.* *I do think the worst ideas need to be allowed on a platform. It allows the possibility to discussions. There are cults around various topics but...that doesn't mean that those with scientific understanding have perfect rhetoric about everything they say. Everyone needs to refine and it's best done with allowing everyone to the table.
yandrypozo 6y ago
it's so refreshing reading your comment, I believe the same, looks like some people enjoy a hidden satisfaction doing that, on my opinion is the sensation of power to decide what's right or not (basically playing God) and as we know power corrupts people.

dheera 6y ago

> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. Not only that, but they seem to be responsible for policing political opinions in the US alone. Also, I never told them what citizenship I have in the process of creating my account. Why do I get so many US election reminders on Facebook but not election reminders for the 97 other democracies in the world?

xkcd-sucks 6y ago

> people in general these days Wait till you read some 19th century US history, you're in for a treat

shadowgovt 6y ago

I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology. Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint. Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time to plead their case? The world of decentralized bidirectional near-lightspeed mass-communication, where there is often not a gatekeeper, is relatively new. It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society. I would say there have been a lot of positive consequences. Negative consequences are also stacking up quickly.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
The problem is that facebook has partially replaced both broadcast television and private conversations people would have in person or on the phone. Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call. Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.
- pm90 6y ago
  Solutions exist, more likely Facebook is not interested in them, as it may affect their bottom line.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
echelon 6y ago
Very nuanced analysis! Fantastic. In the past, the effects of freedom of speech were bounded by the cost of communication. Very few people could afford a soapbox with which to reach the world, so only certain messages were broadcast widely. Now everyone can send (and even amplify) messages quickly and easily. Previously celebrities, politicians, the media, and advertisers had a wide channel. Now interest groups, state actors, echo chambers, and individuals with access to technology such as GPT-3 can do the same. There's a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. We're now testing how humans respond to this deluge. It's fascinating (and somewhat worrying) to watch unfold. My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want.
- slg 6y ago
  >My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want. Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.

qppo 6y ago

Their entire existence is predicated on policing opinions for the highest bidder, or in a way that benefits the highest bidder. Should ethics and morality not be integrated into that model?

saeranv 6y ago

This is a strawman argument. No one cares about other people having and sharing different opinions. However the argument for moderating content on Facebook is centered around misinformation, and incitement of violence. There has now been multiple instances where right-wing populists have posted fake information on Facebook with political consequences. In Myanmar this incited in genocide[1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

hnatitagain 6y ago
This is a disingenuous argument that neglects to include the fact that 'misinformation' and 'violence' are stretched beyond the pale by ideologues in order to justify why something they disagree with politically should be removed on these platforms.
- zbentley 6y ago
  People certainly do falsely assert that things are more harmful than they are to justify taking them down. But it's not disingenuous to point out that there are many cases where disinformation really is deeply harmful (as in it results in death or bodily harm to many, many people).
- notyocheese 6y ago
  people have been murdered because of misinformation on facebook: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... That's pretty unambiguous to me.

starkred 6y ago

I still don't get it and I can't get away from 'printing press' analogies. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" resulted in countless deaths but who owns that responsibly besides whoever wrote it, read it, and acted on the information within? You could blame it's publishers but that seems pretty off-track. Also every company I've ever worked at has angry, self-righteous employees who disagree with upper management. We all think we're smarter than everyone else and most of us aren't afraid to share it.

chris11 6y ago
There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was republished by Henry Ford as part of a series of anti-semitic articles. The decision to publish them was immoral and is evidence of Ford's racism. I'm sure employers at the Economist would be angry if it started to run articles that would be a better fit for the National Enquirer. Facebook is kind of different, it argues that it's a platform not a publisher. They do have some ground to argue for looser guidelines. But their business model targeting engagement incentivises them to promote divisive and false information. I'd be much more comfortable with Facebook if they didn't promote extreme and dangerous content. What those standards should be is a thorny issue, but better moderation would be an improvement.
- starkred 6y ago
  > There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law I don't necessarily disagree and I'm sure there were plenty of reputable publishers who wouldn't touch the protocols. But should the agency who did published it have been hauled up before a congressional investigating committee?
  - chris11 6y ago
    I wouldn't expect much from a congressional hearing. Especially since it would start out extremely political. But Facebook should be questioned over things like how they handle things like health conspiracy theories and blatantly fake political conspiracies.

vkou 6y ago

As long as Facebook picks and chooses what content it displays on my feed, it is not at all inconsistent for it to pick and choose what content it will not display on my feed. Facebook isn't a dumb pipe. If it feels like it can fiddle with my feed to maximize its profit, its perfectly reasonable for its employees to demand that it does so in an ethical way. Your argument would work if it were a dumb pipe (Like my phone line is.)

okprod 6y ago

Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.

Jerry2 6y ago
Sure, but then it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Section 230.
- triceratops 6y ago
  For the 500 millionth time Section 230 does not say "censorship makes you a publisher". It says the exact opposite. An information service cannot be held liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Translation: they can "censor" or moderate or remove spam to their heart's content, even beyond what's legally required.
  - Jerry2 6y ago
    Then Section 230 needs to be revoked fully.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Be careful what you wish for. Without the safe harbor, activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on religious or parenting forums or support groups for cancer, grief, PTSD, or addiction. Practically any Internet message board would become unusable.
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
You completely missed the point of GP's comment. They never said Facebook can't do whatever they want. Just that Facebook employees shouldn't feel like they get a say in it. edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.

asdasfasdfasdf 6y ago

If it's in your house (server) you can do what you want with it (granted there are no laws preventing it). It's an independent for-profit company. You can kick someone out of a physical store for what they do or say all the same.

thissitecensors 6y ago

People criticizing censorship on this website make me laugh. Hackernews is the most heavily censored website I've ever encountered. The way this website treats unpopular opinions is like Mao's China.

shadowgovt 6y ago
I wouldn't go that far, but the website has a purpose and dang is very clear about keeping conversation within the guardrails of that purpose. It's not an open forum to discuss anything.
- thissitecensors 6y ago
  Give me a break. Guidelines that are selectively enforced is just power tripping censorship. This is a website that allows people to post advertisements for cigarettes while stamping down on anything that shakes the boat when it comes to China or labor rights in the USA. I don't see anyone using your logic to defend FB although it would be just as applicable. And to preempt people https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364535
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    No, I agree; this site regulates what topics are valid for conversation. It's the rest of your comment I take issue with. Wake me when dang rolls tanks into a public square. (... and I'll use my own logic to defend Facebook any day of the week. It's their site and their rules. If anything, I think the employees who believe they should be responsible and forthright about their policies there instead of pretending to neutrality are in the right).
    - thissitecensors 6y ago
      I'm sorry but saying it's not censorship unless a goon is putting gun to your head is sinply retarded.

RobRivera 6y ago

In my conversations, such employees don't believe they have the right, they believe their political positions are objectively morally superior and hold an 'ends justifies the means' opinion on influence.

supercanuck 6y ago
Well, I think the Holocaust taught us that is true, no?
- nxc18 6y ago
  You're being downvoted, but Facebook is actively facilitating genocide and has a shockingly high body count already, on top of interfering with any attempt to seek justice for victims of atrocities. https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-problem https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro... https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zuckerberg-says-facebook-erred-in-not-removing-militia-post/507-83fc429d-827b-404c-8372-6371b8397cea https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zu... https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-rumours-spread-on-facebook-overload-911-spur-calls-to-violence/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebook-is-pushing-ethiopia-dangerously-close-to-a-genocide https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac... https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia-doc-bid-would-set-bad-precedent https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia... https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in...
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    A lot of people want to complain about censorship, then totally ignore the consequences of malevolent propaganda.
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      And often the line of "malevolent propaganda" is variable and moves depends on who is interpreting that.

onlyfa1r00 6y ago

Fair point. But I mean in America that’s all about “buy now!”, “save now!”, “treat yourself!” and only now it’s changed? I think what’s changed is you sit in front of it all day. So it FEELS like it’s increased, but really it’s just your time economy is being spent watching the nonsense flow. You want a different experience? Live differently. Let the neuron receptors cool off. ...At some point a baseline has to be agreed upon. And it changes as generations roll over. Raw logistics for the masses, de-coupled from daddies historical baseline of bawdy haggling, to prove how bold he is for expropriating others work, would be nice. I get none of that and have to pander to other people brand building, job life is all about emotional culture worship. I no longer believe in billionaires as necessary features of a society where the wealth is built on the emotional indoctrination of the masses to believe a dollar holds value. Largely because it creates a social distortion effect that non godly men by any scientific measure are unique. Are we about science or ideological worship? I no longer need your products and services and don’t care if you have a job, those are your problems, not mine. America no longer exists. Russia isn’t real. EU is just old people clustering in confusion, thinking like the old days when you had to go downtown to work. That’s how I see it and you all should stay out of the way of that. Cause I wanna believe only what I choose.

oxymoran 6y ago

What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.

AlexandrB 6y ago
They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  The simple solution would be to stop recommending posts - either from within our social circle, or from people and organizations we aren't affiliated with. At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control. But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.
triceratops 6y ago
> if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish. BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.

isoprophlex 6y ago

Some opinions are toxic due to their memetic power, their ability to rapidly spread amongst a population whilst evading critical reflection. We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm. "Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms can push us into filter bubbles, there's no reason why they can't police toxic views by injecting counter arguments or labeling (not censoring) rampant misinformation as such

dimgl 6y ago
You're actually advocating for censorship on a global scale. We've truly regressed.
- ant6n 6y ago
  Uh no. Changing the algorithms to not push you into filter bubbles isn’t censorship.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - isoprophlex 6y ago
    This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Downvoters: please explain why censorship would be identical to moving feeds away from filter bubbles.
carterklein13 6y ago
I think the question isn't about "can or can't" but about "should or shouldn't." In my opinion, 24-year-old Stanford grads getting paid upwards of six figures directly out of college should not have any say in what people are or are not privy to seeing, hearing, or reading. You mention it is "our" moral duty - who is the "our" here?
- 6y ago

dgregd 6y ago

> Actually, just people in general these days This is how people almost always behaved. In the Middle Ages the term "heresy" was used, today only slogans have changed, the social mechanisms are the same. Of course there is a group of opportunists, but there is also a large group that really believes their ideology (it used to be some religion) will do good.

quattrofan 6y ago

Because it's their platform not "ours", if you decided to start Twatbook for instance you could decide what was acceptable to post on your platform.

jariel 6y ago

It's worth considering: 1) A distinction between 'opinions' 'facts' and 'hate speech'. and 2) Media is an existential power, almost like a wing of government. If you control the media, you can control a nation. Which is why authoritarian states take a very active role. FB and others already do have policies against very aggressive speech, for example, if you start calling people the 'N-word' - you'll get banned. But where 1 and 2 collide is on the issue of factuality. Take the pandemic: it would be quite easy for 'big name politicians' and others to outright lie about the nature of COVID. These lies perpetuate into behaviours and outcomes which are very bad for everyone. I'm not sure if the statement 'COVID doesn't kill anyone' is much of an opinion, more or less statement of fact. (Edit: which is wrong of course, I hope that is obvious) When you take this information and push it into the political arena, where facts are harder to discern ... it becomes a problem. This ultimately is the crux of the issue. We have no choice but to 'call out bad information' or it will hurt us severely. We did this traditionally by forcing some kind of consent and responsibility with the major news outlets - they were 'free' but responsibly managed. Press owners, are kind of 'part of the elite' - they have a kind of status of responsibility. Once there's no control, you have 'Democracy by TikTok' and it's not good. It's an issue we have to deal with.

ravenstine 6y ago

> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. There's tons of software engineers, product designers, etc. on an ideological bent. If companies like Facebook and Netflix hire these types of people, even if they think they're on the same side, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees begin making collective demands. > I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? Intellectual types tend towards seeing every issue in life as an engineering problem that can be solved with code or mathematics, so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them and appeals to their ego sense that their intelligence gives them. It's just more apparent than ever because our environment rewards the ego in ways we didn't see even 5 years ago. We haven't even reached peak ego yet.

grawprog 6y ago
>so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'. What makes an idea dangerous? If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas? What makes an idea safe? Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea? Who decides which ideas are safe and which ones are dangerous? Is this a static thing? Like once an idea is declared either safe or dangerous, do they stay that way or can a safe idea become a dangerous idea or vice versa? That's not even beginning to get into the definition of 'dangerous'. It seems like a pretty vague and arbitrary term to me. Say for example, if I decided to go free climbing, I'd be in a lot of danger. I have no experience, for me that would be a dangerous thing to do. But, for my Buddy who's been climbing most of their life, it's not so dangerous. So can one build up skills that let them deal with these dangerous ideas effectively, such as with other dangerous things or is the danger of ideas just beyond anyone to deal with? Is there some kind of elite group of people who can handle these dangerous ideas that us normal folks can't? I hope you see where i'm going with all this.
- scsilver 6y ago
  I don't have the time to get into the nuts and bolts of an argument, but just from a personal emotional opinion, fascism is a dangerous idea because it led to the genocide of my people, anti-semitism in general has led to even more genocide of my people over millenia and continues to be a significant lingering threat to myself and family. Id consider these dangerous ideas, but I'm not sure id they should be outright banned, but maybe not treated equally to less dangerous ideas like excersize and drinking water. I do think that can be handled at the social level without laws, and I think that a company has the right to decide amongst itself, how it wants to place itself in society. Certain ideas that its morally right to eliminate some people who happened to be born a certain way seems to me to fall into that category of dangerous ideas, primary because it offers no appeal, no rectification, you cant convert/repent your way out of death.

matz1 6y ago

Right doesn't just magically exist, every right has to be fight for. These facebook employees are fighting for the right to censor thing their disagree with. Sure, some people may disagree. If you disagree then you have to to fight it back.

jrm4 6y ago

This, rather incorrectly, presumes that the default mode of Facebook is "non-censorship," i.e. something resembling fairness in terms of what gets popular and what doesn't. This is a huge farce, of course, it's all completely unfair pay to play and black-box algorithms. Now, I could be wrong about this -- but it would be incumbent UPON THEM to prove that, by opening up and showing us how they do things. Barring that, I very much welcome insiders in Facebook applying pressure.

wayne_skylar 6y ago
This is the way I see it. Ever since Facebook started "optimizing" the timeline order they have been showing you a distorted picture of the world. Honestly it would probably be enough to default everyone back to a world where nobody gets preferential treatment on your feed and everything is chronological.

jarpadat 6y ago

It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and we don't need any analysis of what specifically the discourse was to make our determination, which is why your comment abstracts over any value it could be. Full disclosure, I don't fully understand this worldview because it seems to enforce a particular discourse on Mark Zuckerberg, which seems a bit contradictory to me although I assume there must be some way philosophically to resolve this objection. The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system. Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis, and we don't need any analysis of what Zuckerberg "disagrees with" to decide if it's right to limit. Obviously the people who will advocate for removing a discourse are people who don't like it, but that's separate from analysis of whether the discourse itself is a force against democracy. These ideas are at cross purposes, and success of the one is often at the expense of the other. For this reason we seem reluctant to just lay out the underlying value systems the way I did here, which is unfortunate, because I think the fundamental disagreement is really important to discuss.

samatman 6y ago
You're doing a poor job of explaining the first worldview. Which is okay, you've acknowledged that you have trouble understanding it. This worldview has been called the "liberal consensus". What it holds is that the power to determine a discourse is inherently against freedom is corrupting, and by allowing an authority to determine that, it will inevitably be used as a weapon. Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin. Look, both of those things might be false, but surely we can agree that if so they are false in a different way. There were many experiments with official truth in the 20th century. The general consensus was that they were unpleasant to live under and did a poor job of actually separating truth from falsehood. Many of us don't care to repeat those experiments, the effect size was large. If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.

leftyted 6y ago

I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing to "fact check" content in the first place. > Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others... Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this. Isiah Berlin: > It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity. I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.

RangerScience 6y ago

> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit? > believe it's their right to enforce their views IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl". Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee. What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "goes for masks as well as ideas" Since physical actions don't equal thoughts/opinions, well, clearly no. > "since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am"" Except they flipped right around and started telling other people in the center and right who they are, at full volume. Hard to blame people for not taking them seriously.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  > physical As a friend says, "genocide is not an opinion". IMO it's clear one should police speech advocating for it; between here and there is a gray zone. IMO that gray zone looks awfully similar (although def not to the same severity on the far side) to the one between here and "I have COVID and will not wear a mask." > flip Aye. Appearances (and recent events) aside, the "right" does not have monopoly on hypocrisy.

staticassertion 6y ago

Do you not believe in content moderation? When someone posts spam, or a virus, should it not be removed? If it should be, what about propaganda? What about dangerous disinformation?

rtlfe 6y ago

> In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. Of course they have the right to. Any website can make whatever rules they want about what's allowed. HN has rules too.

subsaharancoder 6y ago

Just joined FB and I can tell you that the company is a microcosm of what's happening in the larger U.S. right now but amplified by a very vocal majority that is hell bent on having Zuckerberg clamp down on every single item/topic they don't agree with. Other than that the company is awesome :-)

throw_m239339 6y ago

Yes, it's the new fad in US IT. Privileged workers making more than 100K a year demand they have a say in what their employer can or cannot publish. Same thing happened at Kickstarter, and is happening at Spotify regarding Joe Rogan's podcast. Employees demand having a say in the editorial policies of these websites and the power to interfere with contracts. I guess they tried that at Amazon too, but Bezos didn't fold and fired a few of them. I am all for collective bargaining and unions, but this has absolutely nothing to do with working conditions. These employees just want to use these platforms as their own propaganda outlets (and yes, it is a slippery slope).

xenospn 6y ago

I think it's very much agreed upon that we shouldn't market cigarettes/liquor/drugs to children since they're vulnerable. Apparently, we have a country full of adults who are unable to tell fact from fiction - shouldn't we protect them as well?

hintymad 6y ago

I don't like being so hell-bent on ideologies either, but if I understand it correctly, a company has every right to be politically biased and therefore can moderate the hell out of its users' content? To be fair, of course, such moderation is really editorialization, right? If so, the companies should get less protection from Section 230, and people should be able to sue the companies left and right as well. edit: s/censor/moderate

yuin278 6y ago

What's worse is that a lot of these people are terribly hypocritical and I don't think they realize it. Censorship bad for this issue. Censorship good for what I don't agree with. Discrimination bad in this case. Discrimination good for the sake of diversity! Racism bad. But wait, positive racism is totally different and good! Diversity is what we want! Except when it results in things I disagree with.

arrosenberg 6y ago

I think Facebook has created this problem for itself in a lot of ways. They're dependent on a two generations of people who are trending populist (in either a liberal or conservative direction), and thus they're going to feel more empowered to organize in the workplace to effect political change. Facebook has also lobbied super hard to maintain their status as the private regulators of two extremely large social media platforms and a social messaging platform, representing a substantial percentage of the US and global population. Facebook has also insisted that it is a public square and platform for free speech, but Groups, algorithmic content, and an extremely successful paid advertising model have made that claim specious at best. In the public square, everyone gets to shout equally - sure some will have a slightly larger crowd, but it will be difficult to monopolize the attention of the entire square. Facebook's model necessarily advantages some speech over others, and can be influenced by money both directly and indirectly. I agree everyone should have the right to their opinion, and no one should be able to enforce their opinion on another at the barrel end of a gun. Facebook has created a position where they (1) have the right, as a private company to censor their users; (2) as a "public square" (if you subscribe to that) they have a moral obligation not to censor their users; (3) a business model that benefits from promoting some speech over another; and (4) employees who can see the effect of this model, and disagree with it morally, socially, etc., and have no other means of redress.

heimatau 6y ago

> why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period Two things about this: 1. When FB Answers was a thing. I was very quickly banned from it, through various obscure mechanisms. All I was doing was gently being a contrarian on newsworth/fad topics. Partly contrarian because I was read up on a lot of scientific literature and other times, I just had different opinions than the 'popular' one. There is a culture of control there, full stop. Especially when your valid and potentially correct opinion goes against FB employee. I knew immediately than FB Answers wasn't going to succeed because they wouldn't allow a plurality of perspectives. 2. Let's be fully clear about this. This is entirely Zuck's decision. He runs a tight ship with clear guidelines. Zuck is playing politics right now, full stop. Saying one thing publicly and saying another privately. This 'leaked' memo isn't something that Zuck had no idea that it would be leaked. It's calculated. It's a public statement. How enforced will this leaked memo be? Will that be leaked? Doubtful. Zuck is trying to skirt responsibility with this 1st amendment problem. If FB really allowed dissent then Alex Jones and others would be allowed on the platform.* *I do think the worst ideas need to be allowed on a platform. It allows the possibility to discussions. There are cults around various topics but...that doesn't mean that those with scientific understanding have perfect rhetoric about everything they say. Everyone needs to refine and it's best done with allowing everyone to the table.

yandrypozo 6y ago

it's so refreshing reading your comment, I believe the same, looks like some people enjoy a hidden satisfaction doing that, on my opinion is the sensation of power to decide what's right or not (basically playing God) and as we know power corrupts people.