3 ms·

As a very left-leaning person who doesn't at all follow these types of conspiracies, I can't help but feel uneasy about decisions like this. Facebook is so ubiq

by mcntsh 6y ago

As a very left-leaning person who doesn't at all follow these types of conspiracies, I can't help but feel uneasy about decisions like this. Facebook is so ubiquitous and influential that it can be used to sway public opinion. That's scary. But isn't it also scary the other way? The fact that the content which can be posted there, the content so wide-reaching it can be used to sway public opinion, is controlled by a private company? In my opinion, a communication platform this large should be governed by the same free-speech laws we enjoy offline.

krapp 6y ago
>In my opinion, a communication platform this large should be governed by the same free-speech laws we enjoy offline. It is. The same free speech laws that allow Facebook and other platforms to exercise editorial discretion and ban unwanted content also allow newspapers, television and radio to choose what to publish and what not, allow businesses to refuse service and the posting of bills, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost when they show up at my door. Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force platforms to host that speech. It's up to the so-called marketplace of ideas to decide whether or not your speech is worth spreading, and just as vendors can choose to stock a particular product or not, platforms can choose to host particular speech or not. Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished. And yes, this implies that the marketplace of ideas can, potentially, reject a particular kind of speech and that some forms of speech may be more difficult to find a platform for than others. Free speech doesn't imply that all forms of speech must be treated equally or given equal merit, or that society cannot make distinctions between one form of speech and another, or discriminate between truth and falsehood, accepting one and rejecting the other. In a marketplace of ideas, it follows that not all ideas are equal. If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586
- mcntsh 6y ago
  The scale of Facebook and the role it plays in today's society stems way beyond the newspaper. In an age where communication mainly happens online, it is more comparable to a telephone, or even the internet itself. For (hundreds of) millions of people, Facebook IS the internet. You could say "well $telecom can choose to censor certain words that go through their phone lines, or block websites, just like a store can choose to stock a particular product or not" but let's be honest, they're different scenarios.
- treesprite82 6y ago
  > Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force [...] Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say. Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock. For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden. > If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid. Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones? > Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished. I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.
swiley 6y ago
The curation that is used by google via youtube to manipulate public opinion started out as a (successful) tool to slow down ISIS recruitment. Maybe massive social media platforms are just bad.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Can you give details regarding what you're referring to (curation that is used by Google to manipulate public opinion)? How is YouTube manipulating public opinion?
uniqueid 6y ago
Hypothetically, if that (ie: maximizing free speech on the social networks) created a world of superstition, poverty, violent social unrest, unchecked pollution, and war, would you reconsider your position?
- mcntsh 6y ago
  If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. As history shows things are always great until they aren't, and then you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.
  - beLessSocial99 6y ago
    I would suggest be less social then. The more people invited in the more rules. I don’t use social media, and stick to purpose focused socializing; play music, technical work, etc. If I don’t have something scheduled I spend the time with myself. You want more of a sense of freedom? Stay away from people.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. If we except social networks, I don't believe free-speech causes such a world either. But if I did, unlike you, I would support limitations. I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
    - mcntsh 6y ago
      So you believe that the advertising companies which run these companies should be the ones to decide what discourse is allowed online. At the end of the day Facebook isn't deplatforming people out of the kindness of their hearts. They take action because it benefits them.

by mcntsh 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

>In my opinion, a communication platform this large should be governed by the same free-speech laws we enjoy offline. It is. The same free speech laws that allow Facebook and other platforms to exercise editorial discretion and ban unwanted content also allow newspapers, television and radio to choose what to publish and what not, allow businesses to refuse service and the posting of bills, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost when they show up at my door. Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force platforms to host that speech. It's up to the so-called marketplace of ideas to decide whether or not your speech is worth spreading, and just as vendors can choose to stock a particular product or not, platforms can choose to host particular speech or not. Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished. And yes, this implies that the marketplace of ideas can, potentially, reject a particular kind of speech and that some forms of speech may be more difficult to find a platform for than others. Free speech doesn't imply that all forms of speech must be treated equally or given equal merit, or that society cannot make distinctions between one form of speech and another, or discriminate between truth and falsehood, accepting one and rejecting the other. In a marketplace of ideas, it follows that not all ideas are equal. If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586

mcntsh 6y ago
The scale of Facebook and the role it plays in today's society stems way beyond the newspaper. In an age where communication mainly happens online, it is more comparable to a telephone, or even the internet itself. For (hundreds of) millions of people, Facebook IS the internet. You could say "well $telecom can choose to censor certain words that go through their phone lines, or block websites, just like a store can choose to stock a particular product or not" but let's be honest, they're different scenarios.
treesprite82 6y ago
> Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force [...] Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say. Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock. For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden. > If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid. Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones? > Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished. I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.

swiley 6y ago

The curation that is used by google via youtube to manipulate public opinion started out as a (successful) tool to slow down ISIS recruitment. Maybe massive social media platforms are just bad.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Can you give details regarding what you're referring to (curation that is used by Google to manipulate public opinion)? How is YouTube manipulating public opinion?

uniqueid 6y ago

Hypothetically, if that (ie: maximizing free speech on the social networks) created a world of superstition, poverty, violent social unrest, unchecked pollution, and war, would you reconsider your position?

mcntsh 6y ago
If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. As history shows things are always great until they aren't, and then you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.
- beLessSocial99 6y ago
  I would suggest be less social then. The more people invited in the more rules. I don’t use social media, and stick to purpose focused socializing; play music, technical work, etc. If I don’t have something scheduled I spend the time with myself. You want more of a sense of freedom? Stay away from people.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. If we except social networks, I don't believe free-speech causes such a world either. But if I did, unlike you, I would support limitations. I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
  - mcntsh 6y ago
    So you believe that the advertising companies which run these companies should be the ones to decide what discourse is allowed online. At the end of the day Facebook isn't deplatforming people out of the kindness of their hearts. They take action because it benefits them.