3 ms·

Leaving "borderline stuff" up is just a negative description of not abridging freedom of speech. Every social network before Facebook failed sooner or later to

by ralfd 6y ago

Leaving "borderline stuff" up is just a negative description of not abridging freedom of speech. Every social network before Facebook failed sooner or later to a successor social network. Of course FB tries to prevent that fate. One fail state would be if FB is censored in a way that people can't express their opinions anymore, than in a democracy people will leave for communication channels which allow them to do that. eg private Whatsapp or Telegram groups.

kthejoker2 6y ago
Amazingly this is not true? For example, Reddit has a much more aggressive take on censoring content, and is still thriving and a huge part of the Internet. When's the last time Pinterest was in the news for espousing hateful views? Even YouTube/Google is getting their shit together (a quick Google search for YouTube flat earth reveals a top set of results of scientists debunking these theories, discussing why they're hafmful, discussion boards complaining YouTube is censoring flat earthers, this Wired article explaining why I'm seeing the results I'm seeing ...) https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-algorithm-silence-conspiracy-theories/ https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-algorithm-silence-conspi... And yet these networks still have a healthy presence of left and right political views, thoughtful critiques, points and counterpoints, political humor .. What is so special about them? And the only obvious answer is Facebook wants power, in both revenue and the power to dictate what "information" and narrative you're fed. Which, for a social media network ostensibly designed around your family and friends, is terrifyingly off-brand.
alkonaut 6y ago
> One fail state would be if FB is censored in a way that people can't express their opinions anymore, There is already such a group obviously. There have been new social media services to cater specifically for them (gab etc). It’s a tiny group though. So long as the group that leaves (or doesn’t join) Facebook because of what’s there is much larger than the group who leaves because of what can’t be said, the “failure mode” is too little censorship, not too much.

by ralfd 6y ago

kthejoker2 6y ago

Amazingly this is not true? For example, Reddit has a much more aggressive take on censoring content, and is still thriving and a huge part of the Internet. When's the last time Pinterest was in the news for espousing hateful views? Even YouTube/Google is getting their shit together (a quick Google search for YouTube flat earth reveals a top set of results of scientists debunking these theories, discussing why they're hafmful, discussion boards complaining YouTube is censoring flat earthers, this Wired article explaining why I'm seeing the results I'm seeing ...) https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-algorithm-silence-conspiracy-theories/ https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-algorithm-silence-conspi... And yet these networks still have a healthy presence of left and right political views, thoughtful critiques, points and counterpoints, political humor .. What is so special about them? And the only obvious answer is Facebook wants power, in both revenue and the power to dictate what "information" and narrative you're fed. Which, for a social media network ostensibly designed around your family and friends, is terrifyingly off-brand.

alkonaut 6y ago

> One fail state would be if FB is censored in a way that people can't express their opinions anymore, There is already such a group obviously. There have been new social media services to cater specifically for them (gab etc). It’s a tiny group though. So long as the group that leaves (or doesn’t join) Facebook because of what’s there is much larger than the group who leaves because of what can’t be said, the “failure mode” is too little censorship, not too much.