5 ms·

This isn't any different from removing protesters from private property. Facebook is private property.

dcolkitt 6y ago
My question to this, is would you take the same line if the censorship was something nakedly egregious? Let's pretend there was a massive Harvey Weinstein-like sexual harassment scandal at Facebook Inc. And Facebook responded by removing any posts mentioning the scandal or blocking the account of any journalists that reported on it. Would you shrug your shoulders and say "private property". If not, then I think you have to admit that Facebook has some obligations to not abuse its moderation powers. If not in the formal legal sense, at least in a cultural and moral sense.
- koube 6y ago
  In your analogy this is more like Facebook deleting posts that call for sexual harassment, or praise/support Harvey Weinstein. I think people would be ok with that.
  - repsilat 6y ago
    That situation would be more similar to this one, but it isn't their point. I think the grandparent was indicating that this is mostly a debate between the positions "Facebook should be broadly permissive of legal speech" and "Facebook should shape the discussion in ways that benefit the public good". The argument that Facebook has a moral right to do whatever the hell they like is mostly just a cudgel of an argument, though, to be picked up when it suits whichever of the two "real" arguments you support. One refutation of this "private property argument is instrumental" position is the one the grandparent mentioned: That the people making the argument would "support" Facebook taking down speech that they deem "just". If the private property argument only holds for taking down unpalatable speech, it's not a position that's held honestly.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      The potential for hypocrisy doesn't mean the hypocrite's judgment in the first case was bad. It just means they're a hypocrite, or biased in the second judgement, or whatever.
      - repsilat 6y ago
        I agree, and I think there's an even more charitable phrasing: that the "private property" argument could be neither totally negligible nor totally compelling, but "somewhat persuasive". When someone does something borderline it might change the calculus, and when someone does something unambiguously laudable or egregious it may not. Making the argument even when it's not compelling (that is, even when there are other hypothetical cases in which it doesn't sway you) isn't necessarily hypocritical.
- x0x0 6y ago
  No, I would stop using facebook
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Censorship is not black and white. It is a gradient.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I'd say it was naked self interest for Facebook to remove posts like that, but I wouldn't consider it illegal. There is also a difference between disliking a company covering up its own bad acts and a company preventing a 3rd party from using its resources for a thing that walks up to the edge (and in many people's opinion crosses over) into inciting other illegal acts.
- vmception 6y ago
  I would take the same stance yes and I think others would more likely stop using Facebook because they didn't agree with Facebook’s stance. Sounds like a win-win to me. Since it should be obvious not to use Facebook if you dont agree with their service’s tendencies.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  No. We’d be mad because that would be an abuse of their right as a content hoster. Some content can be good to remove and some content can be bad to remove and it is not hypocritical to get upset when some content is removed and not when other content is removed.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > My question to this, is would you take the same line if the censorship was something nakedly egregious? Do you object to Facebook censoring child pornography? How nakedly egregious does the crime have to be before you're ok with Facebook censoring or removing it? It doesn't sound like you consider solicitation to commit a crime of violence to be a serious enough offense. So I guess promoting, instigating or encouraging treason, sedition or subversive activities is acceptable to you.
randyrand 6y ago
The internet is nearly entirely private and controls the vast majority of communication. We conceded our communication to private ISPs, to private, device manufacturers, to private websites. When people feel they cannot be heard, something is going to give.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  And there are vast stretches of the internet where private or not the platform is infinitely permissive or a close approximation. So if people are feeling unheard, it’s pretty likely they have their work cut out in terms of building the audience for their voice. The left has been in this position forever. But somehow we’re supposed to sympathize when a bunch of yokels storm into a parliamentary procedure and start shooting it up?
- flukus 6y ago
  Those people were heard at the election, this is the temper tantrum because other people got to be heard as well. > The internet is nearly entirely private and controls the vast majority of communication. Yes it's private, that doesn't mean they can't own it, they can setup their own private servers and be free of restriction.
CBLT 6y ago
Unpopular opinion, but I would like HN mods to take action against comments like this. Every time that this topic comes up, where the discussion is about the right and wrong of censorship, about finding a moral balance for safety and justice and expression, trolls like these jump in and give the "well it's not illegal so suck it" argument. It's tiresome, it's in bad faith, and it incites an emotional response from the reader.
- the_only_law 6y ago
  So you're against sites censoring content that's considered unpopular but you'd like the HN mods to censor a certain point you call "trolling"?
  - CBLT 6y ago
    So I'm... what? What are you talking about? In what universe is the topic of discussion here about what's popular? If you willingly facilitate people with the intent to hurt and kill, the blood is also on your hands for failure to act. This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. Secondly, your tone suggests you'd think I have an inconsistent worldview if I believe moderators should perform any moderation action at all? You'll have to explain how that makes sense to you, because moderators providing escalating warnings to users that post insubstantive and volatile comments is something that's been with me for a long time and I'm rather fond of the practice.
    - the_only_law 6y ago
      You’ve outright accuse a user of trolling when there’s no indication of this being so. In fact, it seems more likely that this is their genuine viewpoint. Nothing about it seems insubstantive or volatile to me and it’s pretty inoffensive compared the garbage fire these threads to end up with. > This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. As to this, fair enough. I had wrongly assumed this comment to be implicitly taking the other side of the GP comment, simply calling for its removal instead of refuting it (you’d be surprised how much things like this happen)
idiocrat 6y ago
Facebook is not private property, if they are doing public work. They have a public duty, therefore they must stayi neutral. Facebook needs to make all posts non-public to become private property. Then they can moderate.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  All posts on FB are non-public.

My question to this, is would you take the same line if the censorship was something nakedly egregious? Let's pretend there was a massive Harvey Weinstein-like sexual harassment scandal at Facebook Inc. And Facebook responded by removing any posts mentioning the scandal or blocking the account of any journalists that reported on it. Would you shrug your shoulders and say "private property". If not, then I think you have to admit that Facebook has some obligations to not abuse its moderation powers. If not in the formal legal sense, at least in a cultural and moral sense.

koube 6y ago
In your analogy this is more like Facebook deleting posts that call for sexual harassment, or praise/support Harvey Weinstein. I think people would be ok with that.
- repsilat 6y ago
  That situation would be more similar to this one, but it isn't their point. I think the grandparent was indicating that this is mostly a debate between the positions "Facebook should be broadly permissive of legal speech" and "Facebook should shape the discussion in ways that benefit the public good". The argument that Facebook has a moral right to do whatever the hell they like is mostly just a cudgel of an argument, though, to be picked up when it suits whichever of the two "real" arguments you support. One refutation of this "private property argument is instrumental" position is the one the grandparent mentioned: That the people making the argument would "support" Facebook taking down speech that they deem "just". If the private property argument only holds for taking down unpalatable speech, it's not a position that's held honestly.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    The potential for hypocrisy doesn't mean the hypocrite's judgment in the first case was bad. It just means they're a hypocrite, or biased in the second judgement, or whatever.
    - repsilat 6y ago
      I agree, and I think there's an even more charitable phrasing: that the "private property" argument could be neither totally negligible nor totally compelling, but "somewhat persuasive". When someone does something borderline it might change the calculus, and when someone does something unambiguously laudable or egregious it may not. Making the argument even when it's not compelling (that is, even when there are other hypothetical cases in which it doesn't sway you) isn't necessarily hypocritical.
x0x0 6y ago
No, I would stop using facebook
gamblor956 6y ago
Censorship is not black and white. It is a gradient.
ineedasername 6y ago
I'd say it was naked self interest for Facebook to remove posts like that, but I wouldn't consider it illegal. There is also a difference between disliking a company covering up its own bad acts and a company preventing a 3rd party from using its resources for a thing that walks up to the edge (and in many people's opinion crosses over) into inciting other illegal acts.
vmception 6y ago
I would take the same stance yes and I think others would more likely stop using Facebook because they didn't agree with Facebook’s stance. Sounds like a win-win to me. Since it should be obvious not to use Facebook if you dont agree with their service’s tendencies.
UncleMeat 6y ago
No. We’d be mad because that would be an abuse of their right as a content hoster. Some content can be good to remove and some content can be bad to remove and it is not hypocritical to get upset when some content is removed and not when other content is removed.
cptskippy 6y ago
> My question to this, is would you take the same line if the censorship was something nakedly egregious? Do you object to Facebook censoring child pornography? How nakedly egregious does the crime have to be before you're ok with Facebook censoring or removing it? It doesn't sound like you consider solicitation to commit a crime of violence to be a serious enough offense. So I guess promoting, instigating or encouraging treason, sedition or subversive activities is acceptable to you.

randyrand 6y ago

The internet is nearly entirely private and controls the vast majority of communication. We conceded our communication to private ISPs, to private, device manufacturers, to private websites. When people feel they cannot be heard, something is going to give.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
And there are vast stretches of the internet where private or not the platform is infinitely permissive or a close approximation. So if people are feeling unheard, it’s pretty likely they have their work cut out in terms of building the audience for their voice. The left has been in this position forever. But somehow we’re supposed to sympathize when a bunch of yokels storm into a parliamentary procedure and start shooting it up?
flukus 6y ago
Those people were heard at the election, this is the temper tantrum because other people got to be heard as well. > The internet is nearly entirely private and controls the vast majority of communication. Yes it's private, that doesn't mean they can't own it, they can setup their own private servers and be free of restriction.

CBLT 6y ago

Unpopular opinion, but I would like HN mods to take action against comments like this. Every time that this topic comes up, where the discussion is about the right and wrong of censorship, about finding a moral balance for safety and justice and expression, trolls like these jump in and give the "well it's not illegal so suck it" argument. It's tiresome, it's in bad faith, and it incites an emotional response from the reader.

the_only_law 6y ago
So you're against sites censoring content that's considered unpopular but you'd like the HN mods to censor a certain point you call "trolling"?
- CBLT 6y ago
  So I'm... what? What are you talking about? In what universe is the topic of discussion here about what's popular? If you willingly facilitate people with the intent to hurt and kill, the blood is also on your hands for failure to act. This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. Secondly, your tone suggests you'd think I have an inconsistent worldview if I believe moderators should perform any moderation action at all? You'll have to explain how that makes sense to you, because moderators providing escalating warnings to users that post insubstantive and volatile comments is something that's been with me for a long time and I'm rather fond of the practice.
  - the_only_law 6y ago
    You’ve outright accuse a user of trolling when there’s no indication of this being so. In fact, it seems more likely that this is their genuine viewpoint. Nothing about it seems insubstantive or volatile to me and it’s pretty inoffensive compared the garbage fire these threads to end up with. > This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. As to this, fair enough. I had wrongly assumed this comment to be implicitly taking the other side of the GP comment, simply calling for its removal instead of refuting it (you’d be surprised how much things like this happen)

idiocrat 6y ago

Facebook is not private property, if they are doing public work. They have a public duty, therefore they must stayi neutral. Facebook needs to make all posts non-public to become private property. Then they can moderate.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
All posts on FB are non-public.