4 ms·

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

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.

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.