3 ms·

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 t

• 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.