11 ms·

Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not

Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not. This is a slippery slope and, quite frankly, it’s the people that lose.

inscionent 6y ago
Facebook was never for the 'People' they never had a chance at 'winning'
glial 6y ago
> publicizes the ones FB most agrees with Change this to > publicizes the ones expected to make FB the most money and I agree with you. Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  > Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse. They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both. I'm sorry. Would you expand on that? I don't understand what you're advocating. Perhaps this[0] might help you to formulate your response? [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed. You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site. Currently we have social networks like facebook deciding that one type of -ism is worse than the other tipe of -ism, and letting one stay while removing the other [0]. If you expand this to politics, you can get greater consequences than just a few people being recist (but since it's against whites and men, it's "ok" in the eyes of facebook). So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks-hate-speech-black-over-attacks-white-people-men/3813931001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks...
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed. It's a section of a law. Specifically, Section 230[0] of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. >You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site. That's an interesting idea. But it's somewhat problematic for several reasons: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (the section of the law in question) applies to all persons/entities in the United States, and to all third-party communications hosted within the United States. How, exactly, would you implement such a rule? If I decide to set up a github repo, who and how do I inform that I intend to be a "platform" or a "publisher"? If I'm a member of a mailing list, quote someone else's words and send it to that mailing list, how do I "register" as a platform or a publisher? This isn't an idle question either. This was an actual case[1] that hinged on one particular email to a particular mailing list. I host several services via my home Internet connection. If I choose (which I have done in the past) to host a Diaspora[2] pod and invite a few friends and family to join, and maybe even federate with other Diaspora pods, how and to whom do I register as a "publisher" or "platform"? If I "register" as a platform and I have an argument with my sister in-law, and she says some really vulgar/unkind things on my pod. If I remove those comments, am I now in breach of my "registration" as a platform? >So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status. I don't dispute your claim that Facebook/Twitter exert a great deal of influence. However, Section 230 is not what you seem to think it is. It isn't about censorship, nor is it about freedom of speech. It is a very specific section of a law that says (paraphrasing): "I can't sue you for what someone else says." Full stop. That's it. It's not limited to social networking sites. It's not limited to large corporations. It's not limited to websites (both commercial and non-commercial). It applies everywhere there is third-party content. On a Github repo (think bug reports/feature requests), email mailing lists, IRC channels and any other place where more than one person can share bits. I'm going to say it again to make sure that it's clear why I say that. Section 230 (c)(1)(this is a direct quote now) says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." I will now translate that into non-legalese: "You cannot be sued because of something I (or anyone else) say." That doesn't mean that you can't be sued for stuff that you say. Let's say that we take your suggestion and remove Section 230 protections from "publishers" (whatever that is defined to mean). That won't stop people from posting obnoxious/unpleasant/hateful things. Rather, it will mostly just stop people from maintaining/setting up other sites (like HN) where people can share their thoughts. If HN can be sued for stuff that you or I say (upvote/downvote/flag moderation like we have here would almost certainly force HN to be a "publisher" under your definition), I suspect they would shut down this site almost immediately. If that were the case, the only folks that could afford to take on that kind of liability would be deep-pocketed companies like, you guessed it, Facebook and Twitter. So, doing what you suggest would actually make things worse and not better. There may well be some form of regulation that is required to rein in the influence of large social networking platforms, and you won't get any argument about that from me. In fact, I find such sites to be so offensive that I refuse to use them. But Section 230 isn't the proper place to implement regulation to reduce their influence/market power. I hope that this helps you to understand why modifying/repealing Section 230 won't solve the very real issues you're talking about. And so, I must regretfully inform you that you are wrong about Section 230[3]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... Edit: Fixed links and link references. Fixed grammatical/usage error.
kevinmgranger 6y ago
When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
- nova22033 6y ago
  FYI: Fire in a crowded theater is NOT the analogy you want to use if you defend free speech(not that this action violates the 1A) https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    I didn't understand that post when it was written and I don't understand your comment now. How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not a quote you should use if you are opposed to the government granting special benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites, because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported? Can an idea have any value independently of the cause someone once used it to support?
    - nova22033 6y ago
      People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means. If Trump was planning a war on Iran, you would have no right to speak out against it because you'd be shouting "fire in a crowded theater"
      - foldr 6y ago
        I also can't make sense of the article. The 1A clearly doesn't protect you from prosecution if you deliberately cause a disturbance by shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an uncontroversial example illustrating that the 1A has limits. The fact that this uncontroversial example was used in support of some controversial arguments ~100 years ago is neither here nor there.
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Yep, but the problem with people commenting there is, that thay don't like Trump, and cheer for his removal.... when the turntables are turned, and someone else is cheering, it'll be too late, because the precedent has been set, and we've let them do it.
- necrotic_comp 6y ago
  That's a false equivalence, because the words of the president directly incited violence and resulted in an angry mob storming the capitol building. I would hope that if a left-leaning politician did the same that the same precedent would be applied.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > because the words of the president directly incited violence Do you have those words? I never saw them because they were censored apparently. Edit: lol HN, actually asking, chill out. Apparently asking for sources is just unacceptable. Here it is in text because I think they truth is important that n it’s entirety: ""I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated — that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace."""
    - CodeMage 6y ago
      Have you tried looking for them yourself? It's not really that hard. Here's the video, judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8w
- 6y ago
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
The people also lose when others abuse free speech to incite violence.
- yters 6y ago
  This happens on both sides, but only one side gets consistently punished. Punish them all!
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Not just in America. There is horrible shit being posted on social platforms in other languages as well. Antisemitism, extremism... FB et al. do not care, as long as they make money and gain important friends.
    - yters 6y ago
      I remember recently the Iran ayatollah promoted wiping out Israel on Twitter and nothing happened. Jack Dorsey dismissed it as "saber rattling" from a country that routinely helps terrorists attack and kill Israelis. I guess that is not as bad as Trump claiming election fraud... Another example, Spike Lee tried to dox Zimmerman on Twitter, but ended up posting the address of some entirely unrelated couple who received death threats. Again, nothing happened.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        Iran is already sanctioned, and is this the “remove the Zionist regime from the pages of time” quote?
        yters 6y ago
        Yes, that's the one. Probably ignored because it doesn't have any harmful implications.
duxup 6y ago
I wonder what the implications are as far as facilitating folks who wish to take undemocratic steps that would seem to bring us closer to far more serious restrictions, imposed by those same folks as far as how a democracy is or isn't allowed to operate. Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights?
- hammock 6y ago
  >Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights? Seriously?
  - duxup 6y ago
    >Seriously? I don't know what you mean by that.
    - hammock 6y ago
      Are you asking whether it's a good idea to restrict a citizen's advocating for their preferred government policy? Shut down think tanks and community organizers? These all push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights.
      - duxup 6y ago
        I was asking exactly the question I posted. I think it is far more specific than the question you posed.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  As abhorrent as the actions of Trump are, I still think it's also a massive problem when a few private companies or even single unelected individuals like Zuckerberg who effectively control a defacto monopoly of public forums online between them can regulate speech as they please without any checks and balances whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion Trump is a traitor to the USA and democratic societies as a whole, and did incite a portion of his followers to overthrow the elected government and parliament in an attempt to nullify the democratic election results and install himself as an tyrannic leader (and only backed down and told people to "go home" when he saw this would not succeed in an attempt to cover his ass"), and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office and receive a jail sentence. But I shouldn't have the power to be judge, jury and executioner all by myself and put people in jail or even regulate their freedom of speech, and neither should facebook or Zuckerberg or twitter, or Trump for that matter. There is a rule of law and democratically legitimized institutions to enforce it, protected by a system of checks and balances, and it's the place of these institutions to make such decisions in accordance with the law. This time a lot of people will think the ban hit the right person in Trump. But next time it might be somebody less clearly (to us) deserving of such a ban (like a "traitor" Snowden or a "commie" Sanders). What, for example, if social media had been around in the Jim Crow era and the "rulers" of social media had decided that the civil rights movement was to be silenced? Or that "traditional marriage" is an institution that needs protection from "gay marriage"?
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
Why is Trump's 'voice' or anyone else's more important than FB's 'voice'? Is free speech only for some people? If I come to your house and rant about my favorite subject you shouldn't be able to silence me? Should Trump (or anyone else) have the right to sully FB in defiance of its management wishes? FB doesn't have a special responsibility, it's a for-profit business that has an obligation to it's shareholders.not society.
- makomk 6y ago
  Right now, FB are getting to have their cake and eat it - Section 230 gives them almost complete immunity from how they use their "voice" on the supposed basis that it's supposedly their users' speech and not theirs, including getting to decide which political violence to support, but they also get full freedom to decide which not-their-speech gets heard and by whom based on their own whims. Ordinary humans who aren't multi-billion-dollar corporations controlling one of the main methods of communication do not have this level of free speech rights.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
    Of course you can have this level of free speech rights, just start a website with a comments section and you can have the same awesome power.
    - tomp 6y ago
      Unapproved speech will be censored somehow, if necessary at the DNS / internet provider / Cloudflare level. Case in point: Daily Stormer.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
        So? That's how the society works: its moral values are reflected by the actions of those who participate in it. Most people find the Daily Stormer abhorrent so they refuse to provide services to it. It's actually free speech in action since all those people are expressing their view of DS. See, free speech works!
sandworm101 6y ago
So, perhaps, by no longer having access to Facebook, Mr Trump's eccentricities may moderate? Facebook does people a service by cutting them off. I honestly see such disconnections as healthy. If only they would cut people off before they are radicalized. Conversely, Mr Trump is now a free agent looking for a nest elsewhere. There is probably lots of closed door planning happening: "What do we do if he decides to use our platform for 2024?"
- wincy 6y ago
  My guess is Trump is going to create his own media company to compete/destroy Fox News.
  - chasd00 6y ago
    yep, i made the same prediction in another thread. To go further, i bet it will be and livestreaming commentary on inauguration day and probably outperform the actual inauguration in terms of viewership.
    - sandworm101 6y ago
      I think the opposite will happen. He will be so sad angry that he will retreat into a world which he can completely control. I bet he will spend that time alone inside one of his gold-plated golf resorts.
mc32 6y ago
So while the Capitol is very symbolic, there wasn’t looting, rioting or major vandalism on the part of the protesters (compare to the “Autonomous Zone” and police precinct burning in Seattle. Does that mean in the future demonstrations and protests that could potentially end up in violence like that be suppressed by Facebook and Twitter? Or can we expect partisanship and see them bless other protests that turn to violence? Note: I do not condone occupying public buildings like this. That’s unacceptable. But I think that should be applied evenly to all protests and wherever property is destroyed.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Occupying the washington monument is symbolic. Invading the capitol building to stop the electoral count and intimidate congress into overturning the election results is not symbolic.
  - hammock 6y ago
    What did you think of the Kavanaugh protestors who invaded the Capitol building to stop his confirmation? https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-arrest-128-individuals-protesting-kavanaugh-on-capitol-hill?amp https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-arrest-128...
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      I’ve always felt that we all just parrot and recycle the same opinions until someone introduces something creative and new into the conversation for us all to contend with. This is genuinely new example of the hypocrisy of the left. I wonder how the apologists will contend with this.
    - CodeMage 6y ago
      I've been looking at several different sources, and I can't find a single mention of Kavanaugh protestors committing any vandalism at all. The result of Kavanaugh protests? 128 people arrested. You're comparing that with a mob of people who violently clashed with the police outside the Capitol, then stormed inside, broke windows, climbed the walls, sat inside offices with their feet up on desks, walked away with "souvenirs", and planted IEDs. The result of that? 13 arrests. Can you please explain why your comparison is not disingenuous?
koolba 6y ago
It's not a slope at all. They pushed it off a cliff. Though the timing aligning with a new set of committee heads in the Senate is more than suspect. Zuck knows how easy it is for the government to break them up and he's trying to make amends for his original sin of not stopping Trump in 2016. The argument that "this speech is too dangerous" can be made by anyone about just about anything. This isn't fire in a theater. It's political speech and disagreement. If you accept the outcome here, you or your children will one day regret it when their voices are the ones that are muffled.

inscionent 6y ago

Facebook was never for the 'People' they never had a chance at 'winning'

glial 6y ago

> publicizes the ones FB most agrees with Change this to > publicizes the ones expected to make FB the most money and I agree with you. Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse. They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both. I'm sorry. Would you expand on that? I don't understand what you're advocating. Perhaps this[0] might help you to formulate your response? [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed. You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site. Currently we have social networks like facebook deciding that one type of -ism is worse than the other tipe of -ism, and letting one stay while removing the other [0]. If you expand this to politics, you can get greater consequences than just a few people being recist (but since it's against whites and men, it's "ok" in the eyes of facebook). So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks-hate-speech-black-over-attacks-white-people-men/3813931001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks...
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed. It's a section of a law. Specifically, Section 230[0] of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. >You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site. That's an interesting idea. But it's somewhat problematic for several reasons: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (the section of the law in question) applies to all persons/entities in the United States, and to all third-party communications hosted within the United States. How, exactly, would you implement such a rule? If I decide to set up a github repo, who and how do I inform that I intend to be a "platform" or a "publisher"? If I'm a member of a mailing list, quote someone else's words and send it to that mailing list, how do I "register" as a platform or a publisher? This isn't an idle question either. This was an actual case[1] that hinged on one particular email to a particular mailing list. I host several services via my home Internet connection. If I choose (which I have done in the past) to host a Diaspora[2] pod and invite a few friends and family to join, and maybe even federate with other Diaspora pods, how and to whom do I register as a "publisher" or "platform"? If I "register" as a platform and I have an argument with my sister in-law, and she says some really vulgar/unkind things on my pod. If I remove those comments, am I now in breach of my "registration" as a platform? >So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status. I don't dispute your claim that Facebook/Twitter exert a great deal of influence. However, Section 230 is not what you seem to think it is. It isn't about censorship, nor is it about freedom of speech. It is a very specific section of a law that says (paraphrasing): "I can't sue you for what someone else says." Full stop. That's it. It's not limited to social networking sites. It's not limited to large corporations. It's not limited to websites (both commercial and non-commercial). It applies everywhere there is third-party content. On a Github repo (think bug reports/feature requests), email mailing lists, IRC channels and any other place where more than one person can share bits. I'm going to say it again to make sure that it's clear why I say that. Section 230 (c)(1)(this is a direct quote now) says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." I will now translate that into non-legalese: "You cannot be sued because of something I (or anyone else) say." That doesn't mean that you can't be sued for stuff that you say. Let's say that we take your suggestion and remove Section 230 protections from "publishers" (whatever that is defined to mean). That won't stop people from posting obnoxious/unpleasant/hateful things. Rather, it will mostly just stop people from maintaining/setting up other sites (like HN) where people can share their thoughts. If HN can be sued for stuff that you or I say (upvote/downvote/flag moderation like we have here would almost certainly force HN to be a "publisher" under your definition), I suspect they would shut down this site almost immediately. If that were the case, the only folks that could afford to take on that kind of liability would be deep-pocketed companies like, you guessed it, Facebook and Twitter. So, doing what you suggest would actually make things worse and not better. There may well be some form of regulation that is required to rein in the influence of large social networking platforms, and you won't get any argument about that from me. In fact, I find such sites to be so offensive that I refuse to use them. But Section 230 isn't the proper place to implement regulation to reduce their influence/market power. I hope that this helps you to understand why modifying/repealing Section 230 won't solve the very real issues you're talking about. And so, I must regretfully inform you that you are wrong about Section 230[3]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network) [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... Edit: Fixed links and link references. Fixed grammatical/usage error.

kevinmgranger 6y ago

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

nova22033 6y ago
FYI: Fire in a crowded theater is NOT the analogy you want to use if you defend free speech(not that this action violates the 1A) https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  I didn't understand that post when it was written and I don't understand your comment now. How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not a quote you should use if you are opposed to the government granting special benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites, because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported? Can an idea have any value independently of the cause someone once used it to support?
  - nova22033 6y ago
    People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means. If Trump was planning a war on Iran, you would have no right to speak out against it because you'd be shouting "fire in a crowded theater"
    - foldr 6y ago
      I also can't make sense of the article. The 1A clearly doesn't protect you from prosecution if you deliberately cause a disturbance by shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an uncontroversial example illustrating that the 1A has limits. The fact that this uncontroversial example was used in support of some controversial arguments ~100 years ago is neither here nor there.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

Yep, but the problem with people commenting there is, that thay don't like Trump, and cheer for his removal.... when the turntables are turned, and someone else is cheering, it'll be too late, because the precedent has been set, and we've let them do it.

necrotic_comp 6y ago
That's a false equivalence, because the words of the president directly incited violence and resulted in an angry mob storming the capitol building. I would hope that if a left-leaning politician did the same that the same precedent would be applied.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > because the words of the president directly incited violence Do you have those words? I never saw them because they were censored apparently. Edit: lol HN, actually asking, chill out. Apparently asking for sources is just unacceptable. Here it is in text because I think they truth is important that n it’s entirety: ""I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated — that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace."""
  - CodeMage 6y ago
    Have you tried looking for them yourself? It's not really that hard. Here's the video, judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8w
6y ago

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

The people also lose when others abuse free speech to incite violence.

yters 6y ago
This happens on both sides, but only one side gets consistently punished. Punish them all!
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Not just in America. There is horrible shit being posted on social platforms in other languages as well. Antisemitism, extremism... FB et al. do not care, as long as they make money and gain important friends.
  - yters 6y ago
    I remember recently the Iran ayatollah promoted wiping out Israel on Twitter and nothing happened. Jack Dorsey dismissed it as "saber rattling" from a country that routinely helps terrorists attack and kill Israelis. I guess that is not as bad as Trump claiming election fraud... Another example, Spike Lee tried to dox Zimmerman on Twitter, but ended up posting the address of some entirely unrelated couple who received death threats. Again, nothing happened.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Iran is already sanctioned, and is this the “remove the Zionist regime from the pages of time” quote?
      - yters 6y ago
        Yes, that's the one. Probably ignored because it doesn't have any harmful implications.

duxup 6y ago

I wonder what the implications are as far as facilitating folks who wish to take undemocratic steps that would seem to bring us closer to far more serious restrictions, imposed by those same folks as far as how a democracy is or isn't allowed to operate. Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights?

hammock 6y ago
>Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights? Seriously?
- duxup 6y ago
  >Seriously? I don't know what you mean by that.
  - hammock 6y ago
    Are you asking whether it's a good idea to restrict a citizen's advocating for their preferred government policy? Shut down think tanks and community organizers? These all push an agenda that leads to impacting other people's rights.
    - duxup 6y ago
      I was asking exactly the question I posted. I think it is far more specific than the question you posed.
rndgermandude 6y ago
As abhorrent as the actions of Trump are, I still think it's also a massive problem when a few private companies or even single unelected individuals like Zuckerberg who effectively control a defacto monopoly of public forums online between them can regulate speech as they please without any checks and balances whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, in my opinion Trump is a traitor to the USA and democratic societies as a whole, and did incite a portion of his followers to overthrow the elected government and parliament in an attempt to nullify the democratic election results and install himself as an tyrannic leader (and only backed down and told people to "go home" when he saw this would not succeed in an attempt to cover his ass"), and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office and receive a jail sentence. But I shouldn't have the power to be judge, jury and executioner all by myself and put people in jail or even regulate their freedom of speech, and neither should facebook or Zuckerberg or twitter, or Trump for that matter. There is a rule of law and democratically legitimized institutions to enforce it, protected by a system of checks and balances, and it's the place of these institutions to make such decisions in accordance with the law. This time a lot of people will think the ban hit the right person in Trump. But next time it might be somebody less clearly (to us) deserving of such a ban (like a "traitor" Snowden or a "commie" Sanders). What, for example, if social media had been around in the Jim Crow era and the "rulers" of social media had decided that the civil rights movement was to be silenced? Or that "traditional marriage" is an institution that needs protection from "gay marriage"?

dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago

Why is Trump's 'voice' or anyone else's more important than FB's 'voice'? Is free speech only for some people? If I come to your house and rant about my favorite subject you shouldn't be able to silence me? Should Trump (or anyone else) have the right to sully FB in defiance of its management wishes? FB doesn't have a special responsibility, it's a for-profit business that has an obligation to it's shareholders.not society.

makomk 6y ago
Right now, FB are getting to have their cake and eat it - Section 230 gives them almost complete immunity from how they use their "voice" on the supposed basis that it's supposedly their users' speech and not theirs, including getting to decide which political violence to support, but they also get full freedom to decide which not-their-speech gets heard and by whom based on their own whims. Ordinary humans who aren't multi-billion-dollar corporations controlling one of the main methods of communication do not have this level of free speech rights.
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  Of course you can have this level of free speech rights, just start a website with a comments section and you can have the same awesome power.
  - tomp 6y ago
    Unapproved speech will be censored somehow, if necessary at the DNS / internet provider / Cloudflare level. Case in point: Daily Stormer.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
      So? That's how the society works: its moral values are reflected by the actions of those who participate in it. Most people find the Daily Stormer abhorrent so they refuse to provide services to it. It's actually free speech in action since all those people are expressing their view of DS. See, free speech works!

sandworm101 6y ago

So, perhaps, by no longer having access to Facebook, Mr Trump's eccentricities may moderate? Facebook does people a service by cutting them off. I honestly see such disconnections as healthy. If only they would cut people off before they are radicalized. Conversely, Mr Trump is now a free agent looking for a nest elsewhere. There is probably lots of closed door planning happening: "What do we do if he decides to use our platform for 2024?"

wincy 6y ago
My guess is Trump is going to create his own media company to compete/destroy Fox News.
- chasd00 6y ago
  yep, i made the same prediction in another thread. To go further, i bet it will be and livestreaming commentary on inauguration day and probably outperform the actual inauguration in terms of viewership.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    I think the opposite will happen. He will be so sad angry that he will retreat into a world which he can completely control. I bet he will spend that time alone inside one of his gold-plated golf resorts.

mc32 6y ago

So while the Capitol is very symbolic, there wasn’t looting, rioting or major vandalism on the part of the protesters (compare to the “Autonomous Zone” and police precinct burning in Seattle. Does that mean in the future demonstrations and protests that could potentially end up in violence like that be suppressed by Facebook and Twitter? Or can we expect partisanship and see them bless other protests that turn to violence? Note: I do not condone occupying public buildings like this. That’s unacceptable. But I think that should be applied evenly to all protests and wherever property is destroyed.

dleslie 6y ago
Occupying the washington monument is symbolic. Invading the capitol building to stop the electoral count and intimidate congress into overturning the election results is not symbolic.
- hammock 6y ago
  What did you think of the Kavanaugh protestors who invaded the Capitol building to stop his confirmation? https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-arrest-128-individuals-protesting-kavanaugh-on-capitol-hill?amp https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-arrest-128...
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    I’ve always felt that we all just parrot and recycle the same opinions until someone introduces something creative and new into the conversation for us all to contend with. This is genuinely new example of the hypocrisy of the left. I wonder how the apologists will contend with this.
  - CodeMage 6y ago
    I've been looking at several different sources, and I can't find a single mention of Kavanaugh protestors committing any vandalism at all. The result of Kavanaugh protests? 128 people arrested. You're comparing that with a mob of people who violently clashed with the police outside the Capitol, then stormed inside, broke windows, climbed the walls, sat inside offices with their feet up on desks, walked away with "souvenirs", and planted IEDs. The result of that? 13 arrests. Can you please explain why your comparison is not disingenuous?

koolba 6y ago

It's not a slope at all. They pushed it off a cliff. Though the timing aligning with a new set of committee heads in the Senate is more than suspect. Zuck knows how easy it is for the government to break them up and he's trying to make amends for his original sin of not stopping Trump in 2016. The argument that "this speech is too dangerous" can be made by anyone about just about anything. This isn't fire in a theater. It's political speech and disagreement. If you accept the outcome here, you or your children will one day regret it when their voices are the ones that are muffled.