5 ms·

> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

by matz1 6y ago

minimaxir 6y ago
"Inciting a coup" is a pretty unambiguous bar for harmful speech.
- stevenhubertron 6y ago
  and even if you didn't think that was enough. The fact that if they would have been successful it would have meant a certain civil war which would have been bad for Facebook's business. So even from a completely revenue based view it is good business for Facebook to do this at this time.
- matz1 6y ago
  Apparently not, in this thread alone, there is plenty of people who disagree let alone harmful.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Can you share a specific piece of evidence where Trump is inciting a coup?
  - danhak 6y ago
    The video where he says "You're special! We love you!" to his followers as they actively besiege the U.S. Capitol and ransack congressional offices. That good enough?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Here's the thing. If you have an expectation that every event in history is accompanied by the instigators writing/saying "Let's all go do an X" (where X might be "coup" or "revolution" or whatever), you're going to be disappointed. Most often, it's only historical hindsight that forms the narrative in which "X said Y which led to Z". If you're somewhat sympathetic towards Trump, then likely only utterly unambiguous language - "So listen up everyone, I want you, in fact I order you, to go to the Capitol, get inside, prevent the certification from taking place, by any means necessary, including violence" - would convince you that he had incited a coup (and perhaps not even that). Out in the real world, few people speak in such unambiguous ways even if their goals are clear. That's why we often need trials to establish whether or not certain language had intent A or intent B, because the language used was not unambiguous (often deliberately so).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ianai 6y ago
If it matters what “speech” exists on a platform then that platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it doesn’t matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave the platform if you disagree with it and go with a competitor. If you can’t do that then we’re in monopoly power situation. Break em up. The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth. Anything else is not free speech.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  > The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "of the press" is not "from your literal mouth", pretty much by definition. So please, let's not misrepresent what the constitutional right is about, even if we debate what "of the press" means in today's technology and media environment.
  - lambda_obrien 6y ago
    The newspaper doesn't have to publish your letters and neither does facebook or twitter. Feel free, as in free speech, to setup your own website.
    - Taurenking 6y ago
      Sure, only to have each and every company disavow services from said "own website" when _they_ feel like it. The "build your own x" argument doesn't take into account that as technology evolves not everyone has the means/skills to "build" their digital public town square, hence why the existing once ought to be regulated by governments once they get too big.
      - ianai 6y ago
        I feel like the “right to a personal webpage” comes sometime after the point where people agree basic shelter, food, and water are a basic human right.
Spivak 6y ago
We do. You act like collective decision making is impossible while living in a democracy based on it. Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules?
- matz1 6y ago
  > Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules? Whoever have the stronger power/influence.
  - svara 6y ago
    And that's where you've checked out of the political philosophy that built the modern world. You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? Cynicism can really lead you astray as your comment proves.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >political philosophy that built the modern world Can you explain this and how that contradict my statement >You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? I don't feel right at home about it but it doesn't contradict my statement Chinese communist party get to decide the rule because they are currently the one who have stronger power/influence, this is has nothing to do with how I feel.
actusual 6y ago
well...yes, facebook gets to decide. It's their platform after all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, not some nebulous definition of "freedom of speech", or the American people, or anything else. They are a business designed to make money. If they lose advertisers because they have given Trump a platform, it is their responsibility (to their shareholders) to remove him from the platform. Build a public option if you want an alternative.
Fnoord 6y ago
Yup, Facebook decides about that.. on Facebook. Its only censorship if/when the government restricts freedom of speech, and it wass never absolute to begin with.
nobody9999 6y ago
>who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ? On Facebook's platform, that would be Facebook. In my home, that would be me. In your home, that would be you. I could go on, but I trust you get the point, yes?

> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

by matz1 6y ago

> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

minimaxir 6y ago

"Inciting a coup" is a pretty unambiguous bar for harmful speech.

stevenhubertron 6y ago
and even if you didn't think that was enough. The fact that if they would have been successful it would have meant a certain civil war which would have been bad for Facebook's business. So even from a completely revenue based view it is good business for Facebook to do this at this time.
matz1 6y ago
Apparently not, in this thread alone, there is plenty of people who disagree let alone harmful.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Can you share a specific piece of evidence where Trump is inciting a coup?
- danhak 6y ago
  The video where he says "You're special! We love you!" to his followers as they actively besiege the U.S. Capitol and ransack congressional offices. That good enough?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Here's the thing. If you have an expectation that every event in history is accompanied by the instigators writing/saying "Let's all go do an X" (where X might be "coup" or "revolution" or whatever), you're going to be disappointed. Most often, it's only historical hindsight that forms the narrative in which "X said Y which led to Z". If you're somewhat sympathetic towards Trump, then likely only utterly unambiguous language - "So listen up everyone, I want you, in fact I order you, to go to the Capitol, get inside, prevent the certification from taking place, by any means necessary, including violence" - would convince you that he had incited a coup (and perhaps not even that). Out in the real world, few people speak in such unambiguous ways even if their goals are clear. That's why we often need trials to establish whether or not certain language had intent A or intent B, because the language used was not unambiguous (often deliberately so).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ianai 6y ago

If it matters what “speech” exists on a platform then that platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it doesn’t matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave the platform if you disagree with it and go with a competitor. If you can’t do that then we’re in monopoly power situation. Break em up. The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth. Anything else is not free speech.

bzbarsky 6y ago
> The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "of the press" is not "from your literal mouth", pretty much by definition. So please, let's not misrepresent what the constitutional right is about, even if we debate what "of the press" means in today's technology and media environment.
- lambda_obrien 6y ago
  The newspaper doesn't have to publish your letters and neither does facebook or twitter. Feel free, as in free speech, to setup your own website.
  - Taurenking 6y ago
    Sure, only to have each and every company disavow services from said "own website" when _they_ feel like it. The "build your own x" argument doesn't take into account that as technology evolves not everyone has the means/skills to "build" their digital public town square, hence why the existing once ought to be regulated by governments once they get too big.
    - ianai 6y ago
      I feel like the “right to a personal webpage” comes sometime after the point where people agree basic shelter, food, and water are a basic human right.

Spivak 6y ago

We do. You act like collective decision making is impossible while living in a democracy based on it. Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules?

matz1 6y ago
> Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules? Whoever have the stronger power/influence.
- svara 6y ago
  And that's where you've checked out of the political philosophy that built the modern world. You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? Cynicism can really lead you astray as your comment proves.
  - matz1 6y ago
    >political philosophy that built the modern world Can you explain this and how that contradict my statement >You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? I don't feel right at home about it but it doesn't contradict my statement Chinese communist party get to decide the rule because they are currently the one who have stronger power/influence, this is has nothing to do with how I feel.

actusual 6y ago

well...yes, facebook gets to decide. It's their platform after all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, not some nebulous definition of "freedom of speech", or the American people, or anything else. They are a business designed to make money. If they lose advertisers because they have given Trump a platform, it is their responsibility (to their shareholders) to remove him from the platform. Build a public option if you want an alternative.

Fnoord 6y ago

Yup, Facebook decides about that.. on Facebook. Its only censorship if/when the government restricts freedom of speech, and it wass never absolute to begin with.

nobody9999 6y ago

>who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ? On Facebook's platform, that would be Facebook. In my home, that would be me. In your home, that would be you. I could go on, but I trust you get the point, yes?