3 ms·

It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most

It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.

CryptoBanker 6y ago
That’s hardly Facebook’s fault. It’s not their responsibility to educate their users on what a public utility is
- molbioguy 6y ago
  Agreed. It's not their responsibility to educate users. Maybe it's their responsibility to educate themselves on what their users assume.
JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer expectations unreasonable? Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is a public utility? When was the tipping point in which Facebook stopped just being a private social network and started being a public utility? And was this disclosed anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on consumer perception? It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard? It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know what actual autopilot for aircraft is.
AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and regulatory capture. Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it comes to the law of the United States - the country in which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free speech protections are an imposition upon what the government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that private firms can legally "censor" people, while also restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that restricts speech. I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid," or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook account, you agree to have your speech moderated under their discretion. You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town, I do not really see how it can be called a utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of a public square.
- molbioguy 6y ago
  > You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ... Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    > Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting. I disagree with this characterization of the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I find it hard to dispute that the popular alternatives are considerably more open-ended, more secure, and apply much less censorship. However, for the sake of argument let's assume the characterization is a fair one: that one's communications are limited when using an alternative social network where fewer people are registered users. Under this circumstance, what right does any of us have to reach the kinds of people Facebook and Twitter offer? Perhaps we shouldn't necessarily consider it "limiting," when we are unable to reach all stretches of the globe. One's ability to be "heard," really falls outside their full control as soon as one wants to be understood past the walls of the current room.
    - molbioguy 6y ago
      I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?
nobody9999 6y ago
>It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users. I'll preface this by saying that I don't use Facebook because I find its business model to be exploitative and invasive for a whole host of reasons. FB users may treat it as a public forum, but that doesn't mean that it is a public forum. There are a number of reasons (this is not an exhaustive list) why FB users might think it is a public forum: 1. They never read the terms of service; 2. They assume that they have free speech rights on the platform -- see (1) above; 3. They don't recognize that FB exists to make money selling advertising, and that advertisers are their customers, not them (again, see (1) above). Advertisers are notoriously picky about what sort of content they want their ads seen next to. And the customer is always right; 4. They don't think about the fact that Facebook's servers are the private property of Facebook, and Facebook can do (or not) whatever it wants with its private property[0]. [0] I'd point out that this is a very good thing. Because if Facebook doesn't have private property rights, then neither do you. Or me, for that matter. And if that's the case, I can come over to your house and project gay, furry porn in HD at full volume, on your walls -- all night, every night.
- molbioguy 6y ago
  No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. BTW, my private property rights can be overriden whenever the governement or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, But if they can take away Facebook's First Amendment rights, they can take away yours or mine. And I'm not okay with that. >given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. I don't use Facebook (I did, ever since they opened up to non-university emails until 2014) and I have no problem staying in touch/sharing/communicating with other people at all. And until there's a decentralized, privacy and content ownership protecting social media platform (I do have a Diaspora account and even ran a pod for a while, but I don't use that anymore either) that I want to use, I'll pass, thanks. So no. Facebook isn't required at all. There are many other ways to communicate with others. Don't like Facebook? Vote with your feet. It doesn't hurt. Really. >BTW, my private property rights can be overridden whenever the government or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need. That's absolutely true. But your First Amendment rights cannot be overridden by the government. Of course there are noise/disturbing the peace/public nuisance ordinances, but your (and my) free speech rights aren't absolute either. Edit: Fixed typos.

It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.

CryptoBanker 6y ago

That’s hardly Facebook’s fault. It’s not their responsibility to educate their users on what a public utility is

molbioguy 6y ago
Agreed. It's not their responsibility to educate users. Maybe it's their responsibility to educate themselves on what their users assume.

JakeTheAndroid 6y ago

So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer expectations unreasonable? Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is a public utility? When was the tipping point in which Facebook stopped just being a private social network and started being a public utility? And was this disclosed anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on consumer perception? It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard? It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know what actual autopilot for aircraft is.

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago

A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and regulatory capture. Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it comes to the law of the United States - the country in which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free speech protections are an imposition upon what the government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that private firms can legally "censor" people, while also restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that restricts speech. I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid," or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook account, you agree to have your speech moderated under their discretion. You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town, I do not really see how it can be called a utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of a public square.

molbioguy 6y ago
> You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ... Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting. I disagree with this characterization of the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I find it hard to dispute that the popular alternatives are considerably more open-ended, more secure, and apply much less censorship. However, for the sake of argument let's assume the characterization is a fair one: that one's communications are limited when using an alternative social network where fewer people are registered users. Under this circumstance, what right does any of us have to reach the kinds of people Facebook and Twitter offer? Perhaps we shouldn't necessarily consider it "limiting," when we are unable to reach all stretches of the globe. One's ability to be "heard," really falls outside their full control as soon as one wants to be understood past the walls of the current room.
  - molbioguy 6y ago
    I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?

nobody9999 6y ago

>It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users. I'll preface this by saying that I don't use Facebook because I find its business model to be exploitative and invasive for a whole host of reasons. FB users may treat it as a public forum, but that doesn't mean that it is a public forum. There are a number of reasons (this is not an exhaustive list) why FB users might think it is a public forum: 1. They never read the terms of service; 2. They assume that they have free speech rights on the platform -- see (1) above; 3. They don't recognize that FB exists to make money selling advertising, and that advertisers are their customers, not them (again, see (1) above). Advertisers are notoriously picky about what sort of content they want their ads seen next to. And the customer is always right; 4. They don't think about the fact that Facebook's servers are the private property of Facebook, and Facebook can do (or not) whatever it wants with its private property[0]. [0] I'd point out that this is a very good thing. Because if Facebook doesn't have private property rights, then neither do you. Or me, for that matter. And if that's the case, I can come over to your house and project gay, furry porn in HD at full volume, on your walls -- all night, every night.

molbioguy 6y ago
No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. BTW, my private property rights can be overriden whenever the governement or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, But if they can take away Facebook's First Amendment rights, they can take away yours or mine. And I'm not okay with that. >given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. I don't use Facebook (I did, ever since they opened up to non-university emails until 2014) and I have no problem staying in touch/sharing/communicating with other people at all. And until there's a decentralized, privacy and content ownership protecting social media platform (I do have a Diaspora account and even ran a pod for a while, but I don't use that anymore either) that I want to use, I'll pass, thanks. So no. Facebook isn't required at all. There are many other ways to communicate with others. Don't like Facebook? Vote with your feet. It doesn't hurt. Really. >BTW, my private property rights can be overridden whenever the government or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need. That's absolutely true. But your First Amendment rights cannot be overridden by the government. Of course there are noise/disturbing the peace/public nuisance ordinances, but your (and my) free speech rights aren't absolute either. Edit: Fixed typos.