3 ms·

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

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.
- molbioguy 6y ago
  Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter. I understand where you're coming from and I probably should have said this in my previous comment; given the widespread usage of FB and Twitter, it is somewhat concerning that so many people are at the mercy of those rapacious scumbags. My primary concern is the market and network effect power of these organizations. If you limit those, you limit the ability of these corporations to exert so much influence on online discourse. Rather than removing their free speech (and section 230 liability protections) rights, requiring and enabling competition would be a better solution. I wrote the following on another site (a section 230 discussion) a few days ago and think it apropos here. Your thoughts and criticism would be welcome: "Personally, I'd rather see the following: 1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; 2. Require ISPs to provide a minimum of half the download bandwidth in upload bandwidth (e.g., if you have 100Mb/sec down, you get at least 50Mb/sec up); 3. Modify the licenses social media platforms require for posted content (currently, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use, modify and display for any reason) to a more user-centric one (e.g., a limited, revocable license which retains copyright and ownership of content for the creator, which can only be used for specific, opt-in purposes and must regularly be renewed); 4. Require platforms to obtain opt-in agreement to all forms of tracking, whether on or off the platform. Doing the above would reduce the powerful network effects of the big platforms, provide a wider range of interoperable choices for social media connections and platforms including self-hosting. Throw in federation services and you can create seamless user networks across platforms. This would promote competition, stronger control for users over their data and information, the ability to congregate/associate as you wish, and allow anyone to create the environment that they want, curated (or not) as they choose. And it would force the big platforms to compete on features, privacy and quality experience to retain their user base. That can be done while still maintaining the important section 230 protections that promote free speech, regardless of the size of the platforms. Most importantly, it retains the ability for people to seek damages for libel/defamation without heavy-handed regulation and/or some person/corporation/entity deciding how much [filter bubble] is too much/too little."

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.

molbioguy 6y ago
Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter. I understand where you're coming from and I probably should have said this in my previous comment; given the widespread usage of FB and Twitter, it is somewhat concerning that so many people are at the mercy of those rapacious scumbags. My primary concern is the market and network effect power of these organizations. If you limit those, you limit the ability of these corporations to exert so much influence on online discourse. Rather than removing their free speech (and section 230 liability protections) rights, requiring and enabling competition would be a better solution. I wrote the following on another site (a section 230 discussion) a few days ago and think it apropos here. Your thoughts and criticism would be welcome: "Personally, I'd rather see the following: 1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; 2. Require ISPs to provide a minimum of half the download bandwidth in upload bandwidth (e.g., if you have 100Mb/sec down, you get at least 50Mb/sec up); 3. Modify the licenses social media platforms require for posted content (currently, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use, modify and display for any reason) to a more user-centric one (e.g., a limited, revocable license which retains copyright and ownership of content for the creator, which can only be used for specific, opt-in purposes and must regularly be renewed); 4. Require platforms to obtain opt-in agreement to all forms of tracking, whether on or off the platform. Doing the above would reduce the powerful network effects of the big platforms, provide a wider range of interoperable choices for social media connections and platforms including self-hosting. Throw in federation services and you can create seamless user networks across platforms. This would promote competition, stronger control for users over their data and information, the ability to congregate/associate as you wish, and allow anyone to create the environment that they want, curated (or not) as they choose. And it would force the big platforms to compete on features, privacy and quality experience to retain their user base. That can be done while still maintaining the important section 230 protections that promote free speech, regardless of the size of the platforms. Most importantly, it retains the ability for people to seek damages for libel/defamation without heavy-handed regulation and/or some person/corporation/entity deciding how much [filter bubble] is too much/too little."