3 ms·

Assuming you are referring to the current wave of private censorship in the wake of the storming of the US capitol, I think it’s a false equivalence. Here peop

Assuming you are referring to the current wave of private censorship in the wake of the storming of the US capitol, I think it’s a false equivalence. Here people are arguing this looks like monopolistic behavior (that the law attempts to make illegal); and there people were arguing for allowing de-platforming (that the law could be read as encouraging to limit the liability of the platform). This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable.

MikusR 6y ago
Signal is used for unmoderated encrypted communication. Facebook is just removing a link to service that allows hate speech and calls to violence. :)
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Seems some people don't like what they see in the mirror.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    Or they don’t appreciate flippant replies.
WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
>This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable. Could you explain the nuance then? In recent days I've found this explanation often used and generally in ways that I am not convinced of. In many cases, the arguments being presented are done so without any concern for nuance, so I find it hard to expect someone to understand nuance that wasn't originally included in the argument. I get this is largely a result of people only presenting a summary of their argument (as I find any writing to be a summary as words convey less than thoughts contain). Especially since we are not talking about legal action the government is taking to ban something dangerous enough to society to be illegal, but a private business choosing to ban something because they choose to do so.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  It’s possible the other people were implicitly saying private companies should be free [to not publish someone’s speech]; I can’t argue on behalf of all the other people you have talked to. But I can say that to me these are just different situations. It’s not contradictory to think that companies should be free to not associate with individuals for their brand, but should not be free to buy ads impersonating a competitor, or blocking links to a competitors products. The phrasing of companies should be free to do X doesn’t carry over to a different issue.

MikusR 6y ago

Signal is used for unmoderated encrypted communication. Facebook is just removing a link to service that allows hate speech and calls to violence. :)

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Seems some people don't like what they see in the mirror.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  Or they don’t appreciate flippant replies.

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago

>This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable. Could you explain the nuance then? In recent days I've found this explanation often used and generally in ways that I am not convinced of. In many cases, the arguments being presented are done so without any concern for nuance, so I find it hard to expect someone to understand nuance that wasn't originally included in the argument. I get this is largely a result of people only presenting a summary of their argument (as I find any writing to be a summary as words convey less than thoughts contain). Especially since we are not talking about legal action the government is taking to ban something dangerous enough to society to be illegal, but a private business choosing to ban something because they choose to do so.

mattnewton 6y ago
It’s possible the other people were implicitly saying private companies should be free [to not publish someone’s speech]; I can’t argue on behalf of all the other people you have talked to. But I can say that to me these are just different situations. It’s not contradictory to think that companies should be free to not associate with individuals for their brand, but should not be free to buy ads impersonating a competitor, or blocking links to a competitors products. The phrasing of companies should be free to do X doesn’t carry over to a different issue.