4 ms·
The wording here is a bit weird. He was not censored, he broke the TOS and was therefore blocked from using a platform. Censoring would be proactive from FB, t
by Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
The wording here is a bit weird. He was not censored, he broke the TOS and was therefore blocked from using a platform.
Censoring would be proactive from FB, they have actually allowed him to breach TOS before without a ban, and only this time they enforced the rules we are all subject to.
- bjeds 6y agoFair enough, I'm not a native English speaker and should maybe used a different word. But that's still beside the point: there is still a fraction greater than 0% of his voters, who will feel (correctly or incorrectly) that their politician was censored. And therein lies the problem with the blocking decision. It does not matter in any shape or form whether Facebook was right or wrong in their action in blocking Trump: This decision will radicalize more people, as a direct side effect or unintended consequence of their decision to block him due to the TOS violation. Trump is not just some internet lunatic, he is a political candidate and former POTUS that 70+ million people voted for.
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoFreedom of speech doesn't matter if people can just storm the capitol and kidnap/kill their adversaries. That needs protected first - the first amendment never protected incitement of violence. > This decision will radicalize more people, I disagree. It will remove the lightning rod and greatly remove his reach.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoThe media gave him his reach, so ideally FB would de-platform the media and repair their feed back to being mostly about friends and family. Introducing news was a disaster.
- IgorPartola 6y agoCensoring would be done by a government, not a private entity.
- humanrebar 6y agoCensoring can be done by anyone with the power to enact it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- dx87 6y agoWhat dictionary are you using that says censoring can only be done by a government? It seems like a tech employee talking point so they can pretend they aren't censoring people.
- IgorPartola 6y agoI don’t work for Facebook (or any other big tech company) and don’t plan to. My understanding is that censorship is a government activity.
- cousin_it 6y agoPrivate companies can censor too. For example, your ISP, browser vendor or email provider could block websites/emails/ads from a given source without telling you.
- RegBarclay 6y agoWhat if the private entity is censoring at the behest of the government?
- LadyCailin 6y agoThen you have a potential first amendment violation. Censorship is in general perfectly legal, the first amendment only protects from government action, and even then, only sometimes, depending on what’s said.
- humanrebar 6y agoIt can still be censoring, just the parameters are spelled out beforehand in the Terms of Service. Also do we like Terms of Service now? I thought the mood across HN was that they don't really count as "consent" because nobody reads them?
- ender341341 6y agoI'm against large portions of how ToS are written, presented and what they contain without thinking the idea of terms of service are inherently bad. When presented as dozens of pages of legalese text that you need a law degree to understand I don't think they're reasonable. Having documented that certain behaviors will result in blocking is perfectly reasonable to me.
- gadders 6y agoI don't think people doubt that the TOS exist, but that they are not applied even-handedly to all people regardless of their political beliefs.