3 ms·

> their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies. I think many economists and many people from all political parties would argue the exact

by dahart 6y ago

> their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies. I think many economists and many people from all political parties would argue the exact opposite, that companies having enough freedom to set their own policies (as long as they’re legal) is very much one feature of the United States that has been supporting democracy in the last century. Why should a private company not be allowed to establish their own rules on their own platform? Does your opinion apply to all private companies? Does Facebook have a history of limiting legal speech? There are many types of speech that are not legal and not protected as free speech by the constitution. Surely Facebook should be free to limit such speech on their own platform, so they don’t become liable for it? False statements of fact, incitement, commercial speech, fighting words, threats, obscenity, among many other types of speech, are not protected free speech in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

mc32 6y ago
The issue is that it’s not federated by jurisdiction, so they apply American laws and principles to people in Ghana as well as Mexico and Indonesia, but all these countries have different frameworks for speech and what’s allowed and not. Facebook however does not observe that unless they get pressured (like Turkey). We may both hold that Turkey has issues with authoritarianism and freedom of speech, but that’s up to them and the international community, not Facebook to set and settle. They are not accountable to the local population they are serving.
- dahart 6y ago
  > They are not accountable to the local population they are serving. That’s not true, Facebook is accountable to the laws of local populations. And populations aren’t forced to use Facebook, China chose not to. What are you advocating for here? An international cloud platform with different standards in every country? How is that supposed to work online? What exactly would Facebook do differently ... while obeying the laws of the countries it operates in? Doesn’t it make some sense, liability-wise, for Facebook to apply the union of all (or most... many are similar globally) free speech exceptions globally across the entire platform, and therefore subject Europeans to US limitations and vice-versa? You didn’t answer the core question: why should Facebook not be able to apply their own rules? That goes against the grain of the idea of private companies. Are you suggesting that Facebook is too large to be private? Or are you suggesting that no private companies should censor any speech, regardless of company standards? Or that there shouldn’t be private companies? I don’t understand.
- fsociety 6y ago
  Again, it is not up to Facebook to serve the needs of the government. It’s why transparency is so critical for the platform, and they are transparent that they value American ideals.. which no surprise include skepticism against government. They don’t attempt to solve authoritarianism in Turkey, but they do not allow authoritarian comments which lead to harm. There are obvious issues with Facebook, but this seems pretty cut and clear. Turkey is free to ban Facebook but what kind of values do you want to spread to the world?
  - mc32 6y ago
    No, not the government, local laws. Libel in the US is different from libel in the U.K., for example. They should federate the service and have moderators for every market who know local laws and mores. One issue is everyone is in the global user bucket, rather than having jurisdictional buckets (the way Wikipedia does).

by dahart 6y ago

mc32 6y ago

The issue is that it’s not federated by jurisdiction, so they apply American laws and principles to people in Ghana as well as Mexico and Indonesia, but all these countries have different frameworks for speech and what’s allowed and not. Facebook however does not observe that unless they get pressured (like Turkey). We may both hold that Turkey has issues with authoritarianism and freedom of speech, but that’s up to them and the international community, not Facebook to set and settle. They are not accountable to the local population they are serving.

dahart 6y ago
> They are not accountable to the local population they are serving. That’s not true, Facebook is accountable to the laws of local populations. And populations aren’t forced to use Facebook, China chose not to. What are you advocating for here? An international cloud platform with different standards in every country? How is that supposed to work online? What exactly would Facebook do differently ... while obeying the laws of the countries it operates in? Doesn’t it make some sense, liability-wise, for Facebook to apply the union of all (or most... many are similar globally) free speech exceptions globally across the entire platform, and therefore subject Europeans to US limitations and vice-versa? You didn’t answer the core question: why should Facebook not be able to apply their own rules? That goes against the grain of the idea of private companies. Are you suggesting that Facebook is too large to be private? Or are you suggesting that no private companies should censor any speech, regardless of company standards? Or that there shouldn’t be private companies? I don’t understand.
fsociety 6y ago
Again, it is not up to Facebook to serve the needs of the government. It’s why transparency is so critical for the platform, and they are transparent that they value American ideals.. which no surprise include skepticism against government. They don’t attempt to solve authoritarianism in Turkey, but they do not allow authoritarian comments which lead to harm. There are obvious issues with Facebook, but this seems pretty cut and clear. Turkey is free to ban Facebook but what kind of values do you want to spread to the world?
- mc32 6y ago
  No, not the government, local laws. Libel in the US is different from libel in the U.K., for example. They should federate the service and have moderators for every market who know local laws and mores. One issue is everyone is in the global user bucket, rather than having jurisdictional buckets (the way Wikipedia does).