5 ms·

Facebook is a private platform: they're free to block any content they want, malicious or not.

mhh__ 6y ago
They are also mainly motivated by money, which allows us to make at least educated guesses as to what happened in matters like these
- chroem- 6y ago
  That's irrelevant, because a private company can't be compelled to support someone else's speech against their will. If you don't like it, then take political action. Edit: For those unaware, this is the devil's advocate take. HN has been remarkably pro-corporate censorship lately, and only a matter of weeks later its coming back to bite pro-censorship advocates.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Exactly. This was what Facebook wanted, for whatever reasons. Unless they say otherwise.
  - 23B1 6y ago
    I'm mostly tired of this take, especially by technologists. First off: you're right. You can't compel a private company to support speech. But the entirety of political discourse happens online now. There's a clear and prevailing interest that free speech can happen online, at scale.
    - maxwell 6y ago
      Honestly, the market will take care of it: who's comfortable hosting their content on the platform any more? They've alienated the right and the left. At the end of the day/century, FB is just a random internet site/app. Discourse is online, yes, but the zeitgeist left FB years ago. Zuck's fate will catch up with him fast, now that their network effect has broken, or is close to doing so. It's already over. FB/IG/WhatsApp are all clearly dead, in the Grahamian sense.
      - 23B1 6y ago
        Sure, but you're also missing the downstream consequences/chilling effects. Maybe you're right insofar as it should motivate people to create new platforms, but with even the cloud operators willing to deep-six a business... well I don't know about you but I can't afford to host a social media site with hundreds of thousands of users in my basement anymore – not to mention the credit cards, banks, and payment services now willing to kickban anyone they don't like...
  - neves 6y ago
    That's why Facebook must become a public entity.
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      That's quite a leap.
  - drcross 6y ago
    Well, in a capitalistic society with government oversight, you can expect the strong arm of government to lay the ban hammer on them. Participate in our society and be governed by the rules of our nation. As a capitalist fanboy I cant wait for the sanctioning to happen.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    You're assuming, rather uncharitably, that people in favor of "private entities cannot be compelled to host the speech of others" only support that point of view because it serves other political stances they hold, rather than as a general principle. A site is free to ban all left-wing groups, all right-wing groups, all centrist groups, all groups with an 'e' in their names, all hate groups, or all of the above. Others are free to react to those bans accordingly, and choose whether to associate/support/host the site or not.
    - andrepd 6y ago
      That argument falls flat when a huge majority of speech goes through the platforms of 2 or 3 companies. "Big" tech doesn't even begin to convey the scale we're talking about here.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      So if executives of Google, FB and twitter all make a deal with oil companies to ban anyone advocating clinate action, thats fine?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Newspapers, journals, radio and other publishers have to maintain some basic decency, even if they are public.
ameister14 6y ago
One problem with moderating content in this way is that it makes it clearer and clearer that they no longer need the protections provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's not injurious to them to moderate content, clearly, since they are doing it. By pulling this crap and especially by doing it algorithmically they are pushing the internet in a difficult direction.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  I don't understand the argument here. It's not injurious to them to moderate content because they have §230. §230 isn't there to protect online publishers from the court of public opinion; that's impossible. It's there to protect them from libel lawsuits. If §230 went away, and Facebook continued moderating, they would be liable if anyone posted defamatory content to Facebook -- something which surely happens on a constant basis.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    no - the reason that 230 exists is because it was argued effectively that the task of moderating content was too great, to the point that it be an undue burden to internet companies. If that is not currently the case and these companies can effectively moderate the content on their networks without driving themselves out of business with the cost, well, they don't have the justification for 230's exemption anymore.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      You appear to hold some very idiosyncratic beliefs about section 230. It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law. It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to moderate everything posted to their site. It's still quite obviously true that Facebook is not able to moderate everything posted to its website. What are you trying to say?
psyc 6y ago
I really wish we could move beyond this tired thought-stopper in these equally tired debates.
andrepd 6y ago
Excellent, let's reduce everything to "it's a private company, end of story". Such a simple approach, no need to think any further. I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house?
- filoleg 6y ago
  Not trying to take a stand in the argument of whether the companies should be allowed to use the "private platform" excuse to get rid of any content they don't like, but I disagree with your analogy specifically. >I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house? Beating children is illegal for anyone by law already. Removing something spray painted on your walls or deciding what books people get to discuss in your own book club isn't illegal, and neither should it be. I hope you understand the nuance here, and why it makes your analogy flawed.
  - lenkite 6y ago
    Ah yes, the law. Lets Remove Section 230 protection for Facebook, so folks can now sue them. After all, the original justification for 230 was that they have no capability to moderate their users. That is clearly no longer true today.
anothernewdude 6y ago
Until they aren't.
dathinab 6y ago
No, they have to keep with laws of the countries they operate in. In difference to the US: - some countries clearly differentiate between private and cooperate - have proper free speech laws which are not limited to government inference into free speech but free speech itself - have laws about discrimination and protection of political organizations which does not allow you to arbitrary "block" people etc. I don't know about UK law. But I'm pretty sure this would have been unlawful in Germany, and potentially all of EU (due to EU wide regulation, but while I'm pretty sure about Germany I'm less so about EU wide regulations).
sipos 6y ago
Not if it discriminates on protected characteristics, in UK law. This isn't, but you can easily imagine many of the countries it operates in hjaving multiple laws that restrict its freedom to block whatever it likes. Some protect registered political parties (like the SWP) freedom of speech I think even (but not thre UK AFAIK).

They are also mainly motivated by money, which allows us to make at least educated guesses as to what happened in matters like these

chroem- 6y ago
That's irrelevant, because a private company can't be compelled to support someone else's speech against their will. If you don't like it, then take political action. Edit: For those unaware, this is the devil's advocate take. HN has been remarkably pro-corporate censorship lately, and only a matter of weeks later its coming back to bite pro-censorship advocates.
- r00fus 6y ago
  Exactly. This was what Facebook wanted, for whatever reasons. Unless they say otherwise.
- 23B1 6y ago
  I'm mostly tired of this take, especially by technologists. First off: you're right. You can't compel a private company to support speech. But the entirety of political discourse happens online now. There's a clear and prevailing interest that free speech can happen online, at scale.
  - maxwell 6y ago
    Honestly, the market will take care of it: who's comfortable hosting their content on the platform any more? They've alienated the right and the left. At the end of the day/century, FB is just a random internet site/app. Discourse is online, yes, but the zeitgeist left FB years ago. Zuck's fate will catch up with him fast, now that their network effect has broken, or is close to doing so. It's already over. FB/IG/WhatsApp are all clearly dead, in the Grahamian sense.
    - 23B1 6y ago
      Sure, but you're also missing the downstream consequences/chilling effects. Maybe you're right insofar as it should motivate people to create new platforms, but with even the cloud operators willing to deep-six a business... well I don't know about you but I can't afford to host a social media site with hundreds of thousands of users in my basement anymore – not to mention the credit cards, banks, and payment services now willing to kickban anyone they don't like...
- neves 6y ago
  That's why Facebook must become a public entity.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    That's quite a leap.
- drcross 6y ago
  Well, in a capitalistic society with government oversight, you can expect the strong arm of government to lay the ban hammer on them. Participate in our society and be governed by the rules of our nation. As a capitalist fanboy I cant wait for the sanctioning to happen.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  You're assuming, rather uncharitably, that people in favor of "private entities cannot be compelled to host the speech of others" only support that point of view because it serves other political stances they hold, rather than as a general principle. A site is free to ban all left-wing groups, all right-wing groups, all centrist groups, all groups with an 'e' in their names, all hate groups, or all of the above. Others are free to react to those bans accordingly, and choose whether to associate/support/host the site or not.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    That argument falls flat when a huge majority of speech goes through the platforms of 2 or 3 companies. "Big" tech doesn't even begin to convey the scale we're talking about here.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    So if executives of Google, FB and twitter all make a deal with oil companies to ban anyone advocating clinate action, thats fine?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Newspapers, journals, radio and other publishers have to maintain some basic decency, even if they are public.

ameister14 6y ago

One problem with moderating content in this way is that it makes it clearer and clearer that they no longer need the protections provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's not injurious to them to moderate content, clearly, since they are doing it. By pulling this crap and especially by doing it algorithmically they are pushing the internet in a difficult direction.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I don't understand the argument here. It's not injurious to them to moderate content because they have §230. §230 isn't there to protect online publishers from the court of public opinion; that's impossible. It's there to protect them from libel lawsuits. If §230 went away, and Facebook continued moderating, they would be liable if anyone posted defamatory content to Facebook -- something which surely happens on a constant basis.
- ameister14 6y ago
  no - the reason that 230 exists is because it was argued effectively that the task of moderating content was too great, to the point that it be an undue burden to internet companies. If that is not currently the case and these companies can effectively moderate the content on their networks without driving themselves out of business with the cost, well, they don't have the justification for 230's exemption anymore.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    You appear to hold some very idiosyncratic beliefs about section 230. It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law. It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to moderate everything posted to their site. It's still quite obviously true that Facebook is not able to moderate everything posted to its website. What are you trying to say?

psyc 6y ago

I really wish we could move beyond this tired thought-stopper in these equally tired debates.

andrepd 6y ago

Excellent, let's reduce everything to "it's a private company, end of story". Such a simple approach, no need to think any further. I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house?

filoleg 6y ago
Not trying to take a stand in the argument of whether the companies should be allowed to use the "private platform" excuse to get rid of any content they don't like, but I disagree with your analogy specifically. >I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house? Beating children is illegal for anyone by law already. Removing something spray painted on your walls or deciding what books people get to discuss in your own book club isn't illegal, and neither should it be. I hope you understand the nuance here, and why it makes your analogy flawed.
- lenkite 6y ago
  Ah yes, the law. Lets Remove Section 230 protection for Facebook, so folks can now sue them. After all, the original justification for 230 was that they have no capability to moderate their users. That is clearly no longer true today.

anothernewdude 6y ago

Until they aren't.

dathinab 6y ago

No, they have to keep with laws of the countries they operate in. In difference to the US: - some countries clearly differentiate between private and cooperate - have proper free speech laws which are not limited to government inference into free speech but free speech itself - have laws about discrimination and protection of political organizations which does not allow you to arbitrary "block" people etc. I don't know about UK law. But I'm pretty sure this would have been unlawful in Germany, and potentially all of EU (due to EU wide regulation, but while I'm pretty sure about Germany I'm less so about EU wide regulations).

sipos 6y ago

Not if it discriminates on protected characteristics, in UK law. This isn't, but you can easily imagine many of the countries it operates in hjaving multiple laws that restrict its freedom to block whatever it likes. Some protect registered political parties (like the SWP) freedom of speech I think even (but not thre UK AFAIK).