4 ms·

I would say that's an easy question. No, it's not important. Who should decide? Whoever at the company is given the authority to ban people from their website.

I would say that's an easy question. No, it's not important. Who should decide? Whoever at the company is given the authority to ban people from their website. How? Following whatever protocols they come up with? Want to have their own pseudo-court system? Go for it. Want to have a ban lottery so people may just randomly be banned for no reason? Go for it, it's your website do what you want with it.

chrischattin 6y ago
This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? I'd say they've violated the original social contract, and that of the open source web, and are now subject to regulation – by entities they helped put in place in government. This whole thing is becoming a dystopian nightmare. Edit: Image if AT&T started shutting off Democrat's cell phones.
- jankyxenon 6y ago
  What does the “premise of a public square” mean? What social contract did they enter into? What legal obligation do they have to their users?
  - chrischattin 6y ago
    It's in their ToS. That's a contract, right?
    - jankyxenon 6y ago
      What’s in their TOS? That they’re a public square? That access to the platform and expressive freedom of the users trumps facebook’s moderation rights? I don’t think so.
      - chrischattin 6y ago
        Read it, moron. They use that exact verbiage.
        jankyxenon 6y ago
        You can call me a moron all you want. There’s no notion of Facebook as a public square in their terms of service. It’s a business, not a public service.
        dang 6y ago
        We ban accounts that break the site guidelines like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    I think the right term for what they're referring to is "privatization of the public square".
- pionar 6y ago
  While I really dislike the fact that Facebook and Twitter have so much say in who gets a platform, the fact remains that they are private businesses that are not subject to any regulation on who they allow on their platforms. Remember that government regulations can also be used by "the other side" when in power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? 'now'? May I submit this news article from 12 years ago into evidence? :) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breas... This idea of Facebook as some sort of haven for free speech seems to be a new invention; it's always been pretty censorious.

chrischattin 6y ago

This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? I'd say they've violated the original social contract, and that of the open source web, and are now subject to regulation – by entities they helped put in place in government. This whole thing is becoming a dystopian nightmare. Edit: Image if AT&T started shutting off Democrat's cell phones.

jankyxenon 6y ago
What does the “premise of a public square” mean? What social contract did they enter into? What legal obligation do they have to their users?
- chrischattin 6y ago
  It's in their ToS. That's a contract, right?
  - jankyxenon 6y ago
    What’s in their TOS? That they’re a public square? That access to the platform and expressive freedom of the users trumps facebook’s moderation rights? I don’t think so.
    - chrischattin 6y ago
      Read it, moron. They use that exact verbiage.
      - jankyxenon 6y ago
        You can call me a moron all you want. There’s no notion of Facebook as a public square in their terms of service. It’s a business, not a public service.
      - dang 6y ago
        We ban accounts that break the site guidelines like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
- Izkata 6y ago
  I think the right term for what they're referring to is "privatization of the public square".
pionar 6y ago
While I really dislike the fact that Facebook and Twitter have so much say in who gets a platform, the fact remains that they are private businesses that are not subject to any regulation on who they allow on their platforms. Remember that government regulations can also be used by "the other side" when in power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 6y ago
> This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? 'now'? May I submit this news article from 12 years ago into evidence? :) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breas... This idea of Facebook as some sort of haven for free speech seems to be a new invention; it's always been pretty censorious.