7 ms·

Sigh, Glenn Greenwald is right, it’s only a matter of time before these censorship tools are used on people on the political left. Everyone cheers it now but th

Sigh, Glenn Greenwald is right, it’s only a matter of time before these censorship tools are used on people on the political left. Everyone cheers it now but they don’t seem to realize this will happen to them in the future once the other side controls these tools.

beowulfey 5y ago
As the post points out, there is more to life than Facebook. Some people don’t even have accounts for the service, if you can believe it.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  <raises hand> Never had an FB account and don't want one.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't have a facebook account either, yet I'm concerned about censorship on facebook, because facebook has enough users in my country to swing any election.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    I hope you're not suggesting that this ban was "censorship", because the user being reprimanded had clearly violated the TOS, which meant that Facebook has no legal obligation to provide them service.
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      From wikipedia[1]: > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        They weren't suppressing his content on the basis that it was "objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" though: they banned him because he posted something which explicitly violated EULA, which had clearly defined stipulations. Perhaps if he didn't read or understand those rules I'd understand where he's coming from, but his treatment is nothing atypical.
        samtheprogram 5y ago
        The part of the EULA he violated was for objectionable and harmful content. The rules were laid out ahead of time in the EULA, sure, but the point that this can be considered censorship remains.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content, and the radio station down the road is censoring your because they won't play your music. But you have a right to free speech, not a right to be heard. Censorship is a word that we use to describe the abuse of that limitation, and doing something that happens hundreds of times a day (banning users for violating the TOS) absolutely don't constitute as an abuse. Even using the most liberal possible definition of "censorship", it barely applies in this situation.
        amadeuspagel 5y ago
        > If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content. Yes, that's true. But for most platforms, like Hacker News, that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. > The radio station down the road is censoring you because they won't play your music. That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. (This limit on time also creates competition: Since one radio station can't play everything, there will always be many different radio stations, they same isn't true for social networks.)
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      The problem is the inconsistent application of the TOS. If every prominent person who violated the TOS was also banned there would be far less complaints by Trump and his supporters.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        Do you have an example of a prominent political figure who has violated the TOS without being reprimanded?
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        It is no where near as common on Facebook as say Twitter, but here is an example "Why do the people of conscience around the globe say "Death to America"? What do they mean? To the newly elected president of America, Donald J Trump, we say, dear Mr Trump, DEATH TO AMERICA!" - Ayatollah Khamenei https://m.facebook.com/khamenei.updates/videos/220542478377610 https://m.facebook.com/khamenei.updates/videos/2205424783776...
        smoldesu 5y ago
        A whole 16 likes on his latest post, too. Some "prominent political figure".
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        He is the Supreme Leader of Iran. That is quite prominent. He was far more active on Twitter than Facebook which is why there are not a lot of posts and likes.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        Well it's no wonder that none of the mods have seen it. Maybe try reporting it?
        5y ago
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I deleted my Facebook in July 2019, but what another user says is important: Facebook has enough users to swing an election if they want to. Displaying the message "Go vote!" to likely voters of X, while flooding the walls of likely voters of Y with ballast is going to do something. The question is if we want to tolerate this risk of targeted manipulation. As far as the old capability vs. intent pair goes, it is pretty certain that FB has the necessary capability. As far as intent goes, that can change on a moment's notice. It is also not just the USA we are speaking of. Facebook campaigns are huge in other democratic states. And they want to add their two cents to the conversation.
  - beowulfey 5y ago
    It kind of sounds like you are speaking in hypotheticals. If we were afraid for every possibility in life we would be crippled by fear all the time. How does your worst case scenario derive from this situation, where a user was banned for inciting violence (against the ToS of the platform)?
smoldesu 5y ago
There's no censorship here. A large account broke their contract with a service provider, who is now choosing to suspend (not terminate) their account in response. Seems like a perfectly free and legal exchange to me.
- trempisacent 5y ago
  It's still censorship. The point here is the risk of our social communications being concentrated via a few large companies, who have ended up with an enormous amount of power to control speech online globally.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Then don't use those companies. Problem solved. There's plenty of decentralized and federated platforms that are perfect for people worried about being censored, same as it ever was. If you're too ignorant to use those platforms, I'm not taking pity on you.
    - lostapathy 5y ago
      If I make a post somewhere that there’s, comparatively, a tiny fraction of the audience of the main platforms, is that really a valid alternative?
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        I'd argue it doesn't matter. If Taco Bell kicks you out of their store for breaking the rules, you can't sue them because the taco stand down the road isn't a "valid alternative". There were rules of engagement, and you broke them. Since you are the person who violated the contract, you're objectively the guilty party: the extent to which Facebook can punish you is only limited by how invested you are in the platform.
      - the_snooze 5y ago
        Why wouldn't it be a valid alternative? There's nothing stopping the audience from seeing your content off-platform if they so wish. Unless you want to make the claim that speakers are entitled to audiences, that is.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hash872 5y ago
Why is having Terms Of Use 'censorship'? Like, Facebook isn't allowed to have rules on their own private property- which Trump voluntarily agreed to, in exchange for being allowed to use that property for free? Is a bar allowed to kick an obnoxious drunk out, or is that 'censorship' too? I don't think that suspending private property rights is a particularly great idea for society. If we're suspending private property rights now, to copy your last sentence, everyone cheers but they don't seem to realize this will happen to their private property in the future once the other side controls these tools
- trempisacent 5y ago
  The extent to which people and organisations should be permitted private property 'rights' always needs to be weighed up against the public good, and this is no exception.
  - hash872 5y ago
    He was suspended for inciting a coup against a democratically elected government. Are coup attempts part of the public good?
    - slumdev 5y ago
      This is demonstrably false. There was no coup attempt, only a peaceful protest. The protestors were happy to remain outside. There's video evidence of Alex Jones using a megaphone to tell the protestors to walk around the building to the other side, specifically not to enter it. The protestors were allowed into the building by Capitol Police. The Capitol Police opened the doors for them and ushered them in, offering no resistance. There's video evidence of this as well. The only casualties were Ashli Babbitt, who was murdered by a still-unidentified member of Capitol staff, and those people who were assaulted by Capitol Police the following evening after the cameras were turned off.
      - matchbok 5y ago
        Wow, such delusion here. I guess broken doors and windows means peaceful now? Police officers getting stomped on? Pepper sprayed? Breaking glass and destroying offices? Do your research kid. I can only hope you are joking.
JustSomeNobody 5y ago
He still has a blog, so who cares about Facebook and what they do?
- joshstrange 5y ago
  He actually shut down the blog the other day (after less than 30 days of operation).
  - JustSomeNobody 5y ago
    Well, that's his problem, then.
NationalPark 5y ago
The "political left" has been targeted for censorship and disruption by the FBI and other government agencies for decades. Forgive me if I interpret this as concern trolling, I think there are bigger social issues to tackle than the nebulous and catastrophic fear that Facebook being allowed to ban people will lead to ??? dystopia.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  Right that doesn’t mean we should continue to censor and remove people from public discussion. My comment isn’t specific to Facebook, it’s directed at all the tech giants who usually “coincidentally” all ban the same person(like Alex Jones). This doesn’t lead to a good place and it’s odd to me that you would dismiss this so easily. Imagine AOC had been banned from FB and all social media platforms while she was running her first election, doubt she would have had the same result.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    AOC and other folks on the left aren't actively trawling for people to overthrow the US government or overturn elections.
    - koolba 5y ago
      > AOC and other folks on the left aren't actively trawling for people to overthrow the US government or overturn elections. The current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did exactly after the 2004 presidential election to reject certification of Bush's win: https://www.c-span.org/video/?185005-2/debate-ohio-electoral-vote-objection https://www.c-span.org/video/?185005-2/debate-ohio-electoral...
tshaddox 5y ago
Is there any real evidence to support the claim that members or views from one "side" are subjected to this treatment more than members of the other side? I'm skeptical, because my impression is that people who identify with both sides seem equally convinced that their side is primarily the victim of this kind of treatment.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Everyone tries to victimize each other because everyone latently hates big companies and technology, and political censorship is a good way to incense people who otherwise lack the ability to rationalize their hatred for technology, and desperately need ammo to fire at big corporations. In that sense, it's a very effective double-whammy that pretty much any social-media user has fallen victim to at some point. While Facebook and Twitter certainly aren't benevolent, I completely understand how their unpreparedness to deal with political figures would be misconstrued as censorship or suppression.
rvz 5y ago
> Everyone cheers it now but they don’t seem to realize this will happen to them in the future once the other side controls these tools. Somehow on Facebook or Twitter, censoring another user is always spun as 'an accident' or 'a mistake in the algorithm' or even simply 'an error'. Usually the political left cheer on how cancelling someone everywhere works, thinking that it would never happen to them will later find out that these companies will soon won't be on their side, or any side. Because they are always on the side of profit. The chickens on the left are cheering on the wolves eating the other chickens who disagreed with them.

beowulfey 5y ago

As the post points out, there is more to life than Facebook. Some people don’t even have accounts for the service, if you can believe it.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
<raises hand> Never had an FB account and don't want one.
amadeuspagel 5y ago
Yeah, I don't have a facebook account either, yet I'm concerned about censorship on facebook, because facebook has enough users in my country to swing any election.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I hope you're not suggesting that this ban was "censorship", because the user being reprimanded had clearly violated the TOS, which meant that Facebook has no legal obligation to provide them service.
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    From wikipedia[1]: > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      They weren't suppressing his content on the basis that it was "objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" though: they banned him because he posted something which explicitly violated EULA, which had clearly defined stipulations. Perhaps if he didn't read or understand those rules I'd understand where he's coming from, but his treatment is nothing atypical.
      - samtheprogram 5y ago
        The part of the EULA he violated was for objectionable and harmful content. The rules were laid out ahead of time in the EULA, sure, but the point that this can be considered censorship remains.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content, and the radio station down the road is censoring your because they won't play your music. But you have a right to free speech, not a right to be heard. Censorship is a word that we use to describe the abuse of that limitation, and doing something that happens hundreds of times a day (banning users for violating the TOS) absolutely don't constitute as an abuse. Even using the most liberal possible definition of "censorship", it barely applies in this situation.
        amadeuspagel 5y ago
        > If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content. Yes, that's true. But for most platforms, like Hacker News, that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. > The radio station down the road is censoring you because they won't play your music. That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. (This limit on time also creates competition: Since one radio station can't play everything, there will always be many different radio stations, they same isn't true for social networks.)
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    The problem is the inconsistent application of the TOS. If every prominent person who violated the TOS was also banned there would be far less complaints by Trump and his supporters.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Do you have an example of a prominent political figure who has violated the TOS without being reprimanded?
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        It is no where near as common on Facebook as say Twitter, but here is an example "Why do the people of conscience around the globe say "Death to America"? What do they mean? To the newly elected president of America, Donald J Trump, we say, dear Mr Trump, DEATH TO AMERICA!" - Ayatollah Khamenei https://m.facebook.com/khamenei.updates/videos/220542478377610 https://m.facebook.com/khamenei.updates/videos/2205424783776...
        smoldesu 5y ago
        A whole 16 likes on his latest post, too. Some "prominent political figure".
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        He is the Supreme Leader of Iran. That is quite prominent. He was far more active on Twitter than Facebook which is why there are not a lot of posts and likes.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        Well it's no wonder that none of the mods have seen it. Maybe try reporting it?
        5y ago
inglor_cz 5y ago
I deleted my Facebook in July 2019, but what another user says is important: Facebook has enough users to swing an election if they want to. Displaying the message "Go vote!" to likely voters of X, while flooding the walls of likely voters of Y with ballast is going to do something. The question is if we want to tolerate this risk of targeted manipulation. As far as the old capability vs. intent pair goes, it is pretty certain that FB has the necessary capability. As far as intent goes, that can change on a moment's notice. It is also not just the USA we are speaking of. Facebook campaigns are huge in other democratic states. And they want to add their two cents to the conversation.
- beowulfey 5y ago
  It kind of sounds like you are speaking in hypotheticals. If we were afraid for every possibility in life we would be crippled by fear all the time. How does your worst case scenario derive from this situation, where a user was banned for inciting violence (against the ToS of the platform)?

smoldesu 5y ago

There's no censorship here. A large account broke their contract with a service provider, who is now choosing to suspend (not terminate) their account in response. Seems like a perfectly free and legal exchange to me.

trempisacent 5y ago
It's still censorship. The point here is the risk of our social communications being concentrated via a few large companies, who have ended up with an enormous amount of power to control speech online globally.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Then don't use those companies. Problem solved. There's plenty of decentralized and federated platforms that are perfect for people worried about being censored, same as it ever was. If you're too ignorant to use those platforms, I'm not taking pity on you.
  - lostapathy 5y ago
    If I make a post somewhere that there’s, comparatively, a tiny fraction of the audience of the main platforms, is that really a valid alternative?
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      I'd argue it doesn't matter. If Taco Bell kicks you out of their store for breaking the rules, you can't sue them because the taco stand down the road isn't a "valid alternative". There were rules of engagement, and you broke them. Since you are the person who violated the contract, you're objectively the guilty party: the extent to which Facebook can punish you is only limited by how invested you are in the platform.
    - the_snooze 5y ago
      Why wouldn't it be a valid alternative? There's nothing stopping the audience from seeing your content off-platform if they so wish. Unless you want to make the claim that speakers are entitled to audiences, that is.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hash872 5y ago

Why is having Terms Of Use 'censorship'? Like, Facebook isn't allowed to have rules on their own private property- which Trump voluntarily agreed to, in exchange for being allowed to use that property for free? Is a bar allowed to kick an obnoxious drunk out, or is that 'censorship' too? I don't think that suspending private property rights is a particularly great idea for society. If we're suspending private property rights now, to copy your last sentence, everyone cheers but they don't seem to realize this will happen to their private property in the future once the other side controls these tools

trempisacent 5y ago
The extent to which people and organisations should be permitted private property 'rights' always needs to be weighed up against the public good, and this is no exception.
- hash872 5y ago
  He was suspended for inciting a coup against a democratically elected government. Are coup attempts part of the public good?
  - slumdev 5y ago
    This is demonstrably false. There was no coup attempt, only a peaceful protest. The protestors were happy to remain outside. There's video evidence of Alex Jones using a megaphone to tell the protestors to walk around the building to the other side, specifically not to enter it. The protestors were allowed into the building by Capitol Police. The Capitol Police opened the doors for them and ushered them in, offering no resistance. There's video evidence of this as well. The only casualties were Ashli Babbitt, who was murdered by a still-unidentified member of Capitol staff, and those people who were assaulted by Capitol Police the following evening after the cameras were turned off.
    - matchbok 5y ago
      Wow, such delusion here. I guess broken doors and windows means peaceful now? Police officers getting stomped on? Pepper sprayed? Breaking glass and destroying offices? Do your research kid. I can only hope you are joking.

JustSomeNobody 5y ago

He still has a blog, so who cares about Facebook and what they do?

joshstrange 5y ago
He actually shut down the blog the other day (after less than 30 days of operation).
- JustSomeNobody 5y ago
  Well, that's his problem, then.

NationalPark 5y ago

The "political left" has been targeted for censorship and disruption by the FBI and other government agencies for decades. Forgive me if I interpret this as concern trolling, I think there are bigger social issues to tackle than the nebulous and catastrophic fear that Facebook being allowed to ban people will lead to ??? dystopia.

kaczordon 5y ago
Right that doesn’t mean we should continue to censor and remove people from public discussion. My comment isn’t specific to Facebook, it’s directed at all the tech giants who usually “coincidentally” all ban the same person(like Alex Jones). This doesn’t lead to a good place and it’s odd to me that you would dismiss this so easily. Imagine AOC had been banned from FB and all social media platforms while she was running her first election, doubt she would have had the same result.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  AOC and other folks on the left aren't actively trawling for people to overthrow the US government or overturn elections.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > AOC and other folks on the left aren't actively trawling for people to overthrow the US government or overturn elections. The current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did exactly after the 2004 presidential election to reject certification of Bush's win: https://www.c-span.org/video/?185005-2/debate-ohio-electoral-vote-objection https://www.c-span.org/video/?185005-2/debate-ohio-electoral...

tshaddox 5y ago

Is there any real evidence to support the claim that members or views from one "side" are subjected to this treatment more than members of the other side? I'm skeptical, because my impression is that people who identify with both sides seem equally convinced that their side is primarily the victim of this kind of treatment.

smoldesu 5y ago
Everyone tries to victimize each other because everyone latently hates big companies and technology, and political censorship is a good way to incense people who otherwise lack the ability to rationalize their hatred for technology, and desperately need ammo to fire at big corporations. In that sense, it's a very effective double-whammy that pretty much any social-media user has fallen victim to at some point. While Facebook and Twitter certainly aren't benevolent, I completely understand how their unpreparedness to deal with political figures would be misconstrued as censorship or suppression.

rvz 5y ago

> Everyone cheers it now but they don’t seem to realize this will happen to them in the future once the other side controls these tools. Somehow on Facebook or Twitter, censoring another user is always spun as 'an accident' or 'a mistake in the algorithm' or even simply 'an error'. Usually the political left cheer on how cancelling someone everywhere works, thinking that it would never happen to them will later find out that these companies will soon won't be on their side, or any side. Because they are always on the side of profit. The chickens on the left are cheering on the wolves eating the other chickens who disagreed with them.