7 ms·

HN users continuing to conflate "Private company doing private company things" with "rights" and "censorship". Private companies have always banned/blocked pro

HN users continuing to conflate "Private company doing private company things" with "rights" and "censorship". Private companies have always banned/blocked problematic users. That's not censorship.

myfavoritedog 5y ago
The issues are conflated because the existing legal framework never accounted for what we have today. It's confusing; and unteasing the concerns to find the primary core principles that should be supported isn't easy. The existing CDA protections that are relied upon by social media giants was originally intended to allow content hosting platforms to manage issues that most everyone agreed upon, like "Content hoster should be allowed to remove explicit porn from their public interest bulletin board" They never realized that social media giants would one day use their content moderation to bend large-scale public opinion to their will on day-to-day political and public health issues. In addition to the overreach of the CDA safe harbor provision are issues of public accommodation, monopoly control of free speech, and in-kind political donations to candidates and parties that bypass existing election finance restrictions.
jlkuester7 5y ago
Agreed. This is not a "free speech" problem that is covered by the First Amendment or anything like that. That being said, I think it is fair to raise some questions when inyalowda decide to enforce their policies in a seemly arbitrary fashion. Trump is toxic and his presence on social media did nothing to raise the intellectual bar of public discourse. But, he is far from the only world leader to share self-serving, destrucive, and misleading propaganda online. Users should demand clear policies and fair universal enforcement from FB.
ENOTTY 5y ago
I'm pretty onboard, but uneasy, with the framing that private entities should have broad discretion to decide how to govern the use of their spaces. But Facebook (and Google, Apple, and many other "platforms") are such an indispensable part of our lives that we should have difficult conversations about what individual rights look like in these quasi-public private spaces. (It's worth noting that the explicit business model of many of these companies is to create gigantic platforms/walled gardens.) I personally do not believe that many of the norms and common law relating to physical public/private spaces should be transferred to the modern age of digital oligopoly.
- hash872 5y ago
  Respectfully, I just can't understand what the exact argument is here. Are you and others saying that- because Facebook is huge & used by many Americans, it can't have rules of behavior on the site? 'Facebook is very popular, thus it's not allowed to moderate content'- try saying it out loud to yourself. Is that what you're saying? Asking in a non-snarky/good faith way- like what is the actual argument? If you accept that Facebook, like every platform in Internet history has content moderation rules- then Trump violated them, hence his suspension. Here's my logic chain, I'm open to a critique: 1. Facebook has content moderation rules 2. Trump violated them by inciting a riot or insurrection 3. The penalty for said violation is a suspension Where is the problem in the chain? That Facebook isn't allowed to moderate content, that inciting a riot isn't punishment-worthy (??), that the punishment is too harsh.... Where is the exact issue?
  - brandmeyer 5y ago
    The problem in the chain is that conservatives don't think he was inciting a riot and/or that it wasn't a riot and/or that it wasn't composed of his supporters, and/or that it was justified to enforce democracy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-disinformation/half-of-republicans-believe-false-accounts-of-deadly-u-s-capitol-riot-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN2BS0RZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-disinformati... Therefore, Facebook is just exerting their market power to push a partisan narrative.
    - slumdev 5y ago
      That article is a litany of false talking points that leftists repeat as dogma. Case in point: > known white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys The Proud Boys were headed by a man named Enrique Tarrio [0]. Enrique Tarrio is of Afro-Cuban descent [1]. How many white supremacist organizations are headed by people of Afro-Cuban descent? And before you suggest that he's a token figurehead, how likely do you think it is that an actual white supremacist would join an organization led by a man of Afro-Cuban descent? Do you think that leader would attract many actual white supremacists? Aren't there plenty of other white supremacist groups led by white men? No, it's simply not believable. The claim fails. Reuters is willingly participating in a disinformation campaign. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio
wdr1 5y ago
It's not your definition of censorship. There are many definitions of censorship. Government censorship is not the only valid version. To wit, Wikipedia even states "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies"
- EqScr9a3 5y ago
  I would say that it's not about whether the actor is a government or not but about whether the action is coercive or not. If a private individual personally threatens to physically harm someone for their speech, she is engaging in censorship just as much as if she was a legislator passing a bill to that same effect. If a government school refuse to teach a certain fact, it's not engaging in censorship any more than a private individual who refuse to teach the same fact. Not communicating a piece of information and not helping others in communicating a piece of information is not censorship. Censorship is preventing others from communicating a piece of information by force. Facebook is not doing that, they have just decided not to help communicate some information. Another example would be that you would not be censoring me if you removed a political bumper sticker I placed on your car, even if you leave other bumper stickers placed there by other people in place.
the_third_wave 5y ago
That is why these companies should be treated as just that, private companies. This means that section 230 of the CDA needs to be repealed and that they become liable for what their users submit. They will probably react by censoring even more, making their services even less palatable to more and more people. With a bit of luck that will give the decentralised 'net the push it needs to take the lead.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  Getting rid of that protection would also get rid of the protection that ISPs have, which allows them to serve up internet service without having to moderate everything. Same for hosting companies and for forums like hn. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    Section 230 can be replaced by something which does not allow the abuse which 230 makes possible. The replacement should explicitly disallow censorship, it should only allow the removal of content when ordered to do so by a court. As long as an ISP or hosting provider abides by these court orders they should be protected under the replacement-for-section-230 provisions. An alternative process would resemble the one used in the DMCA but this can only be implemented if there are true penalties on abuse, otherwise there will be a deluge of takedown requests on ideological grounds.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Watch how fast every comment section and social media site devolves into a 4 chan lookalike if you stop all censoring.
      - the_third_wave 5y ago
        Not really, the commercial 'net had been humming along without overly blatant censorship on ideological grounds for about 15 years before this became an issue. Forums and social media platforms can be moderated without taking an ideological stance by making sure the moderators are as ideologically diverse as the potential user base.

HN users continuing to conflate "Private company doing private company things" with "rights" and "censorship". Private companies have always banned/blocked problematic users. That's not censorship.

myfavoritedog 5y ago

The issues are conflated because the existing legal framework never accounted for what we have today. It's confusing; and unteasing the concerns to find the primary core principles that should be supported isn't easy. The existing CDA protections that are relied upon by social media giants was originally intended to allow content hosting platforms to manage issues that most everyone agreed upon, like "Content hoster should be allowed to remove explicit porn from their public interest bulletin board" They never realized that social media giants would one day use their content moderation to bend large-scale public opinion to their will on day-to-day political and public health issues. In addition to the overreach of the CDA safe harbor provision are issues of public accommodation, monopoly control of free speech, and in-kind political donations to candidates and parties that bypass existing election finance restrictions.

jlkuester7 5y ago

Agreed. This is not a "free speech" problem that is covered by the First Amendment or anything like that. That being said, I think it is fair to raise some questions when inyalowda decide to enforce their policies in a seemly arbitrary fashion. Trump is toxic and his presence on social media did nothing to raise the intellectual bar of public discourse. But, he is far from the only world leader to share self-serving, destrucive, and misleading propaganda online. Users should demand clear policies and fair universal enforcement from FB.

ENOTTY 5y ago

I'm pretty onboard, but uneasy, with the framing that private entities should have broad discretion to decide how to govern the use of their spaces. But Facebook (and Google, Apple, and many other "platforms") are such an indispensable part of our lives that we should have difficult conversations about what individual rights look like in these quasi-public private spaces. (It's worth noting that the explicit business model of many of these companies is to create gigantic platforms/walled gardens.) I personally do not believe that many of the norms and common law relating to physical public/private spaces should be transferred to the modern age of digital oligopoly.

hash872 5y ago
Respectfully, I just can't understand what the exact argument is here. Are you and others saying that- because Facebook is huge & used by many Americans, it can't have rules of behavior on the site? 'Facebook is very popular, thus it's not allowed to moderate content'- try saying it out loud to yourself. Is that what you're saying? Asking in a non-snarky/good faith way- like what is the actual argument? If you accept that Facebook, like every platform in Internet history has content moderation rules- then Trump violated them, hence his suspension. Here's my logic chain, I'm open to a critique: 1. Facebook has content moderation rules 2. Trump violated them by inciting a riot or insurrection 3. The penalty for said violation is a suspension Where is the problem in the chain? That Facebook isn't allowed to moderate content, that inciting a riot isn't punishment-worthy (??), that the punishment is too harsh.... Where is the exact issue?
- brandmeyer 5y ago
  The problem in the chain is that conservatives don't think he was inciting a riot and/or that it wasn't a riot and/or that it wasn't composed of his supporters, and/or that it was justified to enforce democracy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-disinformation/half-of-republicans-believe-false-accounts-of-deadly-u-s-capitol-riot-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN2BS0RZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-disinformati... Therefore, Facebook is just exerting their market power to push a partisan narrative.
  - slumdev 5y ago
    That article is a litany of false talking points that leftists repeat as dogma. Case in point: > known white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys The Proud Boys were headed by a man named Enrique Tarrio [0]. Enrique Tarrio is of Afro-Cuban descent [1]. How many white supremacist organizations are headed by people of Afro-Cuban descent? And before you suggest that he's a token figurehead, how likely do you think it is that an actual white supremacist would join an organization led by a man of Afro-Cuban descent? Do you think that leader would attract many actual white supremacists? Aren't there plenty of other white supremacist groups led by white men? No, it's simply not believable. The claim fails. Reuters is willingly participating in a disinformation campaign. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio

wdr1 5y ago

It's not your definition of censorship. There are many definitions of censorship. Government censorship is not the only valid version. To wit, Wikipedia even states "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies"

EqScr9a3 5y ago
I would say that it's not about whether the actor is a government or not but about whether the action is coercive or not. If a private individual personally threatens to physically harm someone for their speech, she is engaging in censorship just as much as if she was a legislator passing a bill to that same effect. If a government school refuse to teach a certain fact, it's not engaging in censorship any more than a private individual who refuse to teach the same fact. Not communicating a piece of information and not helping others in communicating a piece of information is not censorship. Censorship is preventing others from communicating a piece of information by force. Facebook is not doing that, they have just decided not to help communicate some information. Another example would be that you would not be censoring me if you removed a political bumper sticker I placed on your car, even if you leave other bumper stickers placed there by other people in place.

the_third_wave 5y ago

That is why these companies should be treated as just that, private companies. This means that section 230 of the CDA needs to be repealed and that they become liable for what their users submit. They will probably react by censoring even more, making their services even less palatable to more and more people. With a bit of luck that will give the decentralised 'net the push it needs to take the lead.

jjeaff 5y ago
Getting rid of that protection would also get rid of the protection that ISPs have, which allows them to serve up internet service without having to moderate everything. Same for hosting companies and for forums like hn. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  Section 230 can be replaced by something which does not allow the abuse which 230 makes possible. The replacement should explicitly disallow censorship, it should only allow the removal of content when ordered to do so by a court. As long as an ISP or hosting provider abides by these court orders they should be protected under the replacement-for-section-230 provisions. An alternative process would resemble the one used in the DMCA but this can only be implemented if there are true penalties on abuse, otherwise there will be a deluge of takedown requests on ideological grounds.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Watch how fast every comment section and social media site devolves into a 4 chan lookalike if you stop all censoring.
    - the_third_wave 5y ago
      Not really, the commercial 'net had been humming along without overly blatant censorship on ideological grounds for about 15 years before this became an issue. Forums and social media platforms can be moderated without taking an ideological stance by making sure the moderators are as ideologically diverse as the potential user base.