5 ms·

"Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocen

"Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
I cannot agree that there is a principle of free speech, even if it's for truth. A store owner may be unhappy when some guy stands right at the entrance telling everyone that the same stuff is available cheaper across the street. While it may be a complete truth, I find it very hard to blame the store owner for kicking that guy out. Facebook is not a store though. It's essentially a communication monopoly - akin to a utility company, which legally has a "duty to serve". While in theory there are alternatives to, say, electric public service - from building your own electrical company to using wax candles, in practice it has been recognized by courts [1] that access to electricity, water and phone is a basic necessity in a modern society. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016
- busymom0 5y ago
  I think by "principle of free speech", it's referring to the "I disagree with what you are saying or believe in but I will defend your right to say it until I die". Any corporation which has more than 1 million users who operate user-generated content in the country should be a common carrier similar to the telecom industry or railroads.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Facebook is not a communication monopoly. I haven’t used it in a decade and have no trouble communicating. It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. I can’t stand Facebook but I’ll defend their right to keep (their definition of) crap off their site. Just like HN is free to moderate crap off their site.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. So you are agreeing that they are publishers and not platforms? Yet they continue to get away with claiming immunity for "being a platform". Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too? Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC etc? How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right? How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons? > Facebook is not a communication monopoly They are openly coordinating with other tech companies and even the state government of California. Over 50% of the population's viewpoints are being censored/throttled. Zuckerberg was coordinating with government employee Fauci to censor the lab leak and other news. When exactly does someone become a monopoly in your book?
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      They are pretty clearly acting as a publisher, as they exercise editorial control over what user content they choose to publish. They are not like a telephone, which just passes everything through regardless of content. Under American law, a business has the right to refuse service to customers, but you can't discriminate against customers based on certain clearly enumerated factors such as race, religion, sex or national origin. Facebook is not a public utility and has no duty to serve. They are also not a communication monopoly, because they are not the only way you can communicate online. You are free to use E-mail, telephone, and many other messaging systems that do not moderate content. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment (Rosa Parks, EPA and lockdowns) has to do with Facebook's business.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

I cannot agree that there is a principle of free speech, even if it's for truth. A store owner may be unhappy when some guy stands right at the entrance telling everyone that the same stuff is available cheaper across the street. While it may be a complete truth, I find it very hard to blame the store owner for kicking that guy out. Facebook is not a store though. It's essentially a communication monopoly - akin to a utility company, which legally has a "duty to serve". While in theory there are alternatives to, say, electric public service - from building your own electrical company to using wax candles, in practice it has been recognized by courts [1] that access to electricity, water and phone is a basic necessity in a modern society. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016

busymom0 5y ago
I think by "principle of free speech", it's referring to the "I disagree with what you are saying or believe in but I will defend your right to say it until I die". Any corporation which has more than 1 million users who operate user-generated content in the country should be a common carrier similar to the telecom industry or railroads.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 5y ago
Facebook is not a communication monopoly. I haven’t used it in a decade and have no trouble communicating. It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. I can’t stand Facebook but I’ll defend their right to keep (their definition of) crap off their site. Just like HN is free to moderate crap off their site.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. So you are agreeing that they are publishers and not platforms? Yet they continue to get away with claiming immunity for "being a platform". Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too? Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC etc? How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right? How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons? > Facebook is not a communication monopoly They are openly coordinating with other tech companies and even the state government of California. Over 50% of the population's viewpoints are being censored/throttled. Zuckerberg was coordinating with government employee Fauci to censor the lab leak and other news. When exactly does someone become a monopoly in your book?
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    They are pretty clearly acting as a publisher, as they exercise editorial control over what user content they choose to publish. They are not like a telephone, which just passes everything through regardless of content. Under American law, a business has the right to refuse service to customers, but you can't discriminate against customers based on certain clearly enumerated factors such as race, religion, sex or national origin. Facebook is not a public utility and has no duty to serve. They are also not a communication monopoly, because they are not the only way you can communicate online. You are free to use E-mail, telephone, and many other messaging systems that do not moderate content. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment (Rosa Parks, EPA and lockdowns) has to do with Facebook's business.