4 ms·

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 tellin

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.
    - busymom0 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. Funny enough, FB used the exact opposite excuse to get away with anything they get sued for. Section 230 was supposed to only apply for platforms, not publishers. Publishers like NYTimes can be sued for knowingly publishing false libellous content. But you can't sue FB for the same because they claim to be a platform while acting as publishers. Currently they are "having their cake and eating it too". > I'm not sure what the rest of your comment (Rosa Parks, EPA and lockdowns) has to do with Facebook's business. It has to do with how your logic was used by people in the past to discriminate based on race. The "it's a private company" crowd forget that at one point, segregation, Jim Crow, slavery etc were all allowed. We had to write laws to prevent that from happening. Same needs to be done with any company which has more than a million user generated content users. > They are also not a communication monopoly, because they are not the only way you can communicate online. I have already addressed this in my original comment but you are cherry picking and ignoring it.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        This is a far-too-common complete misunderstanding of the law. Section 230 says that web sites are not liable for user generated content. If facebook published a blog post, authored by facebook, you could sue them for that. But you can't sue them for a comment made my another user, much as you couldn't sue the NYT for a comment someone left on their website. Note that in both contexts, the NYT and Facebook are both acting as publishers, but are still not liable for the user generated content. One can choose to moderate content, and still retain section 230 protections, in fact that's the entire point of 230, to encourage sites to moderate content without increasing their liability. The legal context, original authors, and judicial history all support that interpretation. > We had to write laws to prevent that from happening. Well, you're simplifying a bit here. Jim crow, slavery, etc. were all legally mandated. But you're correct that when the forms of mandated discrimination were no longer mandated, many were also made illegal.

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.
  - busymom0 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. Funny enough, FB used the exact opposite excuse to get away with anything they get sued for. Section 230 was supposed to only apply for platforms, not publishers. Publishers like NYTimes can be sued for knowingly publishing false libellous content. But you can't sue FB for the same because they claim to be a platform while acting as publishers. Currently they are "having their cake and eating it too". > I'm not sure what the rest of your comment (Rosa Parks, EPA and lockdowns) has to do with Facebook's business. It has to do with how your logic was used by people in the past to discriminate based on race. The "it's a private company" crowd forget that at one point, segregation, Jim Crow, slavery etc were all allowed. We had to write laws to prevent that from happening. Same needs to be done with any company which has more than a million user generated content users. > They are also not a communication monopoly, because they are not the only way you can communicate online. I have already addressed this in my original comment but you are cherry picking and ignoring it.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      This is a far-too-common complete misunderstanding of the law. Section 230 says that web sites are not liable for user generated content. If facebook published a blog post, authored by facebook, you could sue them for that. But you can't sue them for a comment made my another user, much as you couldn't sue the NYT for a comment someone left on their website. Note that in both contexts, the NYT and Facebook are both acting as publishers, but are still not liable for the user generated content. One can choose to moderate content, and still retain section 230 protections, in fact that's the entire point of 230, to encourage sites to moderate content without increasing their liability. The legal context, original authors, and judicial history all support that interpretation. > We had to write laws to prevent that from happening. Well, you're simplifying a bit here. Jim crow, slavery, etc. were all legally mandated. But you're correct that when the forms of mandated discrimination were no longer mandated, many were also made illegal.