10 ms·

> Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities? Facebook should be forced to show me the

> Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities? Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether I find something nasty, and I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian.

Nursie 5y ago
You seem to want some sort of aggregator ... ? I'm not sure facebook's the best model to start with there. I think you'd be happier with a third-party service that could receive from FB, and then we wouldn't get into forcing facebook to carry stuff.
- PontifexMinimus 5y ago
  I don't want to force FB to do anything. I want to require all social media companies to allow aggregation (though ActivityPub etc) but if Zuckerberg/Facebook decide they don't want to be in that industry, I would have no problem with them simply closing down.
justbored123 5y ago
So, you are in favor of things like pedophilia/child grooming online, revenge porn, defamation, false advertisement, fraud, etc. because YOUR moral may approve of it regardless of laws or harm to others. Got it. The idea of no-regulation free for all is childish/sick nonsense. If you want to have your own nazi-phedo site/feed, host it yourself and face the cost and consequences yourself, don't force private for profit companies to do it for you for free at the expense of their brand and their advertisers.
- djrogers 5y ago
  There’s a huge gap between ‘legal but morally unacceptable to some’ and ‘blatantly illegal’. Making an argument against the latter while ignoring that the discussion is largely about the former is the very definition of a straw man.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  Characterising people who want free speech as the criminals who will use that speech for the worst ends is no different to people who opposed a fair trial for all because criminals would want a chance to avoid jail.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Will somebody please think of the children?
root_axis 5y ago
> I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian This is a very common characterization that I find frustratingly absurd. Zuckeberg is not "an arbiter of morality" in any respect, the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality.
- PontifexMinimus 5y ago
  If FB are blocking things that they deem bad, then they are clearly setting themselves up as arbiters of morality, even if they say they aren't.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    Facebook has opinions about the type of content they'd prefer not to facilitate on the Facebook platform, that doesn't make them "arbiters of morality", it just makes them curators of their product identity.
    - totony 5y ago
      It's not one or the other, they can both care about their product identity, but by the same stroke arbitrate morality by doing so. (Product identity takes popular morality as an input).
      - 8note 5y ago
        By that definition, they're no more the arbitrator of morality than anyone else is by doing this
        totony 5y ago
        What do you mean? Not anyone has the power they do
        joshuamorton 5y ago
clucas 5y ago
I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly. How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. This seems entirely antithetical to the idea of the first amendment. Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to? EDIT: Just saw in your profile that you might not be from the USA - feel free to substitute "the idea of free speech in modern liberal democracies" for "the idea of the first amendment" as needed. :)
- stale2002 5y ago
  > How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government That department of censorship will exist no matter what. Internally, it is called the trust and safety department, at most big companies. The only question is do you want to have the decisions of that department to be limited by judges and rights that are laid out in the constitution, or do you want it to be an unaccountable free for all, where they can do whatever they want? > Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to? Well, phone companies are currently forced to allow most people on their network. We could do it the same way, that phone companies are required to do so.
  - teeray 5y ago
    > The only question is do you want… or do you want… Therein the problem lies. Users have no choice over which moderation policies their feeds are curated by at all. I should be able to choose moderation that I deem acceptable. To continue your analogy to telcos, this is akin to robocall blocking services which are a user decision and often tell you when blocking occurs.
  - clucas 5y ago
    > rights that are laid out in the constitution Just to be clear, under US law, what you are describing (creating a government censorship department that determines how social media companies are allowed to moderate) would have NOTHING to do with the rights laid out in the constitution - it would in fact need to overcome the companies' constitutional rights to publish whatever they wish, just to exist. You can argue that it's a good idea anyway, but claiming that government-mandated moderation is somehow enforcing constitutional rights is way, way off base.
SantalBlush 5y ago
>Facebook should be forced I would consider this sentiment more absurd and dystopian than Facebook freely removing content from its own website.
- lmm 5y ago
  Why? Facebook is not a person, it should exist solely at our discretion. "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people" applies even more strongly to corporations than to governments.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    Corporations are just citizens cooperating in a venture. That shouldn't result in them losing rights simply because they are incorporated. The law should be applied to relevant details of a situation, not something arbitrary like incorporation unless the issue is specific to the details of incorporation.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > Corporations are just citizens cooperating in a venture. No they're not. They come with an extraordinary privilege of limited liability, which is meant to be paired with a corresponding responsibility to create a social benefit.
      - Nevermark 5y ago
        You are right. On a different tack, if governments legislate some kinds of moderation for corporations, then the corporations would become an extension of the government and that would become government censorship in practice. Not good. If governments legislate no moderation for corporations, then corporations would lose the ability to encourage different kinds of communication with moderation. I don't see either case as healthy for freedom, capitalism, or individuals in the end. Legislating that moderation rules must be made public, and moderation actions logged so the public could review a corporations compliance with its own chosen rules, seems reasonable to me. It would avoid deceptive moderation, which to me is a problem similar to other kinds of fraud that are outlawed.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. What about constantly manipulating you to become aligned to the more extreme versions of your ideals, so you will subscribe to more extreme feeds?

Nursie 5y ago

You seem to want some sort of aggregator ... ? I'm not sure facebook's the best model to start with there. I think you'd be happier with a third-party service that could receive from FB, and then we wouldn't get into forcing facebook to carry stuff.

PontifexMinimus 5y ago
I don't want to force FB to do anything. I want to require all social media companies to allow aggregation (though ActivityPub etc) but if Zuckerberg/Facebook decide they don't want to be in that industry, I would have no problem with them simply closing down.

justbored123 5y ago

So, you are in favor of things like pedophilia/child grooming online, revenge porn, defamation, false advertisement, fraud, etc. because YOUR moral may approve of it regardless of laws or harm to others. Got it. The idea of no-regulation free for all is childish/sick nonsense. If you want to have your own nazi-phedo site/feed, host it yourself and face the cost and consequences yourself, don't force private for profit companies to do it for you for free at the expense of their brand and their advertisers.

djrogers 5y ago
There’s a huge gap between ‘legal but morally unacceptable to some’ and ‘blatantly illegal’. Making an argument against the latter while ignoring that the discussion is largely about the former is the very definition of a straw man.
robertlagrant 5y ago
Characterising people who want free speech as the criminals who will use that speech for the worst ends is no different to people who opposed a fair trial for all because criminals would want a chance to avoid jail.
int_19h 5y ago
Will somebody please think of the children?

root_axis 5y ago

> I find the idea of Zuckerberg as an arbiter of morality both absurd and dystopian This is a very common characterization that I find frustratingly absurd. Zuckeberg is not "an arbiter of morality" in any respect, the contents of Facebook is a corporate business decision, not a reflection on morality.

PontifexMinimus 5y ago
If FB are blocking things that they deem bad, then they are clearly setting themselves up as arbiters of morality, even if they say they aren't.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Facebook has opinions about the type of content they'd prefer not to facilitate on the Facebook platform, that doesn't make them "arbiters of morality", it just makes them curators of their product identity.
  - totony 5y ago
    It's not one or the other, they can both care about their product identity, but by the same stroke arbitrate morality by doing so. (Product identity takes popular morality as an input).
    - 8note 5y ago
      By that definition, they're no more the arbitrator of morality than anyone else is by doing this
      - totony 5y ago
        What do you mean? Not anyone has the power they do
        joshuamorton 5y ago

clucas 5y ago

I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly. How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. This seems entirely antithetical to the idea of the first amendment. Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to? EDIT: Just saw in your profile that you might not be from the USA - feel free to substitute "the idea of free speech in modern liberal democracies" for "the idea of the first amendment" as needed. :)

stale2002 5y ago
> How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government That department of censorship will exist no matter what. Internally, it is called the trust and safety department, at most big companies. The only question is do you want to have the decisions of that department to be limited by judges and rights that are laid out in the constitution, or do you want it to be an unaccountable free for all, where they can do whatever they want? > Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to? Well, phone companies are currently forced to allow most people on their network. We could do it the same way, that phone companies are required to do so.
- teeray 5y ago
  > The only question is do you want… or do you want… Therein the problem lies. Users have no choice over which moderation policies their feeds are curated by at all. I should be able to choose moderation that I deem acceptable. To continue your analogy to telcos, this is akin to robocall blocking services which are a user decision and often tell you when blocking occurs.
- clucas 5y ago
  > rights that are laid out in the constitution Just to be clear, under US law, what you are describing (creating a government censorship department that determines how social media companies are allowed to moderate) would have NOTHING to do with the rights laid out in the constitution - it would in fact need to overcome the companies' constitutional rights to publish whatever they wish, just to exist. You can argue that it's a good idea anyway, but claiming that government-mandated moderation is somehow enforcing constitutional rights is way, way off base.

SantalBlush 5y ago

>Facebook should be forced I would consider this sentiment more absurd and dystopian than Facebook freely removing content from its own website.

lmm 5y ago
Why? Facebook is not a person, it should exist solely at our discretion. "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people" applies even more strongly to corporations than to governments.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Corporations are just citizens cooperating in a venture. That shouldn't result in them losing rights simply because they are incorporated. The law should be applied to relevant details of a situation, not something arbitrary like incorporation unless the issue is specific to the details of incorporation.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > Corporations are just citizens cooperating in a venture. No they're not. They come with an extraordinary privilege of limited liability, which is meant to be paired with a corresponding responsibility to create a social benefit.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      You are right. On a different tack, if governments legislate some kinds of moderation for corporations, then the corporations would become an extension of the government and that would become government censorship in practice. Not good. If governments legislate no moderation for corporations, then corporations would lose the ability to encourage different kinds of communication with moderation. I don't see either case as healthy for freedom, capitalism, or individuals in the end. Legislating that moderation rules must be made public, and moderation actions logged so the public could review a corporations compliance with its own chosen rules, seems reasonable to me. It would avoid deceptive moderation, which to me is a problem similar to other kinds of fraud that are outlawed.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>Facebook should be forced to show me the feeds I choose to subscribe to. What about constantly manipulating you to become aligned to the more extreme versions of your ideals, so you will subscribe to more extreme feeds?