4 ms·

Seems like a catch 22 for Facebook - if they don't remove the material they get criticized for facilitating hate speech, if they do remove they get criticized f

by vivekd 5y ago

Seems like a catch 22 for Facebook - if they don't remove the material they get criticized for facilitating hate speech, if they do remove they get criticized for censorship, acting arbitarily and not providing adequate reasons. I'm not sure what they're supposed to do in this situatuion.

newsyyswen 5y ago
It is a problem of their own making. If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting? Would you say it is a catch-22 for a factory if a government ordered them to stop production or stop polluting nearby waterways with their toxic runoff? Perhaps for the factory, but the nearby communities would say it's a clear-cut case.
- joejerryronnie 5y ago
  My telecom company is not responsible for moderating all speech that occurs over their cellular service. How is this different from FB?
  - newsyyswen 5y ago
    Your telecom actually is responsible for moderating your usage - try consistently pirating media without a good blocklist in the US and see how long you keep your service. Most providers will cut you off after a half-dozen or so nastygrams, and that's just for the light offense of copyright infringement. Your telecom also uses tax money to fund its infrastructure deployments, and it is regulated as more than an ordinary private company.
- tynpeddler 5y ago
  > If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting? This is nonsense. They are trying to moderate content and they're being told that it's not permitted. It's qualitatively akin to requiring the New York Times to publish all letters to the editor. Or more specific to the posted article, require that the NYT write a personalized response for each letter that they don't publish and give the letter's author an opportunity to edit it for content.
hairofadog 5y ago
My take is that Facebook is a private corporation and they should be able to do whatever they want regarding moderation, whether that be less or more. However. I see people arguing frequently that Facebook is the new de-facto public square. I disagree with this position, but assuming for a moment it's true, this is the thing that shouldn't be allowed. In my mind it is akin to a shopping mall that has grown so large that it has taken over the entire country, and if you're a citizen of the country you have to follow the rules of the shopping mall which include not being allowed to wear T-shirts with political slogans (or worse, only certain political slogans). If I lived in that shopping mall nation, I wouldn't be dithering about what t-shirts were allowed or disallowed; I'd be arguing for the destruction of the entire shopping mall.

by vivekd 5y ago

newsyyswen 5y ago

It is a problem of their own making. If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting? Would you say it is a catch-22 for a factory if a government ordered them to stop production or stop polluting nearby waterways with their toxic runoff? Perhaps for the factory, but the nearby communities would say it's a clear-cut case.

joejerryronnie 5y ago
My telecom company is not responsible for moderating all speech that occurs over their cellular service. How is this different from FB?
- newsyyswen 5y ago
  Your telecom actually is responsible for moderating your usage - try consistently pirating media without a good blocklist in the US and see how long you keep your service. Most providers will cut you off after a half-dozen or so nastygrams, and that's just for the light offense of copyright infringement. Your telecom also uses tax money to fund its infrastructure deployments, and it is regulated as more than an ordinary private company.
tynpeddler 5y ago
> If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting? This is nonsense. They are trying to moderate content and they're being told that it's not permitted. It's qualitatively akin to requiring the New York Times to publish all letters to the editor. Or more specific to the posted article, require that the NYT write a personalized response for each letter that they don't publish and give the letter's author an opportunity to edit it for content.

hairofadog 5y ago

My take is that Facebook is a private corporation and they should be able to do whatever they want regarding moderation, whether that be less or more. However. I see people arguing frequently that Facebook is the new de-facto public square. I disagree with this position, but assuming for a moment it's true, this is the thing that shouldn't be allowed. In my mind it is akin to a shopping mall that has grown so large that it has taken over the entire country, and if you're a citizen of the country you have to follow the rules of the shopping mall which include not being allowed to wear T-shirts with political slogans (or worse, only certain political slogans). If I lived in that shopping mall nation, I wouldn't be dithering about what t-shirts were allowed or disallowed; I'd be arguing for the destruction of the entire shopping mall.