5 ms·

I find it confusing that a community that frequently acknowledges that free services treat their users as the product simultaneously has expectations that the f

I find it confusing that a community that frequently acknowledges that free services treat their users as the product simultaneously has expectations that the free service should amplify their speech. This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.

strken 5y ago
It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?
  - fragileone 5y ago
    You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point. If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
      - Thorrez 5y ago
        >No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook. And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
      - strken 5y ago
        I wasn't saying any of those things. I was responding to the outrageous claim that this wasn't censorship. Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        > No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry Is it possible to use the word censorship without it being a rallying cry (which then seems to somehow ~bend reality)?
roflc0ptic 5y ago
What exactly is your argument that this isn’t censorship? They’re providing a private chat platform and preventing certain messages from being sent. As far as I can tell this is the exact definition of censorship.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship. I'm not making the affirmative claim. If you're curious about how I arrived at a conclusion so easily: we're here discussing it openly on the public Internet.
  - cjaybo 5y ago
    I don't think censorship means what you think it means. The medium and scale at which the censorship is taking place is irrelevant.
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      Every publication that has ever had any editorial control over its platform has exercised it. It’s entitled as hell to think you can use other people’s resources to publish your own thoughts unconstrained.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        It's a private chat, how does "editorial control" possibly play any role here?
        eyelidlessness 5y ago
        Well it turns out it’s not that private.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    > I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.
throwjd764glug 5y ago
One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Without Facebook's network effects, they would probably be using a different messenger, so you can't even claim that Facebook is enabling a communication that would otherwise not take place. And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  > One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Tell that to the dozens of SMS I receive on a regular basis trying to scam me I guess?
  - throwjd764glug 5y ago
    Let me rephrase that: this case of one-to-one messaging between friends is not amplification.
cblconfederate 5y ago
> expectations that the free service Well it can't be really free or the service would not survive is it? It's like a club having free entrance / you pay otherwise.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  Addressed in the snipped text
sdeframond 5y ago
Facebook is not a free service. Users pay with their time, attention and mindshare. Mindshare is a limited and valuable resource.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  Addressed in the snipped text

strken 5y ago

It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?
- fragileone 5y ago
  You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point. If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
- mistermann 5y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind. Am I misreading you?
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine. If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      >No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook. And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
    - strken 5y ago
      I wasn't saying any of those things. I was responding to the outrageous claim that this wasn't censorship. Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry Is it possible to use the word censorship without it being a rallying cry (which then seems to somehow ~bend reality)?

roflc0ptic 5y ago

What exactly is your argument that this isn’t censorship? They’re providing a private chat platform and preventing certain messages from being sent. As far as I can tell this is the exact definition of censorship.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship. I'm not making the affirmative claim. If you're curious about how I arrived at a conclusion so easily: we're here discussing it openly on the public Internet.
- cjaybo 5y ago
  I don't think censorship means what you think it means. The medium and scale at which the censorship is taking place is irrelevant.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    Every publication that has ever had any editorial control over its platform has exercised it. It’s entitled as hell to think you can use other people’s resources to publish your own thoughts unconstrained.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      It's a private chat, how does "editorial control" possibly play any role here?
      - eyelidlessness 5y ago
        Well it turns out it’s not that private.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.

throwjd764glug 5y ago

One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Without Facebook's network effects, they would probably be using a different messenger, so you can't even claim that Facebook is enabling a communication that would otherwise not take place. And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
> One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Tell that to the dozens of SMS I receive on a regular basis trying to scam me I guess?
- throwjd764glug 5y ago
  Let me rephrase that: this case of one-to-one messaging between friends is not amplification.

cblconfederate 5y ago

> expectations that the free service Well it can't be really free or the service would not survive is it? It's like a club having free entrance / you pay otherwise.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Addressed in the snipped text

sdeframond 5y ago

Facebook is not a free service. Users pay with their time, attention and mindshare. Mindshare is a limited and valuable resource.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Addressed in the snipped text