4 ms·

Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if

Normally you don't get any of that process because you don't have any right to use someone else's service. They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong.

rapnie 5y ago
Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated. Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    People’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      It's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it? If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account. And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        Well said.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        > How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? Why does this always come up? Like this exact example. Where there no others? Do you know how I read this? “I think I’m smarter than everyone, and everyone should look to me for the truth”. > In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false. This is mostly what we have now. Go compare the divide between the parties vs the Grand Canyon. This is the result. Why? Because opinions. And what does the left do when they can’t disprove an opinion ? Cancel/censor. We also need the first amendment to apply to corporations. The left found the loophole and is giddily exercising it.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "the left found the loophole," can you clarify?
        tekknik 5y ago
        The gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong." I am not sure if that is true anymore, with the implementation of anti-discrimination laws. I mean practically it is still the internet, but if your service is public and beyond a certain size, someone might indeed sue you for doing that.
tekknik 5y ago
Perhaps it’s time we change these laws, and anybody creating a place to talk with others can’t have any rules banning anybody. Perhaps it’s time we pass laws that force companies to abide by the first amendment.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  You foster and shape a community by first telling people what you will accept and then by banning people whose behavior doesn't comport with standards. Here we sit on a functional community with such standards discussing this matter politely with one another wherein your argument would be to remove the standards that make this community worth chatting on. Just because you and are I reasonable doesn't mean the overarching internet is. It's manifestly not. It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise. Let people make their own communities with different standards if they don't like this one.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise. What does this say about those participants who do leave? The entire point of different opinions is different points of view on the same subject. Those leaving simply because they don’t like the general narrative do no abide by this principle and probably shouldn’t have been in the community in the first place. Those leaving because they experienced daily abuse, that’s reasonable. I still don’t think they should leave, but instead grow thicker skin.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Nobody's obligated to grow thicker skin to use Facebook. In fact, Facebook would prefer to not put that obligation on their users; it decreases adoption and retention numbers.
      - tekknik 5y ago

rapnie 5y ago

Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated. Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492

shadowgovt 5y ago
It's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.
- tekknik 5y ago
  People’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    It's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it? If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account. And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Well said.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      > How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? Why does this always come up? Like this exact example. Where there no others? Do you know how I read this? “I think I’m smarter than everyone, and everyone should look to me for the truth”. > In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false. This is mostly what we have now. Go compare the divide between the parties vs the Grand Canyon. This is the result. Why? Because opinions. And what does the left do when they can’t disprove an opinion ? Cancel/censor. We also need the first amendment to apply to corporations. The left found the loophole and is giddily exercising it.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "the left found the loophole," can you clarify?
        tekknik 5y ago
        The gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"They can ban you for having red hair or blue eyes if they please and they would be foolish but not in the wrong." I am not sure if that is true anymore, with the implementation of anti-discrimination laws. I mean practically it is still the internet, but if your service is public and beyond a certain size, someone might indeed sue you for doing that.

tekknik 5y ago

Perhaps it’s time we change these laws, and anybody creating a place to talk with others can’t have any rules banning anybody. Perhaps it’s time we pass laws that force companies to abide by the first amendment.

michaelmrose 5y ago
You foster and shape a community by first telling people what you will accept and then by banning people whose behavior doesn't comport with standards. Here we sit on a functional community with such standards discussing this matter politely with one another wherein your argument would be to remove the standards that make this community worth chatting on. Just because you and are I reasonable doesn't mean the overarching internet is. It's manifestly not. It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise. Let people make their own communities with different standards if they don't like this one.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > It's extremely likely that a large part of the signal that makes this community valuable would depart if it was entirely filled with 10x as much noise. What does this say about those participants who do leave? The entire point of different opinions is different points of view on the same subject. Those leaving simply because they don’t like the general narrative do no abide by this principle and probably shouldn’t have been in the community in the first place. Those leaving because they experienced daily abuse, that’s reasonable. I still don’t think they should leave, but instead grow thicker skin.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Nobody's obligated to grow thicker skin to use Facebook. In fact, Facebook would prefer to not put that obligation on their users; it decreases adoption and retention numbers.
    - tekknik 5y ago