5 ms·

Facebook is in a no-win situation here. Regardless of what action they take, they are either accused of suppressing free exchange of ideas or of permitting the

by avalys 5y ago

Facebook is in a no-win situation here. Regardless of what action they take, they are either accused of suppressing free exchange of ideas or of permitting the exchange of dangerous ideas.

mrfusion 5y ago
Human rights aren’t a dangerous idea, brother.
- belltaco 5y ago
  It is indeed a human right to spread disease and death to other human beings. Dying by drowning in an abundance of oxygen being pumped into one's body is the peak of freedom. No one can restrict one's rights after they're dead.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Including people's right to life, right?
  - mrfusion 5y ago
    This is called Safetyism. It is tyranny dressed up as concern for safety. Life is about risk. If you go down the path of 'trying to make everything safe' you ruin people's lives because a lot of what makes life enjoyable is about risk, ie asking someone on a date is a risk, travelling to a foreign country is a risk, driving is a risk, going on holiday is a risk, having children is a risk, starting a business is a risk. If you box people in and say 'its for your/the greater good' you are a tyrant forcing your will on people who should always have choice and free will. Restricting people's movement, their lives, their speech, criminalising socialising, bankrupting people is tyranny and should never, ever be allowed in a free and democratic society.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      I don't know of any single government in the world that doesn't do at least some of the things you describe here. If you're trying to make the case that all goverments are tyrannical because they enact laws to promote safety, that seems like a rather big stretch.
      - mrfusion 5y ago
        A lot of smart people gave this a lot of thought and this is what they came up with: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no right to life. Everyone dies.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  That's the thing. They are quite dangerous. Ask the Jim Crow South, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Bush Administration. They are very threatening to ruling classes that have a vested interest in the status quo, or in some radical vision they'd like to inflict or enforce upon the world.
errantmind 5y ago
While they are a private company, and there are arguments about their rights as such, having free speech means being willing to "permit the exchange of dangerous ideas" to avoid the suppression of 'good' ones. That is actually the whole idea and there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society.
- avalys 5y ago
  "The COVID vaccines were rushed through the approval process and have more health risks than the government will admit." "Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it." "You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach." The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform. What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find? If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas? I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.
- slg 5y ago
  >there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn? It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".
akira2501 5y ago
This requires you to accept that there are "dangerous ideas" in the first place; or worse, that a business is in a good position to decide what those are for everyone who participates. I think that might just be a convenient rubric, though. I think their real problem is "advertiser unfriendly ideas."
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Of course there are dangerous ideas, and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist. Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting, how nice it would be to do that, and how it might be performed. These are not good ideas, they are bad ideas. Dangerous ideas. Some people will reject that dangerous ideas exist because they think to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship, but that's not how it works.
  - akira2501 5y ago
    > and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have; if we could in some way prove what they were thinking in a court of law. > Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting [...] Dangerous ideas. There are dangerous _people_ with the means to act upon these thoughts, but the ideas aren't exclusive to them. There are plenty of people who have such ideations but do not act upon them. People play FPS video games where these actions are not only thinkable but can be simulated. The idea itself clearly does not pose a danger to anyone. > to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship It's not censorship on a private platform I'm concerned with, as I've said it's the exceptional governmental and psychiatric injustices that become possible if you begin to accept this as a basic premise.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      >The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have No it wouldn't. Moreover, whether or not you find the ramifications of a fact distasteful has no bearing on the validity of that fact. As I already said, that's not how it works. The ideas that are entertained while playing video games are not the same as entertaining the idea of performing a real-life shooting. People playing the video game aren't planning a real shooting, and planning a real shooting involves ideas that are not held by a typical person playing GTA 5. It's really an easy distinction.
eplanit 5y ago
So ideas counter to government policy are "dangerous ideas"? You can't get more Soviet and CCP-like with that kind of rhetoric and thinking. We're in dark times. In fact, I see that my comments are shadow-banned. Very classy HN! Fuck you, the little twerp, "dang"! Just ban this fucking account, seriously. You can have your little echo chamber. Shadow banning is such a weaselly action -- like a high schooler's prank. If I'm banned then man-up and fucking say so.

by avalys 5y ago

Facebook is in a no-win situation here. Regardless of what action they take, they are either accused of suppressing free exchange of ideas or of permitting the exchange of dangerous ideas.

mrfusion 5y ago

Human rights aren’t a dangerous idea, brother.

belltaco 5y ago
It is indeed a human right to spread disease and death to other human beings. Dying by drowning in an abundance of oxygen being pumped into one's body is the peak of freedom. No one can restrict one's rights after they're dead.
jhgb 5y ago
Including people's right to life, right?
- mrfusion 5y ago
  This is called Safetyism. It is tyranny dressed up as concern for safety. Life is about risk. If you go down the path of 'trying to make everything safe' you ruin people's lives because a lot of what makes life enjoyable is about risk, ie asking someone on a date is a risk, travelling to a foreign country is a risk, driving is a risk, going on holiday is a risk, having children is a risk, starting a business is a risk. If you box people in and say 'its for your/the greater good' you are a tyrant forcing your will on people who should always have choice and free will. Restricting people's movement, their lives, their speech, criminalising socialising, bankrupting people is tyranny and should never, ever be allowed in a free and democratic society.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    I don't know of any single government in the world that doesn't do at least some of the things you describe here. If you're trying to make the case that all goverments are tyrannical because they enact laws to promote safety, that seems like a rather big stretch.
    - mrfusion 5y ago
      A lot of smart people gave this a lot of thought and this is what they came up with: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no right to life. Everyone dies.
chitowneats 5y ago
That's the thing. They are quite dangerous. Ask the Jim Crow South, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Bush Administration. They are very threatening to ruling classes that have a vested interest in the status quo, or in some radical vision they'd like to inflict or enforce upon the world.

errantmind 5y ago

While they are a private company, and there are arguments about their rights as such, having free speech means being willing to "permit the exchange of dangerous ideas" to avoid the suppression of 'good' ones. That is actually the whole idea and there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society.

avalys 5y ago
"The COVID vaccines were rushed through the approval process and have more health risks than the government will admit." "Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it." "You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach." The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform. What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find? If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas? I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.
slg 5y ago
>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn? It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".

akira2501 5y ago

This requires you to accept that there are "dangerous ideas" in the first place; or worse, that a business is in a good position to decide what those are for everyone who participates. I think that might just be a convenient rubric, though. I think their real problem is "advertiser unfriendly ideas."

SantalBlush 5y ago
Of course there are dangerous ideas, and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist. Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting, how nice it would be to do that, and how it might be performed. These are not good ideas, they are bad ideas. Dangerous ideas. Some people will reject that dangerous ideas exist because they think to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship, but that's not how it works.
- akira2501 5y ago
  > and it's a bizarre insinuation that they don't exist The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have; if we could in some way prove what they were thinking in a court of law. > Mass shootings are preceded by ideations of committing a mass shooting [...] Dangerous ideas. There are dangerous _people_ with the means to act upon these thoughts, but the ideas aren't exclusive to them. There are plenty of people who have such ideations but do not act upon them. People play FPS video games where these actions are not only thinkable but can be simulated. The idea itself clearly does not pose a danger to anyone. > to accept that they exist is to approve of censorship It's not censorship on a private platform I'm concerned with, as I've said it's the exceptional governmental and psychiatric injustices that become possible if you begin to accept this as a basic premise.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    >The problem is, if you carry this idea out to it's conclusion then it would be a rational act to jail someone merely for the thoughts they have No it wouldn't. Moreover, whether or not you find the ramifications of a fact distasteful has no bearing on the validity of that fact. As I already said, that's not how it works. The ideas that are entertained while playing video games are not the same as entertaining the idea of performing a real-life shooting. People playing the video game aren't planning a real shooting, and planning a real shooting involves ideas that are not held by a typical person playing GTA 5. It's really an easy distinction.

eplanit 5y ago

So ideas counter to government policy are "dangerous ideas"? You can't get more Soviet and CCP-like with that kind of rhetoric and thinking. We're in dark times. In fact, I see that my comments are shadow-banned. Very classy HN! Fuck you, the little twerp, "dang"! Just ban this fucking account, seriously. You can have your little echo chamber. Shadow banning is such a weaselly action -- like a high schooler's prank. If I'm banned then man-up and fucking say so.