4 ms·

Facebook seems to aspire to be a utility that everyone relies on, public utilities don't boot you out because you criticize them.

thieving_magpie 5y ago
This isn't about criticism though. It's about changing their product.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  It's not doing anything that you can't do yourself, it just automates what would normally be thousands of clicks. The fact that you can't express your intent to facebook to do this and have them assist by doing it for you automatically you reveals their user-hostility in this area.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  It isn't changing thier product, it's just empowering their users in a way they don't like.
  - rav3ndust 5y ago
    Hammer, meet nail. This is it in one sentence.
malka 5y ago
Facebook should be nationalised.
- joeberon 5y ago
  Definitely yes, or shut down.
andagainagain 5y ago
Facebook doesn't want to be a utility as far as I can tell, they want to be a functional monopoly. They want to be so big that people effectively can't leave the platform even if they wanted to. And then they would use smaller "social media" platforms as a legal defense, even if they don't compete on content or functionality.
hbn 5y ago
I wish there was more consideration these days about certain platforms being considered so ubiquitous that censorship on their platform is recognized as the free speech issue it is. So much I hear the classic "they're a private company they can do what they want," or "just build your own platform." But at every level, alternative platforms get kneecapped, whether it be from app stores, or hosts, or the big guys not letting you link to them. Some of this is in part to it attracting edgelords who were banned from the mainstream platforms and being unable to keep up with moderation from a sudden influx of them making it "their place." I'm not a lawyer so I don't exactly know how this would work, but I think that someone is undoubtedly at a disadvantage to share their message depending on whether or not they have access to social media platforms. And the criteria for getting banned is only continuing. Look no further than YouTube's new vaccine guidelines, which have gotten plenty reasonable people (including doctors), who are just trying to ask question, banned without recourse.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  Because It's not a free speech issue? The problem from my perspective is that people do not fully understand what free speech means. People conflate the issue by believing platforms like facebook or youtube are "public" spaces and subsequently assume they're entitled to constitutional rights. I can invite you to my house, I can also kick you out. I don't have to give a reason for why I want you to leave. Maybe it's something you said, maybe I'm tired, maybe I want to leave. The reasoning doesn't matter, I have full control over my own private property which is what all these social media sites are. If we take it one step further, you signed a legal binding contract acknowledging you have no rights. Where is the disconnect?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    If "your house" covers a quarter of the town then it starts to be a free speech issue. Also there are lots of rights you can't sign away in a normal contract.
    - bastardoperator 5y ago

thieving_magpie 5y ago

This isn't about criticism though. It's about changing their product.

mullingitover 5y ago
It's not doing anything that you can't do yourself, it just automates what would normally be thousands of clicks. The fact that you can't express your intent to facebook to do this and have them assist by doing it for you automatically you reveals their user-hostility in this area.
shkkmo 5y ago
It isn't changing thier product, it's just empowering their users in a way they don't like.
- rav3ndust 5y ago
  Hammer, meet nail. This is it in one sentence.

malka 5y ago

Facebook should be nationalised.

joeberon 5y ago
Definitely yes, or shut down.

andagainagain 5y ago

Facebook doesn't want to be a utility as far as I can tell, they want to be a functional monopoly. They want to be so big that people effectively can't leave the platform even if they wanted to. And then they would use smaller "social media" platforms as a legal defense, even if they don't compete on content or functionality.

hbn 5y ago

I wish there was more consideration these days about certain platforms being considered so ubiquitous that censorship on their platform is recognized as the free speech issue it is. So much I hear the classic "they're a private company they can do what they want," or "just build your own platform." But at every level, alternative platforms get kneecapped, whether it be from app stores, or hosts, or the big guys not letting you link to them. Some of this is in part to it attracting edgelords who were banned from the mainstream platforms and being unable to keep up with moderation from a sudden influx of them making it "their place." I'm not a lawyer so I don't exactly know how this would work, but I think that someone is undoubtedly at a disadvantage to share their message depending on whether or not they have access to social media platforms. And the criteria for getting banned is only continuing. Look no further than YouTube's new vaccine guidelines, which have gotten plenty reasonable people (including doctors), who are just trying to ask question, banned without recourse.

bastardoperator 5y ago
Because It's not a free speech issue? The problem from my perspective is that people do not fully understand what free speech means. People conflate the issue by believing platforms like facebook or youtube are "public" spaces and subsequently assume they're entitled to constitutional rights. I can invite you to my house, I can also kick you out. I don't have to give a reason for why I want you to leave. Maybe it's something you said, maybe I'm tired, maybe I want to leave. The reasoning doesn't matter, I have full control over my own private property which is what all these social media sites are. If we take it one step further, you signed a legal binding contract acknowledging you have no rights. Where is the disconnect?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  If "your house" covers a quarter of the town then it starts to be a free speech issue. Also there are lots of rights you can't sign away in a normal contract.
  - bastardoperator 5y ago