4 ms·

Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information w

by throwaway_2009 5y ago

Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information we encounter. Your doctor is not a "fact checker" in the newspeak meaning of the term, because your doctor is not preventing other people from speaking to you.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.
- standyro 5y ago
  That’s not true. Facebook actively censors certain URLs from being shared in a DM on Messenger and WhatsApp. How is that any better than the “Great Firewall of China”?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    China bans content through government policy, and government policy carries the force of government which applies to all public and private parties. The force of government means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. HN, BMJ and Facebook pay for their expenses as private parties and may not wish use their money to help you broadcast your speech. The main difference between HN and Facebook is that Facebook is Very Big. If your idea of free speech means that either HN or Facebook must pay for a metaphorical Dang and other fancy engineers to maintain your free speech...
- throw10920 5y ago
  "A government that censors the press is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone." "refraining from giving some sources a megaphone" is exactly equivalent to "censorship". There's no difference. Your argument confuses the prescriptive and the descriptive. Descriptively, yes, Facebook is under no legal obligation to treat speech on its platform equally. Prescriptively, Facebook is morally obligated to either assume full responsibility for user content (both editorialization and moderation), or no responsibility (passing through legal challenges directly to the user). Additionally, as a de-facto public square, the principles of free speech still apply - a platform with more users than almost any single nation on Earth has citizens is morally bound to allow free speech.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    A government which bans someone from speaking is preventing someone from talking to you. The government need not even consider the mode by which information is transmitted, or who is paying for these transmissions. If I am banned from sharing information such as classified intel, there is no means by which I am permitted to communicate this to you. A government which bans things also carries the force of government, which means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. A public square is one which is funded and governed by public means, and the source of funding is one of the core mechanisms for ensuring that the public institution answers to public money. Facebook is a private property, much like HN and the BMJ. That means people like dang, who also engage in banning, are not paid for by the government. Surely one's concept of public square does not entail private parties footing the bill for fancy engineers and metaphorical dang. As a matter of prescription, why would we ever want Facebook to be the financially responsible party for public town squares? Why do we not have the government fund an actually public town square? Or ought we be using tax money to fund Facebook itself?
    - throw10920 5y ago
      > A government which bans someone from speaking is preventing someone from talking to you. I didn't say "prevents someone from speaking" - I specifically said "censors the press" because those are two very different cases (and because that's the exact language that GP used). A government could censor the press but not prevent private individuals from speaking to each other, so it wouldn't technically be preventing people from speaking - but it's pretty clear that it's still engaging in censorship (which was the point I was making to GP). > If I am banned from sharing information such as classified intel Classified material isn't covered under free speech. Free speech protects sentiment and expression. Classified information isn't sentiment, it's factual data, and it's protected for national security reasons, so as long as the material is classified for that reason, and not, say, to hide the embarrassment of a government official (which is illegal in the US at least), it's pretty clear that it's not free speech. > A public square is one which is funded and governed by public means I disagree. A "public square" is a forum for expression that appears to be open to all, styles itself as a public square, and has a substantial population in it. The CEO of Twitter, for instance, implied that Twitter is a public square[1]. > As a matter of prescription, why would we ever want Facebook to be the financially responsible party for public town squares? Aha, that's a good question - we don't! Or, I don't - the problem is that it is a de-facto town square already, not that I want it to be (a regulated) one. Top of my wish-list is for it to not be that - for the DoJ to take it apart and/or force them to make it trivially easy to move your Facebook data somewhere else. (I suspect you share this sentiment) Unfortunately, because the DoJ appears to have lost its fangs over the past few decades, we're stuck with the Facebook behemoth - so, if we're stuck with it anyway, it's morally right for them to adhere to free-speech principles. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-twitter-users-consider-it-a-public-square.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-twitter-us...
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  Yes they are. There are people who you cannot write personal messages to on facebook/messenger. They have to write you first, otherwise all your messages to them are marked as sent, not delivered and eventually seen, just sent. I assume that political idelogy of aforementioned persons is obvious. And these people are not some no-names.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    If you're describing me, those people are free to reach me via an alternate method. Facebook is not obligated to facilitate it.
    - NullPrefix 5y ago
      It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. edited to add: Those poeple have facebook profiles, post stuff publicly, you can comment, tag and all that. Except private messages. All private messages are silently undelivered. No error, only sent.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        > It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you seem to be saying that shadowbans should be illegal. Or at least, I don't see how any law that would prevent shadow delivery wouldn't prevent shadowbans. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
        NullPrefix 5y ago
        Would fedex shadowban be ok too? They take parcels, give tracking numbers, but those specific persons never receive anything. Tracking is always stuck on "parcel enroute". edit: clarified wording, to make it clear that fedex shadowban is a hypothetical situation
threatofrain 5y ago
My doctor chooses not to be a facilitator of speech for everyone, just like the BMJ or Facebook. The difference is that Facebook is free to the users and ad-supported. That difference meant world-changing virality. --- You had a deleted post talking about how I'm masturbating. It may surprise you that HN also "censors" you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway_2009 5y ago
  You are masturbating because you're debating a non sequitur with yourself; your doctor and Facebook are completely different entities with different purposes and goals, I explained that and you've continued the bizarre train of thought. I have little patience for such nonsense, good day.
- EdSharkey 5y ago
  I can still read it.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.

standyro 5y ago
That’s not true. Facebook actively censors certain URLs from being shared in a DM on Messenger and WhatsApp. How is that any better than the “Great Firewall of China”?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  China bans content through government policy, and government policy carries the force of government which applies to all public and private parties. The force of government means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. HN, BMJ and Facebook pay for their expenses as private parties and may not wish use their money to help you broadcast your speech. The main difference between HN and Facebook is that Facebook is Very Big. If your idea of free speech means that either HN or Facebook must pay for a metaphorical Dang and other fancy engineers to maintain your free speech...
throw10920 5y ago
"A government that censors the press is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone." "refraining from giving some sources a megaphone" is exactly equivalent to "censorship". There's no difference. Your argument confuses the prescriptive and the descriptive. Descriptively, yes, Facebook is under no legal obligation to treat speech on its platform equally. Prescriptively, Facebook is morally obligated to either assume full responsibility for user content (both editorialization and moderation), or no responsibility (passing through legal challenges directly to the user). Additionally, as a de-facto public square, the principles of free speech still apply - a platform with more users than almost any single nation on Earth has citizens is morally bound to allow free speech.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  A government which bans someone from speaking is preventing someone from talking to you. The government need not even consider the mode by which information is transmitted, or who is paying for these transmissions. If I am banned from sharing information such as classified intel, there is no means by which I am permitted to communicate this to you. A government which bans things also carries the force of government, which means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. A public square is one which is funded and governed by public means, and the source of funding is one of the core mechanisms for ensuring that the public institution answers to public money. Facebook is a private property, much like HN and the BMJ. That means people like dang, who also engage in banning, are not paid for by the government. Surely one's concept of public square does not entail private parties footing the bill for fancy engineers and metaphorical dang. As a matter of prescription, why would we ever want Facebook to be the financially responsible party for public town squares? Why do we not have the government fund an actually public town square? Or ought we be using tax money to fund Facebook itself?
  - throw10920 5y ago
    > A government which bans someone from speaking is preventing someone from talking to you. I didn't say "prevents someone from speaking" - I specifically said "censors the press" because those are two very different cases (and because that's the exact language that GP used). A government could censor the press but not prevent private individuals from speaking to each other, so it wouldn't technically be preventing people from speaking - but it's pretty clear that it's still engaging in censorship (which was the point I was making to GP). > If I am banned from sharing information such as classified intel Classified material isn't covered under free speech. Free speech protects sentiment and expression. Classified information isn't sentiment, it's factual data, and it's protected for national security reasons, so as long as the material is classified for that reason, and not, say, to hide the embarrassment of a government official (which is illegal in the US at least), it's pretty clear that it's not free speech. > A public square is one which is funded and governed by public means I disagree. A "public square" is a forum for expression that appears to be open to all, styles itself as a public square, and has a substantial population in it. The CEO of Twitter, for instance, implied that Twitter is a public square[1]. > As a matter of prescription, why would we ever want Facebook to be the financially responsible party for public town squares? Aha, that's a good question - we don't! Or, I don't - the problem is that it is a de-facto town square already, not that I want it to be (a regulated) one. Top of my wish-list is for it to not be that - for the DoJ to take it apart and/or force them to make it trivially easy to move your Facebook data somewhere else. (I suspect you share this sentiment) Unfortunately, because the DoJ appears to have lost its fangs over the past few decades, we're stuck with the Facebook behemoth - so, if we're stuck with it anyway, it's morally right for them to adhere to free-speech principles. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-twitter-users-consider-it-a-public-square.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-twitter-us...
NullPrefix 5y ago
Yes they are. There are people who you cannot write personal messages to on facebook/messenger. They have to write you first, otherwise all your messages to them are marked as sent, not delivered and eventually seen, just sent. I assume that political idelogy of aforementioned persons is obvious. And these people are not some no-names.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  If you're describing me, those people are free to reach me via an alternate method. Facebook is not obligated to facilitate it.
  - NullPrefix 5y ago
    It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. edited to add: Those poeple have facebook profiles, post stuff publicly, you can comment, tag and all that. Except private messages. All private messages are silently undelivered. No error, only sent.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      > It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you seem to be saying that shadowbans should be illegal. Or at least, I don't see how any law that would prevent shadow delivery wouldn't prevent shadowbans. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
      - NullPrefix 5y ago
        Would fedex shadowban be ok too? They take parcels, give tracking numbers, but those specific persons never receive anything. Tracking is always stuck on "parcel enroute". edit: clarified wording, to make it clear that fedex shadowban is a hypothetical situation

threatofrain 5y ago

My doctor chooses not to be a facilitator of speech for everyone, just like the BMJ or Facebook. The difference is that Facebook is free to the users and ad-supported. That difference meant world-changing virality. --- You had a deleted post talking about how I'm masturbating. It may surprise you that HN also "censors" you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_2009 5y ago
You are masturbating because you're debating a non sequitur with yourself; your doctor and Facebook are completely different entities with different purposes and goals, I explained that and you've continued the bizarre train of thought. I have little patience for such nonsense, good day.
EdSharkey 5y ago
I can still read it.