3 ms·

There should be a discussion page, like on Wikipedia, for "fact checkers" to publicly interact with those who post "misleading information." It's highly upsetti

by archhn 5y ago

There should be a discussion page, like on Wikipedia, for "fact checkers" to publicly interact with those who post "misleading information." It's highly upsetting that there was no process for this entity to challenge the ruling of the "fact checkers." Especially since it is an established medical journal. Why can't we have open discussions about "the facts?" Are we living in a democratic country or an authoritarian country? For those that say "Facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants on its platform," I think it's important to distinguish between the legal right for a company to do something and the moral character of their actions. In other words, Facebook may well be within their rights to do what they are doing, but that doesn't mean it is moral. Given that we are a "democratic" country, our moral judgements should weigh heavily against these types of authoritarian actions, even if they are legal.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> "Facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants on its platform," I think it's important to distinguish between the legal right for a company I'll go a step farther. For those who say "facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants"... does that include taking a completely hands-off moderation policy? I'm pretty sure that the answer is no - because the U.S. government will step in if they try. They're already in legal trouble over the Myanmar/Rohingya thing - what we're seeing is not Mark Zuckerberg standing up for his moral principles. What we're seeing is government coercion.
- archhn 5y ago
  Great point. Ultimately there are always coercive forces that put pressure on companies and individuals to comply, even if the legal system isn't directly invoked to force compliance. The case you're making is important because implies that Facebook is being puppeted by the will of the government. If this is true, then Facebook IS the government. If one entity is controlled by another, then the separation between them, i.e., private corporation vs. government, is illusory.

by archhn 5y ago

commandlinefan 5y ago

> "Facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants on its platform," I think it's important to distinguish between the legal right for a company I'll go a step farther. For those who say "facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants"... does that include taking a completely hands-off moderation policy? I'm pretty sure that the answer is no - because the U.S. government will step in if they try. They're already in legal trouble over the Myanmar/Rohingya thing - what we're seeing is not Mark Zuckerberg standing up for his moral principles. What we're seeing is government coercion.

archhn 5y ago
Great point. Ultimately there are always coercive forces that put pressure on companies and individuals to comply, even if the legal system isn't directly invoked to force compliance. The case you're making is important because implies that Facebook is being puppeted by the will of the government. If this is true, then Facebook IS the government. If one entity is controlled by another, then the separation between them, i.e., private corporation vs. government, is illusory.