3 ms·

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was ba

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; this is largely a recent thing. And it makes sense that of course everywhere has rules, bare minimum basically nobody likes people spamming stuff, for example, even in cases where it's legal. If you create a message board about model trains and some rando starts constantly spamming ads for their series of NFT's, I guess banning them is technically 'censorship', but you could also call it 'the bare basics of maintaining a functional community'. I think that for platforms like Twitter and Facebook, perhaps it may make more sense to end up a situation more like newspapers, where you have more reputable papers like the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ that have stricter rules, and then you also have the National Enquirer or other random outlets that have little to no standards. If Twitter and Facebook want to have somewhat tighter rules where they censor people, that's fine, the people being censored should then just have options of other platforms with different or fewer rules. Just seems like the problem to me is that people expect these mega platforms to be all things to all people, when that's probably not realistic.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. Free speech protects good faith debates.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. It's not a strawman, as many people assert that platforms should just let anything not-illegal stay up. You may not believe this, but there are others who I've seen assert it. > Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. It's not the same, but the issue is that once you're past the border of "we'll only ban illegal stuff", you're now in the realm of much more subjective decisionmaking. In practice, many forms of speech could be classified as both political, and harassment/bullying/other bad stuff, which is what usually happens with Facebook. In their case, they don't want to get into the political sphere, but they do want to bad blatant misinformation, and in practice that does overlap with politics.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >to bad blatant misinformation This is also dangerous. Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation. Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored. https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-misquote-is-opinion/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-...
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      > Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation. But we're not talking about the government, we're talking about private platforms. Others are allowed to spread misinfo if they so choose. > Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored. Fact checking is an attempt at objectivity that is nevertheless partially subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not better than doing nothing. You wouldn't improve the New York Times or Wall Street Journal by dragging them down to the level of the National Enquirer.
      - Clubber 5y ago
        >But we're not talking about the government, we're talking about private platforms. Others are allowed to spread misinfo if they so choose. Yes, but we are. A lot of the COVID misinformation isn't declared misinformation because the fact-checker isn't an expert at COVID, it's because they are cross checking it with what the government says (CDC/NIH/etc). So the fact checker is using the government's facts, so imagine if they used the government's facts on race during the Jim Crow era. >Fact checking is an attempt at objectivity that is nevertheless partially subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not better than doing nothing. Depends on who is doing the fact checking. To continue with the prior hypothetical, what if someone stated in 2003 that there weren't WMD's in Iraq. The fact checkers would check with the government's facts who states there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact checker (not an expert on WMDs) would possibly label that as misinformation. In this example, it would be better to have done nothing. In the situation where the facts are whatever the government says, that's not fact-checking or journalism at all, that's just being a mouthpiece to power.
- abirch 5y ago
  Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned? I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. I know Sanders and Cruz but not about any instances of censorship. Who do you think is the target of deplatforming which the current US government promotes? There are also articles about how deplatforming allegedly works, so it has to target some people I guess.
    - abirch 5y ago
      These other people that were mentioned are from all areas of the political spectrum. After the Capitol Attack in 2021, Twitter deplatformed then President of the United States for inciting violence. Who in the US Government do you think is leading the deplatforming?
      - Jtype 5y ago
        Just because it was political doesn't mean that a particular person or group in the government was responsible.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      > I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. In the US, I have not seen Facebook banning people for explicitly political reasons, and IIRC studies have not found any obvious partisan bias there. There are reasons for banning that overlap with politics, certainly, like promoting conspiracy theories, as those tend to be more common on the far left or far right.
ithkuil 5y ago
I agree. It doesn't help that these platforms themselves want to be all things for all people and have partially succeeded. That's why most people just don't see the parallel with publishing and its rules. For them Twitter and Facebook are the internet
0x4d464d48 5y ago
"I think that for platforms like Twitter and Facebook, perhaps it may make more sense to end up a situation more like newspapers, where you have more reputable papers like the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ that have stricter rules, and then you also have the National Enquirer or other random outlets that have little to no standards." Don't forget, media outlets can get the pants sued off of them for knowlingly publishing false and defamatory information. I think we're well past the point of websites being held liable for the content they host, user generated or not, and make public/promote algorithmically.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. Free speech protects good faith debates.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. It's not a strawman, as many people assert that platforms should just let anything not-illegal stay up. You may not believe this, but there are others who I've seen assert it. > Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. It's not the same, but the issue is that once you're past the border of "we'll only ban illegal stuff", you're now in the realm of much more subjective decisionmaking. In practice, many forms of speech could be classified as both political, and harassment/bullying/other bad stuff, which is what usually happens with Facebook. In their case, they don't want to get into the political sphere, but they do want to bad blatant misinformation, and in practice that does overlap with politics.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >to bad blatant misinformation This is also dangerous. Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation. Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored. https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-misquote-is-opinion/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-...
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > Imagine what the government of Mississippi or Indiana during the Jim Crow era would label as blatant misinformation. But we're not talking about the government, we're talking about private platforms. Others are allowed to spread misinfo if they so choose. > Also, in a recent court case, Facebook admitted their fact checking was opinion and therefore protected from defamation. So to put those together, Facebook is censoring because of their opinion disagrees with the opinion of the censored. Fact checking is an attempt at objectivity that is nevertheless partially subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not better than doing nothing. You wouldn't improve the New York Times or Wall Street Journal by dragging them down to the level of the National Enquirer.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >But we're not talking about the government, we're talking about private platforms. Others are allowed to spread misinfo if they so choose. Yes, but we are. A lot of the COVID misinformation isn't declared misinformation because the fact-checker isn't an expert at COVID, it's because they are cross checking it with what the government says (CDC/NIH/etc). So the fact checker is using the government's facts, so imagine if they used the government's facts on race during the Jim Crow era. >Fact checking is an attempt at objectivity that is nevertheless partially subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not better than doing nothing. Depends on who is doing the fact checking. To continue with the prior hypothetical, what if someone stated in 2003 that there weren't WMD's in Iraq. The fact checkers would check with the government's facts who states there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact checker (not an expert on WMDs) would possibly label that as misinformation. In this example, it would be better to have done nothing. In the situation where the facts are whatever the government says, that's not fact-checking or journalism at all, that's just being a mouthpiece to power.
abirch 5y ago
Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned? I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. I know Sanders and Cruz but not about any instances of censorship. Who do you think is the target of deplatforming which the current US government promotes? There are also articles about how deplatforming allegedly works, so it has to target some people I guess.
  - abirch 5y ago
    These other people that were mentioned are from all areas of the political spectrum. After the Capitol Attack in 2021, Twitter deplatformed then President of the United States for inciting violence. Who in the US Government do you think is leading the deplatforming?
    - Jtype 5y ago
      Just because it was political doesn't mean that a particular person or group in the government was responsible.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. In the US, I have not seen Facebook banning people for explicitly political reasons, and IIRC studies have not found any obvious partisan bias there. There are reasons for banning that overlap with politics, certainly, like promoting conspiracy theories, as those tend to be more common on the far left or far right.

ithkuil 5y ago

I agree. It doesn't help that these platforms themselves want to be all things for all people and have partially succeeded. That's why most people just don't see the parallel with publishing and its rules. For them Twitter and Facebook are the internet

0x4d464d48 5y ago

"I think that for platforms like Twitter and Facebook, perhaps it may make more sense to end up a situation more like newspapers, where you have more reputable papers like the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ that have stricter rules, and then you also have the National Enquirer or other random outlets that have little to no standards." Don't forget, media outlets can get the pants sued off of them for knowlingly publishing false and defamatory information. I think we're well past the point of websites being held liable for the content they host, user generated or not, and make public/promote algorithmically.