3 ms·

They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. A service should have a valid reason for banning someone, otherwise we will end up wit

They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. A service should have a valid reason for banning someone, otherwise we will end up with a group of people that are perpetually discriminated and punished by AI for no reason. Blocking your Facebook account can lead to losing access to support groups and local marketplaces that may be important to people in need, and it is absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to kick people out for no reason.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. Don't you have that backwards?
- dessant 4y ago
  I see you have your priorities sorted out. It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination. In the US, at least, “plain discrimination” by private parties is generally legal, but for regulated utilities (which Facebook is not) and fairly narrow sets of specifically prohibited bases of discrimination by public accommodations. If you want a general rule applying something like the rational basis test used as the minimum standard applicable to public discrimination to private commercial discrimination, that's a fairly radical change to the law.
    - heavenlyblue 4y ago
      But Facebook is a de facto utility.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > But Facebook is a de facto utility. There's no such thing as a “de facto utility“. If you mean “Facebook is the kind of thing that the government should regulate as a utility”, well, that's fine, but that's something that requires at least regulatory, if not legislative, action to make happen and set the regulatory rules (including any applicable anti-discrimination rules) for. So, again, the applicable rules need to be created elsewhere in government before Facebook is taken to court for allegedly violating them.
        heavenlyblue 4y ago
        > before Facebook is taken to court for allegedly violating them. Where did I say they are to be taken to court?
      - quickthrowman 4y ago
        That sounds like an opinion, and I disagree. Electricity, water, natural gas, internet, and district heating are utilities. Facebook isn’t. There are no transmission lines or pipes running to each Facebook user directly from Facebook, there’s no physical reason that other social networks can’t exist. It’s not a utility just because several billion people use it.
        debesyla 4y ago
        > internet > no transmission lines > no physical reason that other [social networks] can’t exist Sorry for nitpicking, but you can get internet without transmission lines too (just as phone service) - and it's still an utility :V But I am just nitpicking, sorry :V
        cykros 4y ago
        It certainly doesn't operate as a utility, but rather, a publisher that relies heavily on editing. And you know what? That's probably fine. BUT...they shouldn't get section 230 protections, which are for common carriers. They can have their cake, XOR they can eat it.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  In the absence of existing laws, the courts can decree if something is illegal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
staticassertion 4y ago
Or people should stop using their product until they fix this.
- dessant 4y ago
  There isn't always a good alternative for a service that arbitrarily denied you access. Facebook Marketplace has replaced classifieds in many places, and being denied access to the service can negatively impact people's lives.
  - stusmall 4y ago
    Craigslist is still thriving and is a very viable alternative.
    - dessant 4y ago
      Is Craigslist a universal service available around the world? I'm welcomed by this message when visiting the site: > Your request has been blocked. > If you have questions, please contact us.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Though I think that private companies can choose who they do business with, I also think that these companies are an exception. They are so huge they should probably be classified as a public utility of sorts. This is a tough pill to swallow for this site since it could possibly derail the tech gravy train.
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      Rather than regulate the company it feels like the more common solution is to force companies to split up any vertical integrations in order to reduce the barrier to compete with them.
    - cykros 4y ago
      Private companies SHOULD be able to choose who they do business with. They should also be subject to the rules everyone else is. As soon as they start getting preferential treatment through regulation, they should absolutely expect restrictions upon those rights as the cost of that preferential treatment. And of course, Section 230 provisions are absolutely preferential treatment.
quadcore 4y ago
I believe this should be the case for most web moderation, it should be mildly regulated and things like shadow banning banned (or at least stated that it's a feature somewhere). I'm not a regulation guy I prefer freedom, but if you regulate me I regulate you, for obvious reasons.
deepsun 4y ago
No, those are private web properties, they are free to provide or not provide you services as they wish (with the only exception that they cannot target protected categories). I might not like it, but they are in their right. I can always create my own web property. By that unjust actions they actually show the value in de-centralizing WWW back to good old days.
- dessant 4y ago
  You do realize that people's lives are being impacted, right? Running services of this size comes with responsibilities, and not just to your shareholders, but to society. You can't drive competitors out of business, then restrict access to services that have become essential. You shouldn't argue that a farmer who was kicked out from Facebook for absolutely no reason should no longer have the right to access a wider variety of local offers for farm equipment on Facebook Marketplace, or have a better chance to sell their produce. And you shouldn't argue that people are destined for this fate for the rest of their lives because of a primitive algorithm put in place by people who have no morals. They are not in their right. They are abusing their position, and they are harming people.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    Over 5 million people can’t vote in the US because of a felony conviction. How many of them are innocent, or should have been convicted of a lesser crime, or just have done their time and should be equal again under the law? But they don’t get to vote. We shouldn’t apply a higher standard to Facebook regarding shopping than we do to our government when it comes to the vote.
    - dessant 4y ago
      The discrimination of one group of people does not lessen the need to be just with a different group, and it doesn't absolve Facebook.
      - gcanyon 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. Don't you have that backwards?

dessant 4y ago
I see you have your priorities sorted out. It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination. In the US, at least, “plain discrimination” by private parties is generally legal, but for regulated utilities (which Facebook is not) and fairly narrow sets of specifically prohibited bases of discrimination by public accommodations. If you want a general rule applying something like the rational basis test used as the minimum standard applicable to public discrimination to private commercial discrimination, that's a fairly radical change to the law.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    But Facebook is a de facto utility.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > But Facebook is a de facto utility. There's no such thing as a “de facto utility“. If you mean “Facebook is the kind of thing that the government should regulate as a utility”, well, that's fine, but that's something that requires at least regulatory, if not legislative, action to make happen and set the regulatory rules (including any applicable anti-discrimination rules) for. So, again, the applicable rules need to be created elsewhere in government before Facebook is taken to court for allegedly violating them.
      - heavenlyblue 4y ago
        > before Facebook is taken to court for allegedly violating them. Where did I say they are to be taken to court?
    - quickthrowman 4y ago
      That sounds like an opinion, and I disagree. Electricity, water, natural gas, internet, and district heating are utilities. Facebook isn’t. There are no transmission lines or pipes running to each Facebook user directly from Facebook, there’s no physical reason that other social networks can’t exist. It’s not a utility just because several billion people use it.
      - debesyla 4y ago
        > internet > no transmission lines > no physical reason that other [social networks] can’t exist Sorry for nitpicking, but you can get internet without transmission lines too (just as phone service) - and it's still an utility :V But I am just nitpicking, sorry :V
      - cykros 4y ago
        It certainly doesn't operate as a utility, but rather, a publisher that relies heavily on editing. And you know what? That's probably fine. BUT...they shouldn't get section 230 protections, which are for common carriers. They can have their cake, XOR they can eat it.
webmobdev 4y ago
In the absence of existing laws, the courts can decree if something is illegal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

staticassertion 4y ago

Or people should stop using their product until they fix this.

dessant 4y ago
There isn't always a good alternative for a service that arbitrarily denied you access. Facebook Marketplace has replaced classifieds in many places, and being denied access to the service can negatively impact people's lives.
- stusmall 4y ago
  Craigslist is still thriving and is a very viable alternative.
  - dessant 4y ago
    Is Craigslist a universal service available around the world? I'm welcomed by this message when visiting the site: > Your request has been blocked. > If you have questions, please contact us.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Though I think that private companies can choose who they do business with, I also think that these companies are an exception. They are so huge they should probably be classified as a public utility of sorts. This is a tough pill to swallow for this site since it could possibly derail the tech gravy train.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    Rather than regulate the company it feels like the more common solution is to force companies to split up any vertical integrations in order to reduce the barrier to compete with them.
  - cykros 4y ago
    Private companies SHOULD be able to choose who they do business with. They should also be subject to the rules everyone else is. As soon as they start getting preferential treatment through regulation, they should absolutely expect restrictions upon those rights as the cost of that preferential treatment. And of course, Section 230 provisions are absolutely preferential treatment.

quadcore 4y ago

I believe this should be the case for most web moderation, it should be mildly regulated and things like shadow banning banned (or at least stated that it's a feature somewhere). I'm not a regulation guy I prefer freedom, but if you regulate me I regulate you, for obvious reasons.

deepsun 4y ago

No, those are private web properties, they are free to provide or not provide you services as they wish (with the only exception that they cannot target protected categories). I might not like it, but they are in their right. I can always create my own web property. By that unjust actions they actually show the value in de-centralizing WWW back to good old days.

dessant 4y ago
You do realize that people's lives are being impacted, right? Running services of this size comes with responsibilities, and not just to your shareholders, but to society. You can't drive competitors out of business, then restrict access to services that have become essential. You shouldn't argue that a farmer who was kicked out from Facebook for absolutely no reason should no longer have the right to access a wider variety of local offers for farm equipment on Facebook Marketplace, or have a better chance to sell their produce. And you shouldn't argue that people are destined for this fate for the rest of their lives because of a primitive algorithm put in place by people who have no morals. They are not in their right. They are abusing their position, and they are harming people.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  Over 5 million people can’t vote in the US because of a felony conviction. How many of them are innocent, or should have been convicted of a lesser crime, or just have done their time and should be equal again under the law? But they don’t get to vote. We shouldn’t apply a higher standard to Facebook regarding shopping than we do to our government when it comes to the vote.
  - dessant 4y ago
    The discrimination of one group of people does not lessen the need to be just with a different group, and it doesn't absolve Facebook.
    - gcanyon 4y ago