3 ms·

I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a

I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a principle from the government level (where I agree with it) down into the platform level (where I do not agree with it). It seems like you are not one of those people advocating for that, but this is why I would push back on the statement “No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn’t want you to have that freedom”

robertlagrant 4y ago
I think this is a bit tricky when computers are involved. "Facebook" is not a community; it's a technological encapsulation of millions of communities. So if Facebook bans something globally, that's not the same as keeping your individual community the way you'd like it. If some on the American right is saying "Facebook is too big to moderate all communication, and it should allow everyone to speak", that doesn't disallow you from having one or more communities that are moderated more locally in whatever way is allowed there. It's just that Facebook the corporation won't be able to reach into any community and have veto power over speech.
- theptip 4y ago
  Their moderation policies are already highly country-specific though? Why does FB need to ban anything globally?
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Sure. I may have misphrased my previous explanation, but "country" is still far bigger than "community".
    - theptip 4y ago
      I see what you mean. Yes, I agree, it’s in some sense suboptimal for a community to outsource moderation to a larger entity. However I think moderation is difficult (and this fact is under-appreciated) and so the limit of “perfect moderation per community” is probably not practical. (Indeed I’m not even sure that’s a possible thing, since each community member might disagree, even though there are emergent norms at any given time within a community.)
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Absolutely, and those norms are best enforced by that community. I feel like I'm describing a social network I should be building. Or has already been built.
- dontreact 4y ago
  It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication (here we are communicating without Facebook involved) I do have some agreement that when a platform gets very large, it makes sense to have some regulation around the censorship decisions they take. Specifically, rules around transparency make the most sense to me. On the other hand, a blunt regulation such as saying that large tech platforms are not allowed to do any platform or country-wide moderation doesn’t make as much sense to me. My experience with all unmoderated online communities is that they devolve into something extremely unpleasant, and forcing Facebook to push ALL of the moderation work down to specific groups or users themselves is not a workable approach to this problem.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    Company towns weren't a monopoly either. You could always walk outside town and enjoy your free speech there. But free speech laws applied because they functioned as public places. Facebook is such a public place. Additionally, Facebook and the rest did function as a cartel when they coordinated to ban Alex Jones from all platforms, even the ones where he wasn't present.
    - dontreact 4y ago
      In a very real sense a lot of people had no choice but to stay in company towns. There are certainly similarities between a company town and Facebook, but choosing not to use it is not a matter of survival for anyone. I agree that Facebook, like company towns, should be regulated given the scope. But I think we should evaluate bannings like Alex Jones more from first principles such as whether there is more harm in allowing him to stay on these platforms or in banning him rather than being strictly adherent to the principle of free speech.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication For sure - I didn't say it did. The rest of what you say I don't really agree with. Expecting a professional moderator from Facebook to moderate a community is the unworkable approach. It has to be done by those communities. Here's another issue: if someone breaks the law in their country that bans them from using some/all of Facebook then should Facebook comply? In some cases it makes sense (e.g. someone convicted of something related to children should probably be banned from communicating with children) but not in others, say where lower caste/class people are legally banned from speaking. Facebook is a big enough place that these things really matter, and I don't think we or Facebook should assume that the decision to veto speech is Facebook's. To repeat my key point: people demanding that Facebook not be the veto decider are not trying to threaten your online communities. They're just looking at the power dynamics and concluding that that power should be held by those communities (or the law of the land(s)), and not by Facebook.

robertlagrant 4y ago

I think this is a bit tricky when computers are involved. "Facebook" is not a community; it's a technological encapsulation of millions of communities. So if Facebook bans something globally, that's not the same as keeping your individual community the way you'd like it. If some on the American right is saying "Facebook is too big to moderate all communication, and it should allow everyone to speak", that doesn't disallow you from having one or more communities that are moderated more locally in whatever way is allowed there. It's just that Facebook the corporation won't be able to reach into any community and have veto power over speech.

theptip 4y ago
Their moderation policies are already highly country-specific though? Why does FB need to ban anything globally?
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Sure. I may have misphrased my previous explanation, but "country" is still far bigger than "community".
  - theptip 4y ago
    I see what you mean. Yes, I agree, it’s in some sense suboptimal for a community to outsource moderation to a larger entity. However I think moderation is difficult (and this fact is under-appreciated) and so the limit of “perfect moderation per community” is probably not practical. (Indeed I’m not even sure that’s a possible thing, since each community member might disagree, even though there are emergent norms at any given time within a community.)
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Absolutely, and those norms are best enforced by that community. I feel like I'm describing a social network I should be building. Or has already been built.
dontreact 4y ago
It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication (here we are communicating without Facebook involved) I do have some agreement that when a platform gets very large, it makes sense to have some regulation around the censorship decisions they take. Specifically, rules around transparency make the most sense to me. On the other hand, a blunt regulation such as saying that large tech platforms are not allowed to do any platform or country-wide moderation doesn’t make as much sense to me. My experience with all unmoderated online communities is that they devolve into something extremely unpleasant, and forcing Facebook to push ALL of the moderation work down to specific groups or users themselves is not a workable approach to this problem.
- xdennis 4y ago
  Company towns weren't a monopoly either. You could always walk outside town and enjoy your free speech there. But free speech laws applied because they functioned as public places. Facebook is such a public place. Additionally, Facebook and the rest did function as a cartel when they coordinated to ban Alex Jones from all platforms, even the ones where he wasn't present.
  - dontreact 4y ago
    In a very real sense a lot of people had no choice but to stay in company towns. There are certainly similarities between a company town and Facebook, but choosing not to use it is not a matter of survival for anyone. I agree that Facebook, like company towns, should be regulated given the scope. But I think we should evaluate bannings like Alex Jones more from first principles such as whether there is more harm in allowing him to stay on these platforms or in banning him rather than being strictly adherent to the principle of free speech.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication For sure - I didn't say it did. The rest of what you say I don't really agree with. Expecting a professional moderator from Facebook to moderate a community is the unworkable approach. It has to be done by those communities. Here's another issue: if someone breaks the law in their country that bans them from using some/all of Facebook then should Facebook comply? In some cases it makes sense (e.g. someone convicted of something related to children should probably be banned from communicating with children) but not in others, say where lower caste/class people are legally banned from speaking. Facebook is a big enough place that these things really matter, and I don't think we or Facebook should assume that the decision to veto speech is Facebook's. To repeat my key point: people demanding that Facebook not be the veto decider are not trying to threaten your online communities. They're just looking at the power dynamics and concluding that that power should be held by those communities (or the law of the land(s)), and not by Facebook.