5 ms·

So Facebook didn't censor anything? He didn't admit censoring and the story wasn't censored. Nobody had their posts about it taken down and nobody was prevented

by jemmyw 4y ago

So Facebook didn't censor anything? He didn't admit censoring and the story wasn't censored. Nobody had their posts about it taken down and nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story, they prevented their feeds from selecting it and showing it. Isn't that what everyone wants? Except that they do that with all stories and have no algorithms at all? It's not censorship though so I don't know what y'all talking about.

mwint 4y ago
If your ISP decided to only transmit the string “jemmyw” 10% of the time, and blackhole the other 90% of jemmyw-containing packets, we would call that censorship. Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.
- lokar 4y ago
  If you try to say something to a 3rd person standing next to us and I shout you down, that is censorship. If I refuse to tell a 3rd person (not present) something you tell me, that is not censorship. I have no obligation to repeat your nonsense.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    You don't, but FB is a communications channel.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      No, it's an advertising platform.
      - cal85 4y ago
        Could it be both?
        lokar 4y ago
        It's an organization in which people (employees, shareholders) voluntary participate that has speech rights (including the right nor to be compelled to speak) of its own.
        klyrs 4y ago
        It could be, but it's not. Their priorities are consistently aligned with keeping the ad dollars flowing and everything else is secondary. It isn't a "free speech platform," it's not a platform for social good, it's a platform where you're allowed to say things that Facebook deems profitable.
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        I certainly communicate on it.
        klyrs 4y ago
        Jehovah's Witnesses proselytize at public transit stations in my area. Still a train platform, though.
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    If you write a book and I publish it and then due to public outcry, I stop publishing it. That is censorship.
    - lokar 4y ago
      No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to help you distribute your ideas, and I can change my mind whenever I please.
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        The book example is literally one of the most common examples of censorship used throughout history. You’re redefining it.
        lokar 4y ago
        If someone, or the state, orders or pressures me to stop publishing against my will that is censorship. If someone or a group convince me to change my mind and no longer publish, that is me exercising my free speech right.
        chjj 4y ago
        That's not the definition of censorship. Censorship is the suppression of information by any authority who has the ability to suppress said information. The definition doesn't require a government or any aspect of coercion. If I run an online forum and I start removing posts I don't like, that is censorship. I'm allowed to remove those posts because it's my website, but it's still censorship.
        itronitron 4y ago
        Facebook did not remove any posts on the topic therefore Facebook did not censor the topic.
        4y ago
  - ohiovr 4y ago
    I don't recall Bell having this issue.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Only "you" and "3rd person" are individuals in this story. "I" is not an individual but a giant multibillion dollar corporation with vast reach that has swayed elections in the past. Not just some dude relaying a message.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
WillPostForFood 4y ago
nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story Facebook didn't disseminate it so you never got the chance to start discussing it.
- jshen 4y ago
  That’s not censorship
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    Wikipedia definition of censorship: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship What Facebook did fits the definition of censorship perfectly - they suppressed the story.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      There is a difference between prevention and not amplifying. Facebook did the latter.
      - WillPostForFood 4y ago
        There is no effective difference. It is limiting distribution as much as restricting the number of newspapers the NY Times could sell. Or allowing free speech in a public square, but only allowing one person in at a time to hear the speech. Facebook didn't "not amplify it" they singled it out and suppressed it. They treated it differently, and negatively.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        But censorship isn't about treating something differently. They have no duty to be neutral. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. They did not do this.
fsociety999 4y ago
That is a ridiculous take. If you share a link to an article and Facebook decides to not show it on the feed for other people especially at the direction of the FBI or government, how can you argue in good faith that that is not censorship? I think in some ways this is even more sinister than what Twitter did by blocking the article completely cause at least on Twitter you were told that you couldn’t retweet or share the link to the article. On Facebook, anyone who shared it was under the impression that their friends were going to see it, but yet they most likely didn’t.
Server6 4y ago
At the end of the day the Hunter Biden laptop story just wasn't that compelling. Everyone knew Hunter Biden had a history and struggled with drugs. It wasn't a secret. Ultimately this story wasn't buried by Facebook or Twitter. It was buried by the firehose of craziness, propaganda, and misinformation that circled the 2020 election. Just toss it on the pile of bullshit with the rest.
tomjen3 4y ago
If one of my friends share something that I have not muted, I want to see that in my feed. Thats the point of the feed. Of course things like youtube searches and related videos is less well defined.
walkhour 4y ago
The FBI interfered in an election and apparently you want to discuss whether censorship is the right word to use or not. Of course it's completely irrelevant whether what happened qualifies as censorship or not. The issue is a supposedly neutral government agent very likely swayed a free election by "suggesting" to a private company it'd be a good idea to alter the information citizens are exposed to.

by jemmyw 4y ago

mwint 4y ago

If your ISP decided to only transmit the string “jemmyw” 10% of the time, and blackhole the other 90% of jemmyw-containing packets, we would call that censorship. Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.

lokar 4y ago
If you try to say something to a 3rd person standing next to us and I shout you down, that is censorship. If I refuse to tell a 3rd person (not present) something you tell me, that is not censorship. I have no obligation to repeat your nonsense.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  You don't, but FB is a communications channel.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    No, it's an advertising platform.
    - cal85 4y ago
      Could it be both?
      - lokar 4y ago
        It's an organization in which people (employees, shareholders) voluntary participate that has speech rights (including the right nor to be compelled to speak) of its own.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        It could be, but it's not. Their priorities are consistently aligned with keeping the ad dollars flowing and everything else is secondary. It isn't a "free speech platform," it's not a platform for social good, it's a platform where you're allowed to say things that Facebook deems profitable.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      I certainly communicate on it.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Jehovah's Witnesses proselytize at public transit stations in my area. Still a train platform, though.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  If you write a book and I publish it and then due to public outcry, I stop publishing it. That is censorship.
  - lokar 4y ago
    No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to help you distribute your ideas, and I can change my mind whenever I please.
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      The book example is literally one of the most common examples of censorship used throughout history. You’re redefining it.
      - lokar 4y ago
        If someone, or the state, orders or pressures me to stop publishing against my will that is censorship. If someone or a group convince me to change my mind and no longer publish, that is me exercising my free speech right.
        chjj 4y ago
        That's not the definition of censorship. Censorship is the suppression of information by any authority who has the ability to suppress said information. The definition doesn't require a government or any aspect of coercion. If I run an online forum and I start removing posts I don't like, that is censorship. I'm allowed to remove those posts because it's my website, but it's still censorship.
        itronitron 4y ago
        Facebook did not remove any posts on the topic therefore Facebook did not censor the topic.
        4y ago
- ohiovr 4y ago
  I don't recall Bell having this issue.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Only "you" and "3rd person" are individuals in this story. "I" is not an individual but a giant multibillion dollar corporation with vast reach that has swayed elections in the past. Not just some dude relaying a message.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

WillPostForFood 4y ago

nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story Facebook didn't disseminate it so you never got the chance to start discussing it.

jshen 4y ago
That’s not censorship
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  Wikipedia definition of censorship: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship What Facebook did fits the definition of censorship perfectly - they suppressed the story.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    There is a difference between prevention and not amplifying. Facebook did the latter.
    - WillPostForFood 4y ago
      There is no effective difference. It is limiting distribution as much as restricting the number of newspapers the NY Times could sell. Or allowing free speech in a public square, but only allowing one person in at a time to hear the speech. Facebook didn't "not amplify it" they singled it out and suppressed it. They treated it differently, and negatively.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        But censorship isn't about treating something differently. They have no duty to be neutral. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. They did not do this.

fsociety999 4y ago

That is a ridiculous take. If you share a link to an article and Facebook decides to not show it on the feed for other people especially at the direction of the FBI or government, how can you argue in good faith that that is not censorship? I think in some ways this is even more sinister than what Twitter did by blocking the article completely cause at least on Twitter you were told that you couldn’t retweet or share the link to the article. On Facebook, anyone who shared it was under the impression that their friends were going to see it, but yet they most likely didn’t.

Server6 4y ago

At the end of the day the Hunter Biden laptop story just wasn't that compelling. Everyone knew Hunter Biden had a history and struggled with drugs. It wasn't a secret. Ultimately this story wasn't buried by Facebook or Twitter. It was buried by the firehose of craziness, propaganda, and misinformation that circled the 2020 election. Just toss it on the pile of bullshit with the rest.

tomjen3 4y ago

If one of my friends share something that I have not muted, I want to see that in my feed. Thats the point of the feed. Of course things like youtube searches and related videos is less well defined.

walkhour 4y ago

The FBI interfered in an election and apparently you want to discuss whether censorship is the right word to use or not. Of course it's completely irrelevant whether what happened qualifies as censorship or not. The issue is a supposedly neutral government agent very likely swayed a free election by "suggesting" to a private company it'd be a good idea to alter the information citizens are exposed to.