7 ms·

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 discuss

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.
        colordrops 4y ago
        What do you mean "preventing a certain kind of speech"? This is your own personaly crafted definition, not the consensus definition of censorship.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        No, it's the normal definition.
        colordrops 4y ago
        So what is the "certain" kind of speech? And what kinda of speech can you block where it's not censorship?
        WillPostForFood 4y ago
        By definition, none!
        WillPostForFood 4y ago
        I don't really understand what you are saying. That if something isn't 100% blocked it isn't censored? But censorship isn't about treating something differently. Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content. They have no duty to be neutral. Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebook has a duty to censor some things (child porn, live streams of killings, threats), and a duty to avoid censoring other things, like political speech, religious speech, etc. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. Yes. Preventing, suppressing, limiting, blocking. Any of those would be a form of censorship. It doesn't have to be 100% prevention, 100% blocked, or banned. They did not do this. They did. Mark Zuckerberg said the limited the distribution, that's suppression.
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      There is also a difference between suppression and prevention and nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used. Facebook suppressed dissemination of this story thus, by the definition given, it engaged in censorship. If you want to argue that the definition is wrong, fine. But that is not what you are arguing.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        >nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used There is no official or single exhaustive definition to compare text strings with and glean meaningful information. The issue is what is meant when people use the word in typical contexts. Attempted or actual prevention of certain kinds of speech is the operative meaning in the context of censorship.

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.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        What do you mean "preventing a certain kind of speech"? This is your own personaly crafted definition, not the consensus definition of censorship.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        No, it's the normal definition.
        colordrops 4y ago
        So what is the "certain" kind of speech? And what kinda of speech can you block where it's not censorship?
        WillPostForFood 4y ago
        By definition, none!
      - WillPostForFood 4y ago
        I don't really understand what you are saying. That if something isn't 100% blocked it isn't censored? But censorship isn't about treating something differently. Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content. They have no duty to be neutral. Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebook has a duty to censor some things (child porn, live streams of killings, threats), and a duty to avoid censoring other things, like political speech, religious speech, etc. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. Yes. Preventing, suppressing, limiting, blocking. Any of those would be a form of censorship. It doesn't have to be 100% prevention, 100% blocked, or banned. They did not do this. They did. Mark Zuckerberg said the limited the distribution, that's suppression.
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    There is also a difference between suppression and prevention and nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used. Facebook suppressed dissemination of this story thus, by the definition given, it engaged in censorship. If you want to argue that the definition is wrong, fine. But that is not what you are arguing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used There is no official or single exhaustive definition to compare text strings with and glean meaningful information. The issue is what is meant when people use the word in typical contexts. Attempted or actual prevention of certain kinds of speech is the operative meaning in the context of censorship.