4 ms·

That’s not censorship

by jshen 4y ago

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.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        Algorithmic amplification is an entirely different kind of distribution dynamic that isn't covered by your analysis. Algorithmic amplification is inherently non-neutral, so AA is already biasing distribution. Neutrality towards some content is to not algorithmically amplify it. At best you can say Facebook was neutral towards this story. But that doesn't have the same ring to it. Do they have a duty to be neutral with the application of their algorithm? Obviously not: such an algorithm must discriminate on content in some manner. There is no such thing as "neutral amplification" in this context. Do they have a moral duty to not consider political content in the application of their algorithm? Obviously not, as a private company they are free to bias their algorithm in whatever manner they see fit. Can we presume there is some kind of social contract that should constrain the manner in which they bias their amplification? Perhaps one could argue for this. But this social contract does not extend to foreign actors attempting to sway an election. If Facebook had reason to believe that this story was a part of an intelligence operation--and they did given the FBI warning--being neutral towards this story is not breaking any social contract. Facebook has no duty to allow their product to be the vehicle of a foreign psyops campaign (or a local one for that matter).
        jshen 4y ago
        If I publish a book, and the local Barnes and Noble doesn’t carry it, that’s not censorship or suppression, right? I see FB as the same thing, choosing not to distribute something is not censorship or suppression unless we dilute the meaning of those words to the point that they don’t mean a whole lot. Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
  - 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.

That’s not censorship

by jshen 4y ago

That’s not censorship

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.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        Algorithmic amplification is an entirely different kind of distribution dynamic that isn't covered by your analysis. Algorithmic amplification is inherently non-neutral, so AA is already biasing distribution. Neutrality towards some content is to not algorithmically amplify it. At best you can say Facebook was neutral towards this story. But that doesn't have the same ring to it. Do they have a duty to be neutral with the application of their algorithm? Obviously not: such an algorithm must discriminate on content in some manner. There is no such thing as "neutral amplification" in this context. Do they have a moral duty to not consider political content in the application of their algorithm? Obviously not, as a private company they are free to bias their algorithm in whatever manner they see fit. Can we presume there is some kind of social contract that should constrain the manner in which they bias their amplification? Perhaps one could argue for this. But this social contract does not extend to foreign actors attempting to sway an election. If Facebook had reason to believe that this story was a part of an intelligence operation--and they did given the FBI warning--being neutral towards this story is not breaking any social contract. Facebook has no duty to allow their product to be the vehicle of a foreign psyops campaign (or a local one for that matter).
      - jshen 4y ago
        If I publish a book, and the local Barnes and Noble doesn’t carry it, that’s not censorship or suppression, right? I see FB as the same thing, choosing not to distribute something is not censorship or suppression unless we dilute the meaning of those words to the point that they don’t mean a whole lot. Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
- 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.