5 ms·

It's right there in the T&C and content guidelines isn't it?

NayamAmarshe 4y ago
That's the thing, it's not. If they specifically said that I'd be banned for having certain opinions different from Zuckerberg, I'd have never complained but they didn't. They are vague, they are disingenuous and I honestly cannot believe so many people are defending them for censoring others. Politics aside, Facebook bans people for smallest of things. I got banned for 30 days for quoting someone's comment. It's a censorship dystopia that only people with short-sighted vision of the future could support.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  I think the concern here is that the new ruling could make it mandatory for Facebook etc. to distribute hate-speech. Who wants such an outcome? The haters.
  - exodust 4y ago
    No. Hate-speech is illegal, not a "viewpoint we don't agree with". Your restaurant analogy falls short too. Dress-code is the equivalent of "civility" in discussion, and is a neutral bar that is set. It doesn't favor cotton shirts over linen shirts, which is what censoring a viewpoint would be.
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      > No. Hate-speech is illegal Is hate-speech illegal in USA? What statutes are you thinking of? I thought hate-speech was mostly allowed to exist as "free speech". The question however is should social media companies not have the right to determine what THEY think is hate-speech, and thus not share it? If hate-speech is vaguely defined then somebody has to make the decision as to what is or is not it, and whether to spread it online or not. Who better to make that decision than the companies whose business it affects, whether they share hate-speech or don't?
      - exodust 4y ago
        Yeh sorry, I forgot USA doesn't have hate-speech laws. I'm in Australia where hate-speech is technically illegal. To be hate speech, it needs to be a clear attack on someone using derogatory terms that target things like gender or religion. I don't think there's been many cases here involving hate speech. More likely people will pursue defamation and discrimination laws. Many disagree that to be merely "offended" is not enough to establish a crime. Our hate-speech laws are not universally accepted as good laws. The problem with social media companies deciding what is hate-speech, is they will get it wrong often. The moderator is human. They might be personally associated with a position or viewpoint in their own lives outside of work. They might decide to delete a post that presents a strong case against whatever position they align with, leading to an offended moderator. An offended moderator may not apply the same fairness in all situations. Too many grey areas.
        galaxyLogic 4y ago
        Moderators often make me angry as well. But I don't know if there is a better solution for preventing bad things from being spread on online forums. I've read that Trump's Truth Social doesn't much moderate their content but maybe they do block the truth, who knows? :-) .
  - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
    Why are we acting as if the 2000s never happened? There was no large-scale censorship (what is now disguised as 'moderation') and the communities flourished independently. Turns out, people like to choose what they want to see. These days, anything and everything that is slightly uncomfortable to groups is labeled as 'hate-speech'. If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons. What you're looking for is tightly-isolated communities with consent, bridging and moderation in their own spaces, not worldwide censorship. I don't like it when others are disrespectful to me, but I always have a choice of shutting down the discussion and moving on. Online communities that spread dangerous ideas are going to form in their own space, no matter what we do so banning any opinions that do not adhere to certain political views is not only dangerous but also creates a division of 'you vs me' and that thing gets ugly quick. If we know 2 communities clash, we keep them separated, as simple as that and it already happens so no big deal. It's like having a work and family chat group, different purposes, different people, different ideas, 0 clashes. The problem is you're looking at everything through the lens of offensive content. If you tell me that majority of the banned comments on the social media websites are illegal by constitution, you'd have a point but this isn't a reality. People are banned for the smallest of things, for disagreeing with someone else respectfully, for following certain political ideas. Here's another example: John Stossel was censored even though he posted factual statements - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      > If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons ... Hate-speech is like pornography. You know it when you see it. Of course one man's "pornography" can be another man's "erotica". But social media companies have the right to decide what they think is pornography vs. what is "erotica", and what they then share or not with all their customers. Why are we not complaining that Facebook muzzles the free speech of people who want to spread pornography online? Hate-speech is similar in concept to pornography but far more dangerous. It directly increases the risk of violence. Should social-media companies be forbidden from blocking pornography on their site?

That's the thing, it's not. If they specifically said that I'd be banned for having certain opinions different from Zuckerberg, I'd have never complained but they didn't. They are vague, they are disingenuous and I honestly cannot believe so many people are defending them for censoring others. Politics aside, Facebook bans people for smallest of things. I got banned for 30 days for quoting someone's comment. It's a censorship dystopia that only people with short-sighted vision of the future could support.

galaxyLogic 4y ago
I think the concern here is that the new ruling could make it mandatory for Facebook etc. to distribute hate-speech. Who wants such an outcome? The haters.
- exodust 4y ago
  No. Hate-speech is illegal, not a "viewpoint we don't agree with". Your restaurant analogy falls short too. Dress-code is the equivalent of "civility" in discussion, and is a neutral bar that is set. It doesn't favor cotton shirts over linen shirts, which is what censoring a viewpoint would be.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    > No. Hate-speech is illegal Is hate-speech illegal in USA? What statutes are you thinking of? I thought hate-speech was mostly allowed to exist as "free speech". The question however is should social media companies not have the right to determine what THEY think is hate-speech, and thus not share it? If hate-speech is vaguely defined then somebody has to make the decision as to what is or is not it, and whether to spread it online or not. Who better to make that decision than the companies whose business it affects, whether they share hate-speech or don't?
    - exodust 4y ago
      Yeh sorry, I forgot USA doesn't have hate-speech laws. I'm in Australia where hate-speech is technically illegal. To be hate speech, it needs to be a clear attack on someone using derogatory terms that target things like gender or religion. I don't think there's been many cases here involving hate speech. More likely people will pursue defamation and discrimination laws. Many disagree that to be merely "offended" is not enough to establish a crime. Our hate-speech laws are not universally accepted as good laws. The problem with social media companies deciding what is hate-speech, is they will get it wrong often. The moderator is human. They might be personally associated with a position or viewpoint in their own lives outside of work. They might decide to delete a post that presents a strong case against whatever position they align with, leading to an offended moderator. An offended moderator may not apply the same fairness in all situations. Too many grey areas.
      - galaxyLogic 4y ago
        Moderators often make me angry as well. But I don't know if there is a better solution for preventing bad things from being spread on online forums. I've read that Trump's Truth Social doesn't much moderate their content but maybe they do block the truth, who knows? :-) .
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  Why are we acting as if the 2000s never happened? There was no large-scale censorship (what is now disguised as 'moderation') and the communities flourished independently. Turns out, people like to choose what they want to see. These days, anything and everything that is slightly uncomfortable to groups is labeled as 'hate-speech'. If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons. What you're looking for is tightly-isolated communities with consent, bridging and moderation in their own spaces, not worldwide censorship. I don't like it when others are disrespectful to me, but I always have a choice of shutting down the discussion and moving on. Online communities that spread dangerous ideas are going to form in their own space, no matter what we do so banning any opinions that do not adhere to certain political views is not only dangerous but also creates a division of 'you vs me' and that thing gets ugly quick. If we know 2 communities clash, we keep them separated, as simple as that and it already happens so no big deal. It's like having a work and family chat group, different purposes, different people, different ideas, 0 clashes. The problem is you're looking at everything through the lens of offensive content. If you tell me that majority of the banned comments on the social media websites are illegal by constitution, you'd have a point but this isn't a reality. People are banned for the smallest of things, for disagreeing with someone else respectfully, for following certain political ideas. Here's another example: John Stossel was censored even though he posted factual statements - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmht6Tbtzg
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    > If nobody can define what 'hate speech' really is and if the definition changes person to person, then you're arguing for the wrong reasons ... Hate-speech is like pornography. You know it when you see it. Of course one man's "pornography" can be another man's "erotica". But social media companies have the right to decide what they think is pornography vs. what is "erotica", and what they then share or not with all their customers. Why are we not complaining that Facebook muzzles the free speech of people who want to spread pornography online? Hate-speech is similar in concept to pornography but far more dangerous. It directly increases the risk of violence. Should social-media companies be forbidden from blocking pornography on their site?