4 ms·

You really think we'd be better off with such sites flooded with Nazi propaganda and Conspiracy theories? Or (as is more likely) if those sites started restric

You really think we'd be better off with such sites flooded with Nazi propaganda and Conspiracy theories? Or (as is more likely) if those sites started restricting who could post things? Actual freedom requires some restraint. Every "american" freedom recognises this from speech to religion to arms. And that's without asking why a few billionaires who inherited major newspapers should be allowed to decide instead...

sneak 4y ago
This is the smallest fraction of the content censored by Facebook et al. The censorship machine is large and high-volume.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I was wondering so I looked: https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5ee0209139ca790006b69b27/Facebook-content-removal-reasons/960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960 https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5ee020... Of course, that is right now. When people find out it's a free for all, the trolls will descend. And on many networks like facebook, it's much easier to censor 1 neo nazi than 100 fake news victims so when we stop, that nazi will likely post more than the 100 others put together.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Do you truly believe that that's the issue that will arise with uncensored platforms? Many more people want to see nudity than want to read nazi rants.
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      Yes actually. Porn is already available and the average person feels no need to "push" it on facebook (maybe some people want to advertise their Only Fans?). Nazi or other terrorist propaganda, and conspiracy theories are ALL about recruitment.
goodSteveramos 4y ago
The restrictions on speech allowed under the first amendment are politically neutral. Letting billionaires decide what is “misinformation” is not.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  You misunderstand what free speech under the First Amendment is. It stops prior restraint from the government on political speech. It does not stop post restraint, and has zero to do with you posting things using resources from public companies. It's a governmental restriction, not a company, employer, parent, or societal restriction. Note the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law restricting the free speech of the press. Social media companies are more like press than anything else - and the courts give them the same first amendments you have. They do not have to post your content if they don't like it, in the same manner you don't have to let them put yard signs on your property expressing things you dislike. >Letting billionaires decide what is “misinformation” is not. They're not stopping you from free speech. They're not letting you post anything you like on their property. You can speak all you want, you can organize, make flyers, start competing companies. And billionaires are certainly not some monolithic group - for any one piece of information or misinformation there's plenty of billionaires on all sides of it.
  - goodSteveramos 4y ago
    I shouldn't need a billionaire to take up my cause before I'm allowed to advocate for it on social media. Freedom of political speech is not a law or constitutional amendment. Its a fundamental cultural value of Americans. Im sick of people trying to kill it off in all but name by paradoxically citing the limitations of that amendment.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      I am really confused as to why folks think Zuck is making editorial decisions. Facebook is not one person, and it makes its content decisions based on the brand and type of experience they think their customers want. Social media is not a right, nor is it even a specific thing. Facebook is a brand and a service for communicating to people you know in a family friendly way. They have no obligation to be a troll amplifier or to facilitate ideologies they feel are offensive to their target demographic and advertising base. That’s against the entire point of their for profit advertising based business, and would be materially harmful. Unlike common carriers you don’t rent time on Facebook to communicate. You agree to their T&C and their advertisers fund their service for you to be entertained by in exchange for the advertising. They never represented themselves as a free for all political outlet, and anyone who thinks otherwise just accepted “free signup” as “free speech” and clicked through the T&C that is written to protect their business. The social media you refer to is abstractly the internet in general, and while your cause is considered toxic to business you may have a hard time finding a ready made platform with hundreds of billions of dollars invested in it for your spew, but you will always be able to find a way to host an endpoint and distribute your content. But no one is obligated to amplify it for you, especially not for profit enterprises who are creating a branded experience for their customers.

sneak 4y ago

This is the smallest fraction of the content censored by Facebook et al. The censorship machine is large and high-volume.

LatteLazy 4y ago
I was wondering so I looked: https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5ee0209139ca790006b69b27/Facebook-content-removal-reasons/960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960 https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5ee020... Of course, that is right now. When people find out it's a free for all, the trolls will descend. And on many networks like facebook, it's much easier to censor 1 neo nazi than 100 fake news victims so when we stop, that nazi will likely post more than the 100 others put together.
- sneak 4y ago
  Do you truly believe that that's the issue that will arise with uncensored platforms? Many more people want to see nudity than want to read nazi rants.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Yes actually. Porn is already available and the average person feels no need to "push" it on facebook (maybe some people want to advertise their Only Fans?). Nazi or other terrorist propaganda, and conspiracy theories are ALL about recruitment.

goodSteveramos 4y ago

The restrictions on speech allowed under the first amendment are politically neutral. Letting billionaires decide what is “misinformation” is not.

SideQuark 4y ago
You misunderstand what free speech under the First Amendment is. It stops prior restraint from the government on political speech. It does not stop post restraint, and has zero to do with you posting things using resources from public companies. It's a governmental restriction, not a company, employer, parent, or societal restriction. Note the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law restricting the free speech of the press. Social media companies are more like press than anything else - and the courts give them the same first amendments you have. They do not have to post your content if they don't like it, in the same manner you don't have to let them put yard signs on your property expressing things you dislike. >Letting billionaires decide what is “misinformation” is not. They're not stopping you from free speech. They're not letting you post anything you like on their property. You can speak all you want, you can organize, make flyers, start competing companies. And billionaires are certainly not some monolithic group - for any one piece of information or misinformation there's plenty of billionaires on all sides of it.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  I shouldn't need a billionaire to take up my cause before I'm allowed to advocate for it on social media. Freedom of political speech is not a law or constitutional amendment. Its a fundamental cultural value of Americans. Im sick of people trying to kill it off in all but name by paradoxically citing the limitations of that amendment.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I am really confused as to why folks think Zuck is making editorial decisions. Facebook is not one person, and it makes its content decisions based on the brand and type of experience they think their customers want. Social media is not a right, nor is it even a specific thing. Facebook is a brand and a service for communicating to people you know in a family friendly way. They have no obligation to be a troll amplifier or to facilitate ideologies they feel are offensive to their target demographic and advertising base. That’s against the entire point of their for profit advertising based business, and would be materially harmful. Unlike common carriers you don’t rent time on Facebook to communicate. You agree to their T&C and their advertisers fund their service for you to be entertained by in exchange for the advertising. They never represented themselves as a free for all political outlet, and anyone who thinks otherwise just accepted “free signup” as “free speech” and clicked through the T&C that is written to protect their business. The social media you refer to is abstractly the internet in general, and while your cause is considered toxic to business you may have a hard time finding a ready made platform with hundreds of billions of dollars invested in it for your spew, but you will always be able to find a way to host an endpoint and distribute your content. But no one is obligated to amplify it for you, especially not for profit enterprises who are creating a branded experience for their customers.