3 ms·

Facebook, Instagram, etc. moderating content isn't a free speech issue. They are just glorified bulletin boards. They try to raise everyone's sense of their imp

Facebook, Instagram, etc. moderating content isn't a free speech issue. They are just glorified bulletin boards. They try to raise everyone's sense of their importance by claiming it to be a free speech issue, but they are awful garbage and the sooner everyone realizes the better for society.

mandmandam 2y ago
We're talking about nearly 200 million posts, at least, having been wiped and suppressed [0]. Many of these were both 100% true and highly important. The effects of their suppression are still felt to this day; in broken minds, broken relationships, destroyed careers, a stunted generation, and unnecessary excess deaths. Serious and brave academics were threatened and had their voices stilled. Describing Zuck's censorship of nearly 200 million posts on Facebook alone as "moderating content" is like calling a tsunami "a bit of rain". It's irresponsible. Calling a platform with 3 billion monthly users a "glorified bulletin board" doesn't sound very credible to me either. 0 - https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170
- greenthrow 2y ago
  Why would the number of posts matter? I don't care if it was 200 or 200 billion. Nothing in my original comment changes. Same for number of users. These are private platforms, not public spaces. They are not open. They are not free. They use the lie that they have anything to do with free speech as a marketing tool. Stop falling for it.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > Why would the number of posts matter? Scale matters. Everyone on HN knows this. Why would the Biden Admin have a right to lean on FB to censor true and important information? "We need you to censor this false [read: true] information from your 3 billion users, because reasons" - not a very defensible position. By the way, I've advocated for tearing Meta apart and putting it in global public ownership for years, partly because of their acceptance of over-censorship. There's such a thing as public responsibility, and Meta has repeatedly failed. I said so here, just yesterday. I'm 100% fine with Meta and others censoring some things: drug sales, scams (I wish they would!), and worse. But censoring scientists trying to say true things of a devastating pandemic, or minimize the harms from terrible policy? Censoring discussion of stories that politicians find embarrassing? Censoring the word "Zionist"??!! That's indefensible. Again, there's a basic responsibility there; whether enshrined in law or not, and whether the law is enforced or not. Allowing a platform used by nearly half all people on Earth to warp our collective understanding of issues up to and including war, plague, genocide and famine is unacceptable, whether by government "request" or not.
    - greenthrow 2y ago
      People on HN know scale matters for $$$$. Scale doesn't matter for rights. Again, these companies are using your outrage as a marketing tool. They are not, never have been and never will be open. It's not just Meta. Twitter/X is the same. They are all the same.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Scale doesn't matter for rights Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions?
        greenthrow 2y ago
        > Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions? Do I really have to explain this? We cannot permit even one person denied their rights. It isn't acceptable in small quantities and then suddenly become a problem when it's 200 million. But as I have clearly stated and has been obvious for years, you don't have a right to use privately owned web sites. The attempt to paint it as such is only a marketing ploy by those very same sites in order to paint themselves as essential to our lives. They are not. Delete your Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. they are garbage.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We cannot permit even one person denied their rights. It isn't acceptable in small quantities Nobody said it’s acceptable. What’s ridiculous is to claim the difference in scale “doesn’t matter.” > you don't have a right to use privately owned web sites Under the First Amendment, no. Under the freedom of assembly, no. Under the principles of free speech, it’s more ambiguous.
        beej71 2y ago
        > Under the principles of free speech, it’s more ambiguous. I don't think it is. The First Amendment gives companies control of what gets posted to the sites they own. And it gives you that control for the sites you own, too.
throw_m239339 2y ago
> Facebook, Instagram, etc. moderating content isn't a free speech issue. When it's at the demand from the white house, it becomes a free speech issue because it's the executive branch that essentially controls what these big bulletin boards are allowed to publish. Furthermore, nothing is for free, so what perks did these big bulletin boards got in return? maybe that administration decided not to proceed with an antitrust lawsuit as long as they complied, we don't know...
- greenthrow 2y ago
  I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already do all kinds of other moderation.
  - throw_m239339 2y ago
    > I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already do all kinds of other moderation. "the narrative", who's narrative? Of course it IS a free speech issue when the boss of the country club is the chief of executive branch and being part of the country club is a quid pro quo. Zuck and Dorsey's lackeys back then, they weren't censoring informations unfavorable to democrats or Biden's family for free.
    - greenthrow 2y ago
      Country club membership is not a free speech issue. I thought this was an obvious enough example everyone could understand. But I guess the tech companies have polluted the definition and nobody remembers civics class.

mandmandam 2y ago

We're talking about nearly 200 million posts, at least, having been wiped and suppressed [0]. Many of these were both 100% true and highly important. The effects of their suppression are still felt to this day; in broken minds, broken relationships, destroyed careers, a stunted generation, and unnecessary excess deaths. Serious and brave academics were threatened and had their voices stilled. Describing Zuck's censorship of nearly 200 million posts on Facebook alone as "moderating content" is like calling a tsunami "a bit of rain". It's irresponsible. Calling a platform with 3 billion monthly users a "glorified bulletin board" doesn't sound very credible to me either. 0 - https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170

greenthrow 2y ago
Why would the number of posts matter? I don't care if it was 200 or 200 billion. Nothing in my original comment changes. Same for number of users. These are private platforms, not public spaces. They are not open. They are not free. They use the lie that they have anything to do with free speech as a marketing tool. Stop falling for it.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > Why would the number of posts matter? Scale matters. Everyone on HN knows this. Why would the Biden Admin have a right to lean on FB to censor true and important information? "We need you to censor this false [read: true] information from your 3 billion users, because reasons" - not a very defensible position. By the way, I've advocated for tearing Meta apart and putting it in global public ownership for years, partly because of their acceptance of over-censorship. There's such a thing as public responsibility, and Meta has repeatedly failed. I said so here, just yesterday. I'm 100% fine with Meta and others censoring some things: drug sales, scams (I wish they would!), and worse. But censoring scientists trying to say true things of a devastating pandemic, or minimize the harms from terrible policy? Censoring discussion of stories that politicians find embarrassing? Censoring the word "Zionist"??!! That's indefensible. Again, there's a basic responsibility there; whether enshrined in law or not, and whether the law is enforced or not. Allowing a platform used by nearly half all people on Earth to warp our collective understanding of issues up to and including war, plague, genocide and famine is unacceptable, whether by government "request" or not.
  - greenthrow 2y ago
    People on HN know scale matters for $$$$. Scale doesn't matter for rights. Again, these companies are using your outrage as a marketing tool. They are not, never have been and never will be open. It's not just Meta. Twitter/X is the same. They are all the same.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Scale doesn't matter for rights Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions?
      - greenthrow 2y ago
        > Ten people being denied their rights is no different from hundreds of millions? Do I really have to explain this? We cannot permit even one person denied their rights. It isn't acceptable in small quantities and then suddenly become a problem when it's 200 million. But as I have clearly stated and has been obvious for years, you don't have a right to use privately owned web sites. The attempt to paint it as such is only a marketing ploy by those very same sites in order to paint themselves as essential to our lives. They are not. Delete your Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. they are garbage.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > We cannot permit even one person denied their rights. It isn't acceptable in small quantities Nobody said it’s acceptable. What’s ridiculous is to claim the difference in scale “doesn’t matter.” > you don't have a right to use privately owned web sites Under the First Amendment, no. Under the freedom of assembly, no. Under the principles of free speech, it’s more ambiguous.
        beej71 2y ago
        > Under the principles of free speech, it’s more ambiguous. I don't think it is. The First Amendment gives companies control of what gets posted to the sites they own. And it gives you that control for the sites you own, too.

throw_m239339 2y ago

> Facebook, Instagram, etc. moderating content isn't a free speech issue. When it's at the demand from the white house, it becomes a free speech issue because it's the executive branch that essentially controls what these big bulletin boards are allowed to publish. Furthermore, nothing is for free, so what perks did these big bulletin boards got in return? maybe that administration decided not to proceed with an antitrust lawsuit as long as they complied, we don't know...

greenthrow 2y ago
I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already do all kinds of other moderation.
- throw_m239339 2y ago
  > I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already do all kinds of other moderation. "the narrative", who's narrative? Of course it IS a free speech issue when the boss of the country club is the chief of executive branch and being part of the country club is a quid pro quo. Zuck and Dorsey's lackeys back then, they weren't censoring informations unfavorable to democrats or Biden's family for free.
  - greenthrow 2y ago
    Country club membership is not a free speech issue. I thought this was an obvious enough example everyone could understand. But I guess the tech companies have polluted the definition and nobody remembers civics class.