3 ms·

As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently dis

As a US citizen who takes our country’s free speech norms seriously, I don’t think Meta should be aiming to deplatform even the hateful content I vehemently disagree with. I think government should work more on helping people find alternatives to social media. The “town square effect” that makes people feel forced to use these apps is real and pernicious. That feels like a better target for regulation and taxation than content. If your business moat is based on network effects, perhaps there should be the equivalent of a land value tax on your network.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
bobthepanda 2mo ago
I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.
- holbrad 2mo ago
  I think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.
  - expedition32 2mo ago
    I have no problem with deplatforming American, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence assets. Sadly we are finding out that our way of life is under threat 24/7 by nefarious barbarians.
    - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
      bring back the iron curtain. cut the undersea cables.
  - bobthepanda 2mo ago
    I think we’ve only got here because social platforms are large and also own advertising auction platforms. I wonder how it would look like as a new antitrust vertical slice to enforce against. Plus you can always self host content and set up your own monetizing partners.
- scarab92 2mo ago
  I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking) Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users. If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points. The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.
  - tremon 2mo ago
    > If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive Ah look, it's the hallmark of well-reasoned thinking. I have seen this exact phrasing numerous times over the past week, did the bots learn a new talking point? "The right" sure is doing a lot of tolerating around abortion, trans identities and women's bathrooms and sports.
Grombobulous 2mo ago
Business is not bound to any sort of freedom of speech. There is no such thing, it does not exist. The first amendment covers government actions only. If I owned a social media network, I wouldn’t let Nazis, MLM peddlers, transphobes, pro-gun advocates, or anti-vaxxers, among others, on my network. That’s where my moral compass lies. Now, you might say that’s unfair, that’s not an open forum. I’m not being open-minded to other ideas or freedom-oriented. You don’t have to agree with me. Go use someone else’s product. The thing is, Zuckerberg has uniquely overarching control over Meta in ways that most public companies don’t. He has controlling special founder’s votes, he is the guy in charge, equivalent to a dictatorship. That means that anything Meta allows on their platform is a reflection of Zuckerberg himself. Whether or not that’s how the eyes of the law views it is very different than how it is from a moralistic “who is responsible?” angle. Zuckerberg can stop all hate and anger on his platform in one business meeting. Plenty of other platforms (public and private companies) including HN don’t allow the kind of conduct that Facebook and Instagram allow wholeheartedly. He chooses not to hold high standards for his platform because anger, fear, snake oil sales, and purposeful disinformation campaigns, among other shady business ventures, are profitable. And here we are, debating whether he and his company are responsible. After all, they just provide a neutral platform, right? If I get hit by an Amazon truck, it’s not their fault, that was a subcontractor! Companies enthusiastically create these mechanisms to detach themselves from the harm they bring.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- marris 2mo ago
  I think you may be misunderstanding the post. He is not saying that Meta is prohibited from censorship by the First Amendment. He is saying that the US has free speech norms (not laws) where it is acceptable for people to get together and rant about X, Y, or Z. There are limits (e.g. calls for violence), but they are few. Anyone who does not like the speech can leave the room, try to argue with the speaker, or make their own speech in another room. It is not the social norm to shut down the speaker, make the speaker unemployable, trash or bankrupt the venue, etc. Those actions are contrary to the norm.
segmondy 2mo ago
I suppose you are not at the end of the hateful content. It's easy when it's a group, but how small does the group have to be before they should deplatform it? 100k, 10k? 1000? 10, 1? Is one person okay? If I and a bunch of fellow idiots publish rubbish about you and you alone attacking you on facebook with our fellow 1,000,000 followers, would you still vehemently disagree with facebook deplatforming the hateful content?
ndriscoll 2mo ago
Or break the companies up like we did with Bell. Any social media platform with over 20 million MAU in the US gets broken in two, and companies with over 1M MAU must offer open federation under some reasonable terms.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

bobthepanda 2mo ago

I think there is a distinct difference between deplatforming content, and simply not monetizing it. You have the right to shout in the town square but I do not have to put money in your cup when you do it.

holbrad 2mo ago
I think that's an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. If you effectively control what is monetised, you effectively control what is said en masse. It's a distinction without a difference.
- expedition32 2mo ago
  I have no problem with deplatforming American, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence assets. Sadly we are finding out that our way of life is under threat 24/7 by nefarious barbarians.
  - red-iron-pine 2mo ago
    bring back the iron curtain. cut the undersea cables.
- bobthepanda 2mo ago
  I think we’ve only got here because social platforms are large and also own advertising auction platforms. I wonder how it would look like as a new antitrust vertical slice to enforce against. Plus you can always self host content and set up your own monetizing partners.
scarab92 2mo ago
I find those advocating for censorship of right wing voices to be pretty unconvincing, and often acting in bad faith (like this article and its cherry picking) Reddit and Blue Sky are almost entirely left-wing rage-bait and conspiracy theory content these days, and they amplify such content right to the top of the default feed, yet you rarely see the right calling for these platforms to censor their users. If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive, then it’s reasonable to expect the left to do so as well, without resorting to these contrived cancel culture talking points. The vast majority of political violence and riots in the US these days is orchestrated by left-wing movements and individuals. The assassinations of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk the attempts on Trump, all the riots surrounding BLM and George Floyd etc Obviously directly inciting violence is not acceptable, but cherry picking obscure instances of it, while simultaneously overlooking the far larger problems that exist on the left, is bad faith. The threads celebrating the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk are some of the most shared Reddit posts of all time, with zero self-reflection from the left about this double standard.
- tremon 2mo ago
  > If the right can learn to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive Ah look, it's the hallmark of well-reasoned thinking. I have seen this exact phrasing numerous times over the past week, did the bots learn a new talking point? "The right" sure is doing a lot of tolerating around abortion, trans identities and women's bathrooms and sports.

Grombobulous 2mo ago

Business is not bound to any sort of freedom of speech. There is no such thing, it does not exist. The first amendment covers government actions only. If I owned a social media network, I wouldn’t let Nazis, MLM peddlers, transphobes, pro-gun advocates, or anti-vaxxers, among others, on my network. That’s where my moral compass lies. Now, you might say that’s unfair, that’s not an open forum. I’m not being open-minded to other ideas or freedom-oriented. You don’t have to agree with me. Go use someone else’s product. The thing is, Zuckerberg has uniquely overarching control over Meta in ways that most public companies don’t. He has controlling special founder’s votes, he is the guy in charge, equivalent to a dictatorship. That means that anything Meta allows on their platform is a reflection of Zuckerberg himself. Whether or not that’s how the eyes of the law views it is very different than how it is from a moralistic “who is responsible?” angle. Zuckerberg can stop all hate and anger on his platform in one business meeting. Plenty of other platforms (public and private companies) including HN don’t allow the kind of conduct that Facebook and Instagram allow wholeheartedly. He chooses not to hold high standards for his platform because anger, fear, snake oil sales, and purposeful disinformation campaigns, among other shady business ventures, are profitable. And here we are, debating whether he and his company are responsible. After all, they just provide a neutral platform, right? If I get hit by an Amazon truck, it’s not their fault, that was a subcontractor! Companies enthusiastically create these mechanisms to detach themselves from the harm they bring.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
marris 2mo ago
I think you may be misunderstanding the post. He is not saying that Meta is prohibited from censorship by the First Amendment. He is saying that the US has free speech norms (not laws) where it is acceptable for people to get together and rant about X, Y, or Z. There are limits (e.g. calls for violence), but they are few. Anyone who does not like the speech can leave the room, try to argue with the speaker, or make their own speech in another room. It is not the social norm to shut down the speaker, make the speaker unemployable, trash or bankrupt the venue, etc. Those actions are contrary to the norm.

segmondy 2mo ago

I suppose you are not at the end of the hateful content. It's easy when it's a group, but how small does the group have to be before they should deplatform it? 100k, 10k? 1000? 10, 1? Is one person okay? If I and a bunch of fellow idiots publish rubbish about you and you alone attacking you on facebook with our fellow 1,000,000 followers, would you still vehemently disagree with facebook deplatforming the hateful content?

ndriscoll 2mo ago

Or break the companies up like we did with Bell. Any social media platform with over 20 million MAU in the US gets broken in two, and companies with over 1M MAU must offer open federation under some reasonable terms.