4 ms·

But you dont have to sell it in your bookstore. Facebook is not a country, but a private company.

by netrus 13y ago

hackinthebochs 13y ago
Responses like this baffle me. It's basically saying "I don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone not bound by law to honor it should censor things I don't like". Is this basically what you're saying? Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like? Do you think the concept "freedom of speech" is worthwhile beyond freedom simply from government censorship? I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
- SEMW 13y ago
  The argument isn't "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like". It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things. Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
  - mixedbit 13y ago
    Just to clarify: it wasn't Chomsky that wrote the ridiculous book about the Holocaust. Chomsky was disagreeing with the book thesis, but he defended the right of the author to publish it.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    >"Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". But facebook isn't "pubishing" anything, which implies some sort of editorial process and an endorsement of the content. Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. It must be that way. My gripe with netrus' comment was that his wording implied that because facebook wasn't bound by law not to censor, that they necessarily should censor.
    - SEMW 13y ago
      > Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]). But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes. > when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"! How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one. (And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison). [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/m... [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5

But you dont have to sell it in your bookstore. Facebook is not a country, but a private company.

by netrus 13y ago

But you dont have to sell it in your bookstore. Facebook is not a country, but a private company.

Responses like this baffle me. It's basically saying "I don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone not bound by law to honor it should censor things I don't like". Is this basically what you're saying? Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like? Do you think the concept "freedom of speech" is worthwhile beyond freedom simply from government censorship? I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.

SEMW 13y ago
The argument isn't "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like". It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things. Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
- mixedbit 13y ago
  Just to clarify: it wasn't Chomsky that wrote the ridiculous book about the Holocaust. Chomsky was disagreeing with the book thesis, but he defended the right of the author to publish it.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >"Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". But facebook isn't "pubishing" anything, which implies some sort of editorial process and an endorsement of the content. Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. It must be that way. My gripe with netrus' comment was that his wording implied that because facebook wasn't bound by law not to censor, that they necessarily should censor.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    > Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]). But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes. > when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"! How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one. (And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison). [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/m... [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5