Facebook is cleaning house

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
What we are talking about here is a massive limitation on political speech, in opposition to everything the 1st was written about. Specifically, if anything is guarded by the first, we know it is religion, political speech, and criticizing the government. To use libel and slander as examples for the governmental precedent limiting speech is intellectually dishonest.

More importantly, we are now reaching the point that Twitter and company are deplatforming people and literally stopping them from participating in their ability to speak in the town square. They've have even banned political parties. While the fact that they are private companies is true, its neither than simple nor that final. The left spent two years incensed about Russian influence in the election. What is it when Twitter bans a point of view, or a political party, or political speech? Hiding behind 'private corporation' seems an ethical cop out. Do we really want Twitter and Facebook deciding who can speak?
We should want Twitter and Facebook deciding who can speak on Twitter and Facebook, and ajudicating that as objectively as possible consistent with their ToS. Redefining these platforms into the "public square" is a strong leap that I don't feel is supported by their size or ubiquity, and certainly doesn't supersede their right to curate content on their platform that they wholly maintain and control.

Now I will agree that social media and its rapid growth has unforeseen consequences that in several large ways are not properly being addressed with current law, so it's fair to have this discussion. But this is all framed in Orwellian terms which rhetorically amount to little more than dressing for a slippery slope argument.

You keep talking about protecting the First, and indeed that is important. But what you're suggesting is not an invocation of 1A: that only applies to the government restricting your speech (which we have already agreed it does in specific ways). So to redefine private platforms into falling under the purview of the 1A is a dramatic step that isn't properly being argued for, seemingly only to turn Facebook into a platform that cannot audit or curate the content it hosts.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,689
1,900
500
The "private platform" argument is so annoying at this point.
These are platforms of planetary level (FB has 2 billion users FFS).
These are platforms where GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS POST.
The right of censoring on those platforms cannot be exclusively given to a bunch of Californian billionaires.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
The "private platform" argument is so annoying at this point.
These are platforms of planetary level (FB has 2 billion users FFS).
These are platforms where GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS POST.
The right of censoring on those platforms cannot be exclusively given to a bunch of Californian billionaires.
It keeps being evoked because it is a fundamental difference. The only justification people are bringing up is that their size requires a different ruleset, but the process of doing so requires fundamentally changing what we define a self autonomous private corporation to be. And all that is in service of turning Facebook into a blue 4Chan where pretty much anything flies.

Conflating right to speech with right to a privately owned platform isn't being resolved.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
Eh, it’s not a good example. Race is an immutable characteristic; political affiliation is not. I’m obviously no fan of deplatforming but race and politics aren’t comparable attributes.
What about religion?

You’re looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Discrimination against race was perfectly acceptable until it wasn’t.

Your belief system also should not be discriminated against. I probably don’t need to point out the difference between believing something and how it differs to genuine hate. Completely different conversations
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
What about religion?

You’re looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Discrimination against race was perfectly acceptable until it wasn’t.

Your belief system also should not be discriminated against. I probably don’t need to point out the difference between believing something and how it differs to genuine hate. Completely different conversations
To me, religion is in the same category as political affiliation. It’s not an immutable characteristic, i.e. the individual has control over what they believe.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,689
1,900
500
...fundamentally changing what we define a self autonomous private corporation to be...
That sounds much more complicated than it really is.

Californian overlords are not protecting "others" from seeing stuff, but they are stopping communication between person and her/his followers. That is censorship in its pure form. For shit hat isn't legal, there are governments.

And, yes, I'm much more concerns about motherfuckers winning arguments by silencing/smearing opponents, than about motherfuckers like Alex Johnes having followers.

And that kind of changes happened before and quite quickly, once it became apparent changes were needed (duckduckgo Standard Oil)

Conflating right to speech with right to a privately owned platform isn't being resolved.
When platform gets too big, different rules should apply, this isn't a new concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
714
1,035
220
Regarding these arguments that businesses can do whatever they like; So businesses in USA can still refuse service to black people because they are private?
Yes, they should be able to deny service to anyone they wish. Customers, in turn, have the right to boycott till they mercifully file for bankrupcy. The 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful for a reason.

This seems to be the odd situation where people who usually don't like state intervention are calling for it and people who usually cry for state intervention want none of it.

I say let businesss run as they please and face the consequences of their often times irrational decisions.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,125
691
270
The "private platform" argument is so annoying at this point.
These are platforms of planetary level (FB has 2 billion users FFS).
These are platforms where GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS POST.
The right of censoring on those platforms cannot be exclusively given to a bunch of Californian billionaires.
They can and they will, because its there platform.

Don't like it? move to another platform.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,689
1,900
500
Don't like it? move to another platform.
Not this hsit again.
Government posts on that platform, ignoring other stuff, I can't force government to move to another platform.
Don't like high fuel prices? Buy from someone other than Standard Oil worked so well, anti-cartel laws were introduced.

Want to win disputes, up your arguments. Silencing opponents is simply pathetic.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
Yes, they should be able to deny service to anyone they wish. Customers, in turn, have the right to boycott till they mercifully file for bankrupcy. The 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful for a reason.

This seems to be the odd situation where people who usually don't like state intervention are calling for it and people who usually cry for state intervention want none of it.

I say let businesss run as they please and face the consequences of their often times irrational decisions.
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. When companies become essential to the day to day, they need to be regulated by a central body, especially if they are shown to be incapable of doing it right themselves. Whether it’s transport, health or utilities. They all follow central authorities as mandated by government. Seemingly social media companies now need to be included.

It’s not like a coffee shop where you can simply walk across the road. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
 

Shy Fingers

Member
Aug 3, 2011
1,170
101
480
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. When companies become essential to the day to day, they need to be regulated by a central body, especially if they are shown to be incapable of doing it right themselves.
I'd hardly call Facebook and Twitter "essential to the day to day".

I still don't see what this regulation would look like. What would the definitions of what is worthy of being banned and what isn't? When is a company so large that it must be related?

From a legal standpoint, this is in no way an easy thing to do.
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
714
1,035
220
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. When companies become essential to the day to day, they need to be regulated by a central body, especially if they are shown to be incapable of doing it right themselves.
They're not essential.
I can go on this forum and express myself. I can stream on Twitch, I can go on other forums, other message boards, Reddit, 4chan, and do the same. I can start a YouTube channel, I can turn my PC into a server and host my own site 24/7.

Your point doesn't hold.

Whether it’s transport, health or utilities. They all follow central authorities as mandated by government. Seemingly social media companies now need to be included.
Without getting into a in-depth political discussion, those are not comparable.

It’s not like a coffee shop where you can simply walk across the road. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But you can walk across the road and do just that.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
I'd hardly call Facebook and Twitter "essential to the day to day".

I still don't see what this regulation would look like. What would the definitions of what is worthy of being banned and what isn't? When is a company so large that it must be related?

From a legal standpoint, this is in no way an easy thing to do.
Depends on your definition of essential. Only air, sustenance and shelter is truly essential to survival. Internet is non essential, electricity, hot water. Yet the level of reliance in society on these things is almost fundamental.

Many rely on these platforms for business, for finding work, for building social contacts, especially if physically incapable. denying anyone access is no trivial matter.

Regulations are criteria for proper and transparent operation. Could be simple, could be vast, but needed to lay proper groundwork.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
They're not essential.
I can go on this forum and express myself. I can stream on Twitch, I can go on other forums, other message boards, Reddit, 4chan, and do the same. I can start a YouTube channel, I can turn my PC into a server and host my own site 24/7.

Your point doesn't hold.



Without getting into a in-depth political discussion, those are not comparable.



But you can walk across the road and do just that.
Well maybe if ISP’s come together and say they don’t like the cut of your jib, then you won’t be able to do any of those things. No big deal I guess, who needs it. There nothing more to discuss here, it’s getting silly.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
Can @BraveOne and @Nobody_Important answer this question please or are you two buddies to busy spamming the TRIGGERED emote instead of backing up your bullshit?
Of course businesses can't discriminate based on race. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. Being banned from Twitter or Facebook for breaking their ToS is not the same thing as being refused service based on the color of your skin. That is a stupid as hell comparison.



A better example would be a business kicking someone out or refusing them service because they are causing a scene and upsetting other customers. In which case yes of course the business has that right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BraveOne

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
714
1,035
220
Well maybe if ISP’s come together and say they don’t like the cut of your jib, then you won’t be able to do any of those things. No big deal I guess, who needs it. There nothing more to discuss here, it’s getting silly.
You switch ISP.

If all ISPs follow the same path, if, like Milton Friedman used to point out, there's relative availability of capital, if enough customers feel their voice is being silenced, then a new ISP will emerge to cater to them. VPNs and cryptocurrencies stand as examples of entire industries born out of the need to circumvent this kind of limitations.

The case could be made the reason tech companies have been allowed their behaviour is because the sate wants to control speech by proxy. Full-fledged censorship would be unacceptable to many, so the alternative may have been to afford tech companies compete free rein as long as they deliver on the results.

I can understand If you don't want to discuss this any further. But any suggestion that a certain view is so self-evident that it dispenses with examination is likely hollow.
 

Shy Fingers

Member
Aug 3, 2011
1,170
101
480
You switch ISP.

If all ISPs follow the same path, if, like Milton Friedman used to point out, there's relative availability of capital, if enough customers feel their voice is being silenced, then a new ISP will emerge to cater to them. VPNs and cryptocurrencies stand as examples of entire industries born out of the need to circumvent this kind of limitations.
Sadly most don't have an option to switch ISP in the US due to how the industry is run. Now there's some regulation I can get behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSC

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
You switch ISP.

If all ISPs follow the same path, if, like Milton Friedman used to point out, there's relative availability of capital, if enough customers feel their voice is being silenced, then a new ISP will emerge to cater to them. VPNs and cryptocurrencies stand as examples of entire industries born out of the need to circumvent this kind of limitations.

The case could be made the reason tech companies have been allowed their behaviour is because the sate wants to control speech by proxy. Full-fledged censorship would be unacceptable to many, so the alternative may have been to afford tech companies compete free rein as long as they deliver on the results.

I can understand If you don't want to discuss this any further. But any suggestion that a certain view is so self-evident that it dispenses with examination is likely hollow.
A new isp won’t open when only YOU are the one being silenced. You keep relying on the simple premise of economics where a subpar business has high dissatisfaction and everyone is ready to jump to something better. This is not the issue here, at all.

The only states that want to control speech are communist and totalitarian states. I believe the USA has freedom of speech laws that regulate the gov to be more open than private enterprise. As we are witnessing here.

There’s nothing more to discuss because there’s really no refuting what I’ve said at any level. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way, it’s just the cocksucking sum and substance off it.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
Sadly most don't have an option to switch ISP in the US due to how the industry is run. Now there's some regulation I can get behind.
You don’t have to look further than Net Neutrality. A world of have and have nots on a platform that is seen as basic social right in society.
 

Shy Fingers

Member
Aug 3, 2011
1,170
101
480
You don’t have to look further than Net Neutrality. A world of have and have nots on a platform that is seen as basic social right in society.
...What ISP provider you have access to and Net Neutrality are not even remotely the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
Of course businesses can't discriminate based on race. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. Being banned from Twitter or Facebook for breaking their ToS is not the same thing as being refused service based on the color of your skin. That is a stupid as hell comparison.



A better example would be a business kicking someone out or refusing them service because they are causing a scene and upsetting other customers. In which case yes of course the business has that right.
Wrong, the better example as related to the matter at hand is a business kicking someone out because they are wearing a red hat with a 4 letter acronym on it starting with M and ending with A
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
714
1,035
220
A new isp won’t open when only YOU are the one being silenced. You keep relying on the simple premise of economics where a subpar business has high dissatisfaction and everyone is ready to jump to something better. This is not the issue here, at all.
You are not owed anything.
No company owes you goods or services. No one is stopping you from hosting your site on your own PC.

The only states that want to control speech are communist and totalitarian states. I believe the USA has freedom of speech laws that regulate the gov to be more open than private enterprise. As we are witnessing here.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true.

There’s nothing more to discuss because there’s really no refuting what I’ve said at any level. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way, it’s just cocksucking sum and substance off it.
Thanks for your impartial assessment.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
Thanks for your impartial assessment.
Sorry, hope that didn’t come across as rude, I was quoting Deadwood.

Last words, philosophise deeper, look beyond the surface. Asses all angles, privately run essential services, how their absence would effect you, how many billions use certain services, how things that seemed inessential yesterday, have become essential today, etc.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Cosmogony

Zaru

Member
Oct 2, 2012
3,296
218
410
If all ISPs follow the same path, if, like Milton Friedman used to point out, there's relative availability of capital, if enough customers feel their voice is being silenced, then a new ISP will emerge to cater to them. VPNs and cryptocurrencies stand as examples of entire industries born out of the need to circumvent this kind of limitations.
That's cute
Do you realize ISPs in the US are effectively influencing legislation to make new competition basically impossible in many areas?
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,279
501
215
No, there's a pretty explicit line drawn here. Sharing means literally sharing web links and media. You can talk about Jones all you want (so long as you're not violating other policies in the process), you just can't directly use things produced by him or Infowars.
So you can basically quote Jones' news article and say go to infowars for more info, and you won't be banned? Somehow I doubt that.
Yes, they should be able to deny service to anyone they wish. Customers, in turn, have the right to boycott till they mercifully file for bankrupcy. The 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful for a reason.
what about hospitals? Once dead it matters not whether they go bankrupt or not.
If all ISPs follow the same path, if, like Milton Friedman used to point out, there's relative availability of capital, if enough customers feel their voice is being silenced, then a new ISP will emerge to cater to them.
So if not enough individuals for a new ISP exist, than censorship should prevail?
 
Last edited:

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
902
1,130
210
Eh, it’s not a good example. Race is an immutable characteristic; political affiliation is not. I’m obviously no fan of deplatforming but race and politics aren’t comparable attributes.
I disagree, you are allowed to align politically how you see fit in this country and it is under direct attack by democrats/liberals and they are actively censoring conservatives under the guise of deplatforming dangerous people. Who the fuck is dangerous of the people they banned besides Louis Farrakhan? Oh noes, you hurt me with words, let me just ban you!!!!
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
902
1,130
210
To me, religion is in the same category as political affiliation. It’s not an immutable characteristic, i.e. the individual has control over what they believe.
Matt, sorry but you are spewing some serious bullshit right now. There is absolutely an unalienable right in this country to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of political belief and all 3 are under attack from liberals and we shouldn't have to put up with it or allow it to continue. Just because the platform is private(which it is not anymore when it is a global thing) does not mean they get to censor you for your beliefs or political leaning, don't make an excuse for idiots please.
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
714
1,035
220
That's cute
Do you realize ISPs in the US are effectively influencing legislation to make new competition basically impossible in many areas?
You've just awsered your own rhetorical question.
More competition is the better solution.
So fight to have the legal barriers to more competition removed.

(…)

what about hospitals? Once dead it matters not whether they go bankrupt or not.
Why are you bringing this up? If you want to talk macroeconomics by all means start a new thread.

So if not enough individuals for a new ISP exist, than censorship should prevail?
It's a matter of principle. It's their platform. They can do as they please, provided they're not breaking the law. Start your own platform. Adopt the alternatives. Go for different media.

Now, I will call out their obvious double-standards amd applaud initiatives like Peterson's and Rubin's forthcoming alternative to Patreon.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,279
501
215
Why are you bringing this up? If you want to talk macroeconomics by all means start a new thread.
Saw denial of service based on race being justified by some and replied with a sensible question what about hospitals denying service based on race?
It's a matter of principle. It's their platform. They can do as they please, provided they're not breaking the law. Start your own platform. Adopt the alternatives. Go for different media.

Now, I will call out their obvious double-standards amd applaud initiatives like Peterson's and Rubin's forthcoming alternative to Patreon
no if they are going to curate they should be labeled as a publisher not a platform, and held liable for all they host.
 
Last edited:

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
17,904
1,082
1,690
That's a fair point.
More emphasis needs to be placed on this.
Yes, I think all this 'freedom of speech' discussion is a bit misleading. Simplified:

Utility provider = You need to provide service indiscriminately to everyone, but you are not responsible of what they do with said utility.

Publisher = You choose what is published, and are legally responsible of the content you put out.

Currently Facebook, Instagram and the like are having their cake and eating it. They pick and choose content at their own discretion acting like a publisher, but when it comes to liability of content on their platform they point to their role as a utility.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,126
2,806
415
Does anyone on the left realize that if a handful of people knew they could deplatform others 20 years ago, none of the societal changes seen over the last 20 years would have occurred? Wake the hell up people. Deplatforming will not make this world better. If you support this you are literally handing control of society to a small group of people who will turn on you the moment it becomes advantageous.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
no if they are going to curate they should be labeled as a publisher not a platform, and held liable for all they host.
Based on what precedent? Why would a company not be able to curate what's put on their platform?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,477
940
Australia
Matt, sorry but you are spewing some serious bullshit right now. There is absolutely an unalienable right in this country to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of political belief and all 3 are under attack from liberals and we shouldn't have to put up with it or allow it to continue. Just because the platform is private(which it is not anymore when it is a global thing) does not mean they get to censor you for your beliefs or political leaning, don't make an excuse for idiots please.
Nah, I think you just misunderstood my point. I agree with you that corporations that have effectively captured the public square shouldn’t be banning people for legal speech. I’m saying that race and political affiliation are not comparable attributes because one you can change while the other you can’t. It’s an apples and oranges comparison. I’m sure you would support banning people for coordinating terror attacks on social media but I cannot think of any instances in which banning someone for their race would be justified.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,279
501
215
Based on what precedent? Why would a company not be able to curate what's put on their platform?
Based on new laws. They are exploiting protections and immunities meant for neutral platforms, not for political entities and publishers.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,126
2,806
415
Based on what precedent? Why would a company not be able to curate what's put on their platform?
Based off just that one post, I don't think he is saying they should be prohibited from curating at all. I think he's referring to the shield they have from lawsuits for defamation, copyright, etc., which exempts them as a platform holder since they are not a publisher of the material. So what he is saying is if they want to curate, which is deciding what is and is not posted, they should be responsible for what they post just like a newspaper, etc. Basically, they should not be allowed to continuously argue both sides of the coin. Either they provide a neutral platform, or they are responsible for what content they allow to be published.
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
Based on new laws. They are exploiting protections and immunities meant for neutral platforms, not for political entities and publishers.
Those protections being that people can voluntarily use your site, and you don't have to host content you don't want to as long as they don't infringe upon standing laws? Banning someone for doing and/or saying something that happens to be associated with conservative thought is not the same as banning someone for being conservative. Same way it is illegal to ban someone for being religious, but it isn't illegal to ban someone for doing or saying homophobic things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,279
501
215
Those protections being that people can voluntarily use your site, and you don't have to host content you don't want to as long as they don't infringe upon standing laws? Banning someone for doing and/or saying something that happens to be associated with conservative thought is not the same as banning someone for being conservative. Same way it is illegal to ban someone for being religious, but it isn't illegal to ban someone for doing or saying homophobic things.
Sorry, but if you want to ban conservative speech, you're taking a political stance and should be classified as a publisher, you decide what to host and what not to, you should be held liable for all you host. That makes your business unviable? tough luck.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,126
2,806
415
Those protections being that people can voluntarily use your site, and you don't have to host content you don't want to as long as they don't infringe upon standing laws? Banning someone for doing and/or saying something that happens to be associated with conservative thought is not the same as banning someone for being conservative. Same way it is illegal to ban someone for being religious, but it isn't illegal to ban someone for doing or saying homophobic things.
Regarding the bolded question - the answer is no. The protections are from being sued or held liable for what users post, based on the premise that you are simply a platform holder. To protect free speech platform holders are not held liable for users content generally. That protected these companies as they grew, but now these companies are starting to act as the arbiter of content more and more. This all got a free pass for a while because they would generally only ban the worst of the worst that no one cared for. But with more and more people entering the field who believe they have a duty to police thought, these companies are starting to walk a very thin line that they cross repeatedly. If they are deciding what content can and cannot be posted, as a general rule they would be subject to the same laws as every other media outlet.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,664
1,899
525
Canada
I love the private business response. You can't even open up a lemonade stand without some form of government intervention/regulation. Private companies are subjected to all kinds of regulations. You can't dump waste into the river/soil, can this "private business" nonsense be used the next time someone wants to build an oil pipeline? You can't deny service for immutable characteristics. You have to follow building codes, fire codes, health codes etc. Different industries have different regulations to ensure the public good. Why should social media platforms not be subjected to some sort of regulations? Did people miss the two years of investigations that resulted from hysteria that social media might be able to change the outcome of elections. Nope, definitely not something that should be regulated.
 
Jan 18, 2019
249
361
270
Nothing is going to happen. Too many people in Congress are bought off by these corporations, both (D) and (R).
 
Last edited: