The statements by Facebook and others pushing moral justifications around Facebook's censorship fail to entertain the possibility that even morality is subjective and relative. Facebook makes its decisions based on its own goals and preferences and morals. Facebook has established itself unfairly as a moral arbiter on a platform that is so widely used that is treated like a public utility. The people who currently agree with Facebook may someday be on the opposite side of Facebook's moral righteousness and be censored. What then?
It's fine that morality is subjective. Objectivity isn't a requirement for ethical action -- I don't need to write a formal proof to ban a white ethnostate nationalist from my web forum.
That's because there have been hundreds of years of efforts within the legal sphere to solidify your private property rights. Much of that effort involved individuals parsing, understanding, and improving the objective realities in which they lived, and resulted in your ability to not give web banning much thought.
Slavoj Žižek, a popular philosopher, has stated in an interview, which I will try to paraphrase: "some morals should be absolute. I don't want to live in a country where we would need to argue if a rape case is justified or not. We should reach consensus on some issues and treat them as absolute. "
According to that principle, you can do anything you want under the umbrella that you find it ethical. Who made you the arbiter of ethics or morals? That's why there are laws. Laws provide objectivity.
Yes, but in a lot of ways, the laws of society are a sufficiently objective moral basis, since those are the rules we chose for ourselves. Undermining those is just bad in so many ways.
In some cases, yes. But in other cases they just represent the view of the vocal majority or those in power. Laws are official and objective, morals are relative. It's fine to base decisions on agreed upon laws. Appealing to morality is just using your own opinions
I'm aware that all morals are opinions and are dependent on an underlying subjective stance, and therefore the platforms should remain neutral in order to accommodate different stances. I'm arguing that in this case, since this is about stopping the dismantling of the structure of the laws themselves, it's a stance that it's ok for a platform to take since it's in some way the most fundamental common ground that we all need to share to function together.
So, at worst, delete the post, not ban the user (though I don't support that). In my view, the posts are inferred by some to incite destruction, but there are equal grounds to say that no explicit order was made in any post. Again, it's personal opinion.
It's not a public utility and being widely used does not make it one. Lots of people eat at McDonald's and get coffee from Starbucks, that does not make McDonald's or Starbucks a public utility.
It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.
A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and regulatory capture.
Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it comes to the law of the United States - the country in which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free speech protections are an imposition upon what the government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that private firms can legally "censor" people, while also restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that restricts speech.
I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid," or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook account, you agree to have your speech moderated under their discretion. You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town, I do not really see how it can be called a utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of a public square.
> You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ...
Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.
> Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.
I disagree with this characterization of the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I find it hard to dispute that the popular alternatives are considerably more open-ended, more secure, and apply much less censorship.
However, for the sake of argument let's assume the characterization is a fair one: that one's communications are limited when using an alternative social network where fewer people are registered users. Under this circumstance, what right does any of us have to reach the kinds of people Facebook and Twitter offer?
Perhaps we shouldn't necessarily consider it "limiting," when we are unable to reach all stretches of the globe. One's ability to be "heard," really falls outside their full control as soon as one wants to be understood past the walls of the current room.
I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?
So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer expectations unreasonable?
Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is a public utility? When was the tipping point in which Facebook stopped just being a private social network and started being a public utility? And was this disclosed anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on consumer perception?
It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard?
It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know what actual autopilot for aircraft is.
>It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.
I'll preface this by saying that I don't use Facebook because I find its business model to be exploitative and invasive for a whole host of reasons.
FB users may treat it as a public forum, but that doesn't mean that it is a public forum.
There are a number of reasons (this is not an exhaustive list) why FB users might think it is a public forum:
1. They never read the terms of service;
2. They assume that they have free speech rights on the platform -- see (1) above;
3. They don't recognize that FB exists to make money selling advertising, and that advertisers are their customers, not them (again, see (1) above). Advertisers are notoriously picky about what sort of content they want their ads seen next to. And the customer is always right;
4. They don't think about the fact that Facebook's servers are the private property of Facebook, and Facebook can do (or not) whatever it wants with its private property[0].
[0] I'd point out that this is a very good thing. Because if Facebook doesn't have private property rights, then neither do you. Or me, for that matter. And if that's the case, I can come over to your house and project gay, furry porn in HD at full volume, on your walls -- all night, every night.
No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. BTW, my private property rights can be overriden whenever the governement or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need.
>No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections,
But if they can take away Facebook's First Amendment rights, they can take away yours or mine. And I'm not okay with that.
>given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook.
I don't use Facebook (I did, ever since they opened up to non-university emails until 2014) and I have no problem staying in touch/sharing/communicating with other people at all.
And until there's a decentralized, privacy and content ownership protecting social media platform (I do have a Diaspora account and even ran a pod for a while, but I don't use that anymore either) that I want to use, I'll pass, thanks.
So no. Facebook isn't required at all. There are many other ways to communicate with others.
Don't like Facebook? Vote with your feet. It doesn't hurt. Really.
>BTW, my private property rights can be overridden whenever the government or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need.
That's absolutely true. But your First Amendment rights cannot be overridden by the government. Of course there are noise/disturbing the peace/public nuisance ordinances, but your (and my) free speech rights aren't absolute either.
>Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter.
I understand where you're coming from and I probably should have said this in my previous comment; given the widespread usage of FB and Twitter, it is somewhat concerning that so many people are at the mercy of those rapacious scumbags.
My primary concern is the market and network effect power of these organizations. If you limit those, you limit the ability of these corporations to exert so much influence on online discourse.
Rather than removing their free speech (and section 230 liability protections) rights, requiring and enabling competition would be a better solution.
I wrote the following on another site (a section 230 discussion) a few days ago and think it apropos here. Your thoughts and criticism would be welcome:
"Personally, I'd rather see the following:
1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms;
2. Require ISPs to provide a minimum of half the download bandwidth in upload bandwidth (e.g., if you have 100Mb/sec down, you get at least 50Mb/sec up);
3. Modify the licenses social media platforms require for posted content (currently, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use, modify and display for any reason) to a more user-centric one (e.g., a limited, revocable license which retains copyright and ownership of content for the creator, which can only be used for specific, opt-in purposes and must regularly be renewed);
4. Require platforms to obtain opt-in agreement to all forms of tracking, whether on or off the platform.
Doing the above would reduce the powerful network effects of the big platforms, provide a wider range of interoperable choices for social media connections and platforms including self-hosting.
Throw in federation services and you can create seamless user networks across platforms.
This would promote competition, stronger control for users over their data and information, the ability to congregate/associate as you wish, and allow anyone to create the environment that they want, curated (or not) as they choose.
And it would force the big platforms to compete on features, privacy and quality experience to retain their user base.
That can be done while still maintaining the important section 230 protections that promote free speech, regardless of the size of the platforms.
Most importantly, it retains the ability for people to seek damages for libel/defamation without heavy-handed regulation and/or some person/corporation/entity deciding how much [filter bubble] is too much/too little."
>1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms;
Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective? And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms?
And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means.
>Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective?
These platforms already have APIs to share content between servers within their networks. Just provide an interface for external servers.
>And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms?
That's what federation is for. As long as I can authenticate to my account, what difference does it make whether a post is interactively entered or sent via an API?
Those platforms still have their own TOS, so they can decide how or if they want to moderate any individual post.
Something along the lines of Diaspora[0] or ActivityPub[1] federation.
>And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means.
That's the beauty of a decentralized environment. I can host my own federated server or connect to any other federated server. Presumably, someone will be willing to host your content.
And if not[2], you can do it yourself.
The best part is you can control where your data is shared and who gets to see it. If you don't want the big boys to host your stuff, you can use federation to share with others on those platforms.
All of which can democratize the environment and allow you to be in control of your data, not the rapacious scumbags that run FB or Twitter.
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like it would be a move in the right direction. I think the weak link is that until there is true competion, the big platforms will simply exercise their rights to ban posts from people they dislike regardless of how they arrive. Small platforms won't have equivalent reach. But it's a starting point.
I wish I shared your optimism. The level of censorship currently being imposed and surprisingly supported by news media is frightening and disheartening. Twitter just permanently banned Trump claiming that his tweet declining to attend the inauguration was inciting violence!? Scumbags indeed. I wonder if HN moderators will shadow ban me for this comment that mentions Trump?
Unless you're trying to create a gigantic following (presumably to make money), why would that matter?
If you're utilizing social media to communicate with your social circle (family, friends) and you can federate the platform you're on, they can see your content on your site in the same feed they see others' content on their sites too.
With federation, the content can be stored on any platform, with hooks to pull in into your feed.
At that point, the differentiators are UX quality, level and type of moderation, data licensing model and tracking/spying/ad components.
In this model, those who choose to host their own content and/or support node(s) which cater to your needs have a distinct advantage over those that don't.
Want to read Trump's blather or bask in the sweet glow of alternate facts? Host/find a node that will host such garbage and/or federate with other nodes that will.
Want to send photos of the kids to Grandma? There can be (or you can host) a node that's got you covered.
Want to discuss Barn owl husbandry? There can be a node for that.
Gotta have those furry circle jerk videos? Natch.
In a decentralized environment, there's always a place for everyone.
> Unless you're trying to create a gigantic following (presumably to make money), why would that matter?
Is that what you think this is about? Money? Censorship is almost always about power and the desire to destroy opposition. It is a means to instill fear and stifle the discussion of any 'unpopular' ideas. It separates people. Money comes later.
I have few issues in communicating with friends or family. But now I have to think twice about what I say in public. Conversations must be limited to topics approved by the tech giants and the people who hold power. And I can't easily hear what a lot of other people say. It's definitely limiting. McCarthyism again?
Your solutions are interesting but don't address the problem I'm interested in. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
>With federation, the content can be stored on any platform, with hooks to pull in into your feed.
>At that point, the differentiators are UX quality, level and type of moderation, data licensing model and tracking/spying/ad components.
This sounds like it would work to avoid censorship but I'm pretty sure I don't fully understand the mechanics of how distribution is handled and how users would find the appropriate site that hosts the content the user is seeking in cases where their normal node decides to block it.
I was hasty in dismissing this line of thought. There's more merit to it than I initially thought.
>I'm pretty sure I don't fully understand the mechanics of how distribution is handled and how users would find the appropriate site that hosts the content the user is seeking in cases where their normal node decides to block it.
There are several ways to address that issue:
1. Use a site that doesn't censor (or at least doesn't censor what you want to hear). Federate (you really should look at the links re: federation I listed a few comments back -- specifically, ActivityPub and Diaspora federation) with other sites. If the big boys are required to allow you to pull information, you can still see what's going on there;
2. All these sites have mobile "apps" (really just inferior interfaces to their web environment), so you (and/or others -- and if these sites are forced to open up their platforms it will definitely happen) can create/use an app that allows you to access mulitple platforms using the appropriate credentials;
3. Vote with your feet, as I did. A site can't censor you if you don't use it. In a decentralized environment, that's less (if at all) of an issue.
I'm sure there are many other ways to do so. Those are the ones that just popped off the top of my head.
In the interest of compactness, I'm going to respond to your later comment here.
>Is that what you think this is about? Money? Censorship is almost always about power and the desire to destroy opposition. It is a means to instill fear and stifle the discussion of any 'unpopular' ideas. It separates people. Money comes later.
I don't pretend to know what you think. However, it seems to me that most attempts to create large groups of "followers" are focused on building brands and making money.
I am a strong supporter of the freedom of expression and the Marketplace of Ideas[0]. I abhor censorship.
But I don't really get your point here. If Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Joe's Hip Hop Emporium/Bernadette's Universe of Knitting Resources don't want to include your (or anyone else's) voice, those are their free speech rights and they should not be forced to host speech they don't want to host.
So what, exactly, is it that you want? A place(s) where people can share their thoughts and ideas freely and come together with other place(s) that want to participate in that?
Or do you want to force others to host the speech that you like, whether they want to do so or not?
I'm all for the former (which is what decentralization is all about), but fiercely against the latter as it impinges on the right of free speech.
>Your solutions are interesting but don't address the problem I'm interested in. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
That may be so, but if that's the case I never understood the problem in which you're interested.
Honestly, I didn't find your comments particularly thoughtful or well researched.
However, I'm glad we could have this discussion too. Thanks!
Ouch! This isn't my area and you're right I haven't researched this topic in any depth (though I did look at Diaspora), so I'm not surprised it shows. My original comment was around meta-ethics and this is pretty far from that starting point.
Decentralized platforms like Diaspora may be viable alternatives someday, but my possibly ill-informed pragmatic gut tells me they won't be viable alternatives for many years to come.
Thanks for your patience and persistence. It was interesting!
>Ouch! This isn't my area and you're right I haven't researched this topic in any depth (though I did look at Diaspora), so I'm not surprised it shows.
Thanks for responding.
I'm glad you understood (at least I hope you did) my comment wasn't meant as an attack on you. Far from it, it was just my honest assessment. And I do appreciate the discussion.
>Decentralized platforms like Diaspora may be viable alternatives someday, but my possibly ill-informed pragmatic gut tells me they won't be viable alternatives for many years to come.
Network effects[0] give platforms like Facebook and Twitter their power and influence.
Creating (and more importantly, using) decentralized alternatives is, IMHO, the only reasonable way to counteract that advantage.
Which is why I made the suggestions WRT APIs (to level the playing field and give alternatives a chance), ISP upload speeds (to make self-hosting viable), content licenses (to give control back to the creators of content, rather than the aggregators) and tracking/advertising opt-ins (to reduce the money making power and incentives to track/spy/collect data of the big guys).
Your pragmatic gut is pretty spot on. Without at least some of the above, alternative platforms will have a hard time gaining traction (although they do exist and are viable in a number of areas) in the social media space.
I'd say that the success of decentralized alternatives rests on the willingness of people like you and me to use and advocate for those alternatives.
Perhaps it's time to install a Diaspora pod[1] or Mastodon instance[2]?
>Thanks for your patience and persistence. It was interesting!
