Gun Ranges Get Put in Facebook Jail; Is That a Free Speech Issue?
forbes.com
forbes.com
From my vantage point it looks like you have to literally be selling fake dietary supplements on the back of a conspiracy theory about the Sandy Hook kids being crisis actors to get yourself kicked off Facebook.
> According to Facebook’s policy, it does not allow ads promoting sales of firearms, silencers, other weapons like knives and fireworks, and ads promoting the brandishing of firearms.
Guns are not only legal, but Constitutionally protected. What explanation for banning them other than pushing a Democratic pro-gun-control agenda? Imagine the furor if Facebook banned ads for contraception or abortion services.
It absolutely is a free speech issue. It's not a First Amendment issue, but First Amendment issues are only a subset of free speech issues.
Ideally we could have a forum that actually encourages free speech (including anonymous and pseudonymous speech, extremely rude but not outright threatening speech, and paid shills). If we can't have that, many platforms each with their own agenda is much better than one dominant platform with a bias towards one side of the political spectrum.
That said, if you're the type of person that cannot stand to see people saying things that you find distasteful then yeah, you better stick to Facebook.
True enough at it's inception. But a look at the front page will disprove it today. It's just that some perspectives on some topics are more equal than others.
>in comments
There's no debating that re: comments. But it's not relevant to this topic or my comment about the topic (which is high quality, relevant, and tech).
Of course meta comments like these are exactly what are justifiably moderated and removed. You could argue this one was flagged because it might lead to these kind of comment threads, cutting it off before it could start. But it wouldn't start if the flag wasn't confirmed.
The intent behind the culture hasn't changed since its inception, though. New users have arrived expecting a greater degree of freedom of exchange and a freer hand than they will ever be permitted.
>There's no debating that re: comments. But it's not relevant to this topic or my comment about the topic (which is high quality, relevant, and tech).
Unfortunately, this forum is designed so that it takes only a few flags to sink a story entirely, and I believe flags are weighted by karma. So the opinion of a minority of high-karma users or a larger set of lower-karma users outweighs that of the masses, and even an objective view of a story's relevance, by design. Cultural integrity and overall quality control is considered more important.
My point being that what is considered a "biased censorship problem" here is Hacker News working as intended.
In the same vein I understand private companies can decide what happens on their platform. It's just this odd morality police structure that seems to be growing stronger and stronger.
It would be tough to prove, though. Maps are rarely guaranteed to be accurate at all times.
If the current government has it's way, we may soon find out anyway and that will be an interesting day.
Unfortunately, it means I'm also inconsistent in how the right of free speech is applied. I don't like the idea of people being denied access to abortions. At the same time, I despise and detest anyone who tries to hide behind the color of religion to deny services to people in need of abortion services or even just denying services to LGBTQ people who just want a damn cake.
I haven't worked out a consistent framework of thought except to say "I hate assholes, people who are intentionally assholes and to hell with the people who support them."
If Google starts to remove all controversial or touchy subjects from it's search results the end result won't be pleasant.
People rely on Google as their main and often single source of information if it's not on Google it may as well not exist.
Now if Google should have so much power that's a different question but because they (and the rest of their club) already do how they handle free speech and protected speech is a very hot topic and mucking it with 1st amendment issues is a cheap trick to sweep it under the rag because at this point in time their policies match your own views.
Societies tend to oscillate between progressivism and conservatism, Gen Z appears to be one of the most conservative generations in recent history so what happens when Google is filled with these guys instead of millenials? If you allow Google of Facebook to remove content that objectively isn't even remotely related to hate speech or anything that should be controversial like a gun range you essentially open the window for them to do the same thing to things you care about down the line.
Eventually Facebook or Google will touch an issue that you care about and would like to censor it and at that point you would have no ground to stand on.
And while we can debate about positive and negative freedoms all day long alluding to the rest of your post one thing we can agree with is that to be able to have a discussion we need to preserve the freedom of speech and freedom of speech also includes that everyone should have a platform to voice their views.
And i somewhat find the last sentence of your comment ironic:
>"I hate assholes, people who are intentionally assholes and to hell with the people who support them."
You do realize that that LGBT couple admittedly went to multiple places until the found one that would not serve them, and then made a whole fuss about it which was blown out of proportion because specific bakery apparently did not do custom cakes at all you had to order from a specific set of cakes and design and that's it.
They offered them a cake from the available selection but the couple wanted a custom one so they were refused.
Now considering they went to other places until they found that one and considering that it's questionable that they were refused service in the first place would you consider them to be assholes? and I don't mean the bakers...
Free speech, as codified in the first amendment, restricts what the GOVERNMENT can't do, not what a private company can do.
Their microphone, their mute switch.
Something can be a free speech issue without being a first amendment issue. You're attacking a position that the author never took; the article even explicitly mentions that a private company is allowed to do this.
Also, even though the words 'free speech' having meaning outside of a legal context, all of those contexts have better words already that don't introduce legal ambiguity. Maybe it's not a free speech issue, but it is an issue with censorship, or overly aggressive moderation, or they could claim unfair prejudice or even corporate oppression. Just don't say 'free speech', because there are always better words to use with less legal or moral ambiguity.
Maybe it's my terminology that's wrong, but when someone uses the term 'free speech', I assume they are talking specifically about a first amendment issue
My opinion is that pretty much any other Western country gets free speech more right than America.
Unfortunately, the government is not the only threat to free speech.
Yes. You have to wonder how many millions of dollars in copyright claims Facebook would face per day if they were treated as a publisher (like a newspaper, which controls content and is responsible for it) rather than a common carrier (like the phone company, which does not control content and is therefore not responsible for it).
They should be made to decide which of the two they want to be.
If we privatized every public square in the country, and they were all owned by a single corporation that would set arbitrary rules for their use, would that be a free speech issue?