Hacker News Reader

Comment by trickledown | Hacker News Reader

Finally - they may one day realize the is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to spread lies.

Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech.

There was a time that the scientific community believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. People with different opinions should not be forcefully silenced. The government should not be able to decide which ideas are "lies."

In this case, Facebook can ban anyone they want, but that has nothing to do with free speech.

There's a number of responses to this comment, and others in this thread discussing free speech, its definition, and its implications.

Here's what I believe to be a decent resource explaining a number of common misunderstandings that come up in such discussions.

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

I mostly agree with you that lying is generally considered speech (and I wouldn't want the government to necessarily censor in the way Facebook is doing here) but lying that causes panic is not considered speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

> "The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. "

Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think that should be legal.

>>Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech.

Certain lies definitely shouldn't. Denying holocaust happened is illegal where I'm from and it should be.

Why exactly should that be illegal? The government should not be the decider of truths.

At least if private entities implement this kind of thing, those who wish can still discuss it someplace else.

Though pushing these things under the rug doesn't have the best reputation (see recent 8chan tied shooting).

Because our country has lost 6 million people in WW2 and the holocaust, estimated 1/5th of total population. Saying that it hasn't happened is more than just a lie - it's attacking the core being of our identity and denying the atrocities that were done against us. It should be illegal and luckily it is.

Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.

> Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.

Why would scale change people's values compared to say 9/11? It's important to me that we're the deciders of truth for ourselves. I believe people fighting in those wars have fought for my right to believe what I choose and not what a government tells me.

Think about this in the context China, even today and I think you'll see why I feel this is an incredibly valuable right. Governments can lie too, the American one has many times throughout history and we should and do demand a right to question it.

I very much agree. I'm personally of the opinion that anti-climate change propaganda needs to be made illegal as well. I consider the failure to allow anti-climate change speech as an act of hatred against future generations.

200 years ago, I understand the need for free speech, particularly when powers were so evenly spread, socially, between the church and other powers. Limiting speech would have most likely meant limiting scientific and social development. That process has now reversed, I think, and currently unlimited free speech aids in producing one of the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda systems that has ever existed.

I don't think that humans can deal with this in any natural, social way. The parts of the human brain that it takes advantage of is so pervasive that without extensive personal training, most people can't actually work their way around it.

EDIT: I think I should clarify. I don't mind the person on the street saying whatever they please, but no one person deserves a soap box on which to lie. The powers of the FCC regarding propaganda need to be expanded so that news organizations are required to inform the truth.

That's because the US made you as part of the Marshall Plan (assuming where you are from is Germany)

Nope, Poland. And it's not just Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...

That’s an incredibly eurocentric point of view, and not applicable to the vast majority of the human race.

No kidding. Remember all those U.S. laws enacted to censor 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Oh wait. That didn't happen because such laws would be unconstitutional.

Like I said in my other reply - if 60 million(5th of current population) instead of 3000 people died in those attacks, I strongly believe even US would reconsider such position.

If your values change based on the magnitude of an atrocity then I suggest considering whether you hold those values at all. I certainly feel for the Polish people and the extreme suffering endured in the 20th century. But in my experience, suffering builds resolve, and it may jus be that Poland does not consider free speech a fundamental right. My homeland doesn't either, much to my disappointment.

That's where we disagree.

"Obviously the media portrayal of Tiananmen square is a lie. Tank man never happened, protesters were never harmed or killed. Anyone who posts this is spreading lies!"

I mean, much of the media portrayal of the square itself actually IS a lie.

So we've got to make private industry (facebook has never and will never have the obligation to enforce first amendment rights on their platform, that's for the government) harbor any and all hate groups because if we don't ? happens and suddenly we live in the PRC?

Assuming we all support capitalism here, it should be a pretty simple calculus for Facebook. Does having (neo)Nazis on their site represent more users than they lose for having them.

What if your ISP doesn't care for security researchers or journalists, and therefore would like to terminate their internet access? Can a telephone company do the same? What about the electric company - they are often times privately owned after all.

What if they don't care for people who are gay, or from a specific country?

Could Facebook say, choose to ban all Christians or anyone who believes in a two state solution in the middle east?

You've got a couple different ideas going on there.

First, you make a fantastic argument for regulating ISPs as common carriers, bummer that's up in flames, one step forward two steps back.

Secondly, at least in the US, the whole idea of the "protected class" is to combat over reaches just like most of your examples[0]. This is also why civil rights groups are general fighting to expand the definition of protected class (though I doubt fascists ever will be included) since private companies are very happy to act against gay and trans people, for example.

As for non-protected classes ( having opinions on Israel fall pretty firmly into that) Facebook has the opportunity for the same calculus as they have with neo Nazis and the other alt-right menagerie. Are two-state proponents driving away more people than their removal will?

Is this system perfect, I don't think so, but the idea of "forced free speech" is more distastful to me. Individuals or companies are free to curate the experience they want for their users (up and to current laws around protected classes). If the consumers don't like that they're free to set up their own network (this is why Im a huge proponent for federation).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

But you miss the underlying point. If one of a dozen restaurants ban you because of a trait, that's distasteful. If every bank in your town or the electric company does, that's a problem.

Does Facebook have a meaningful alternative?

You use quote marks, but what you've written does not appear in the article and does not appear to be a quote.

Open your favorite grammar book and read the full usage of quotation marks which includes a usage as so called scare quotes or shudder quotes which indicates the author is using words in a way not genuinely intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Lies are free speech, and protected as such. Only threats and statements made to intimidate are 'nor free speech'. Censorship is censorship, even when the recipient is an unrepentant asshole.

And who defines “hate speech” and how do we know we’ll still agree with them tomorrow?

I realize that this is specifically talking about UK groups and that even in the US the 1st only applies to the government and not to any private person or entity, but it amazes me how many people complain about the massive amount of information Facebook has about them, complain about how Facebook has misused or sold that data, and then complain that Facebook hasn’t banned someone they find offensive.

Communication has become insanely centralized in recent years. Facebook can’t be trusted to have or use your information, but you’re fine with them being the free speech police?

>Communication has become insanely centralized in recent years. Facebook can’t be trusted to have or use your information, but you’re fine with them being the free speech police?

I talked with some friends at the weekend over pints. We didn't need facebook to act as a middleman.

I don't need facebook to stand on soapbox either.

This hasn't changed.

Absolutely. Unfortunately the rest of the world has and now I’m a million miles away from my friends in a country that doesn’t speak the same language and there’s this great thing called the internet that makes it feel like I’m not so far away anymore...

This is why the internet was invented and why there were free and open protocols invented to communicate using it. Unfortunately then AOL and AIM started and it was downhill after that... now we all rely on Facebook or Google or Twitter to relay our messages and that’s not great for anyone.

They're not the "free speech police", they're the "speech on their own platform which they own and operate" police. Why are you pretending not to understand the difference?

Do you seriously believe they don't bend to political pressure nor operate under their own political leanings when making such decisions?

Wait, what would be the problem of operating under their own political leanings? That's exactly the point--Facebook has decided that they oppose hate speech and will not host it. That's a political decision, and that's okay.

And when their ads in some hypothetical way influence an election, is that still ok? What if something something Russia something too?

They’re free to place any demands on their platform as they see fit. I have no problem with anything they’ve done.

The problem arises when you insist that Facebook do things according to your political leanings, but then suddenly your political leanings don’t line up with everyone else’s anymore and you’re the odd one out and now people are demanding that you be banned.

Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem. The crap they post on FB is so worthless I’m sure it’d be a negligible loss to the world if they were, but that’s the point - banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.

They’re free to place any demands on their platform as they see fit. I have no problem with anything they’ve done.

Great, I'm glad we agree!

Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem.

Including me, because I do not advocate for harming, killing, or stripping the civil rights from others, unlike the folks who are being banned. :-)

banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.

Who wants to change their minds or improve their posts? I want them the hell out of my face, permanently, and I'm happy that Facebook agrees.

Why are you following people who post these things?

So freedom of speech is not a civil right?

Everyone has a right to spout whatever crap they want. Online or on a soapbox on a street corner. You also have the right to ignore them. Exercise it and be happier in your daily life.

Free speech is an awesome civil right! But weren't we talking about Facebook essentially "kicking people out of their living room for shouting the N word"? What does that have to do with free speech?

> Including me, because I do not advocate for harming, killing, or stripping the civil rights from others, unlike the folks who are being banned. :-)

You’re stripping the civil rights from people you disagree with...

You don't have the right to shout hate speech in my living room or on Facebook, but you do have the right to do so on your own platform or soapbox--and so do the far-right groups that got banned from facebook (they're also banned from my living room, they just don't know it yet).

The internet is not a protected platform, you do not have a right to free speech on other people's websites. The 'safe harbor' excuse that Cloudflare is known for using isn't going to cut it, and Facebook sees the writing on the wall.

If you think deleting viral lies on the internet is censorship, then you're really not going to like how social media is going to develop over the next 5 years.

To be fair, it is literally censorship. It isn't government censorship, but it is a body of people making decisions about what topics and ideas are not allowable. I see a danger in that, and you are right — I'm not going to like the direction social media and communication in general seem likely to go.

Free speech doesn't imply absolute freedom. There are limits to every right, and freedom of speech isn't an exception

Ironically, there are vast swaths of threats and intimidation made on social media that are not censored.

True, but... do you approve of that? Do you think people should be free to use social media for threats and intimidation?

Facebook is shutting down what it considers the most prominent, aggressive, and dangerous of those who do such things. That is not, in itself, bad.

If they proceed to shut down the right but not the left, if they start deciding that mainstream right positions are "hate speech", that's going to be a problem. But if they have kind of a threshold, and anybody else who crosses that threshold (no matter what their position) gets shut down, that's a good thing. (The threshold may be higher than many of us like. That's probably also a good thing.)

Yes, if they could establish an objective threshold that'd be great. Probably simplest is to restrict to actual threats.

But, someone saying transgenderism might be a mental disorder is not a threat, so should not be banned. Likewise saying capitalism has led to overpopulation, environmental destruction and cultural imperialism is not a threat and should not be banned, regardless of whether it is true or not.

I also think some sort of enforcement of etiquette that is content agnostic would be great, but that's a bit trickier to draw the line.

Indeed, see The Misguided Attacks on ACLU for Defending Neo-Nazis’ Free Speech Rights: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on...

I disagree - some lies shouldn't be protected speech. Where I'm from it's illegal to say that Holocaust didn't happen and for a good reason.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...

Noam Chomsky has this to say:

"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."

The likes of Tommy Robinson isn't free speech, it's grifting for cash and stochastic terrorism.

Regardless of what you think of him, I think that the press has a right to know about trials that are going on. There should not be press blackouts and media bans on reporting ongoing trials that are underway. I do think he is a racist, but in the US, the thing that rocketed him to recent fame would never have happened. In the US we are allowed to know about trials and the media is allowed report on them when they are happening.

Tommy nearly caused the trial to collapse and for those rapists to get away.

I don't see how the act of one man filming the outside of a courthouse from the street can cause a trial to collapse. And nothing I see online backs up that claim. In the US there is no danger of a trial collapsing if I film a courthouse from the sidewalk outside of it, it is my absolute right to do so.

> In the US there is no danger

Well it's the UK isn't it? They're a little ahead of you.

Still speech. Silencing him just streisand effects him anyways so it's pretty pointless.

You turn controversial ideas into forbidden knowledge. Alex Jones is probably more powerful now to his followers due to the fact that he's contraband

I look forward to Alex Jones becoming the kind of forbidden knowledge that the flat earthers had to distribute using flyers & home-printed tabloids in the pre-internet days.

of course... 5 minute old account named trumpanomics..

My account isn't 5 minutes old, but I still agree with what parent post said. Making something taboo makes it coveted or people more interested in it than if it wasn't. Pull the straw man out and try another argument please.

If he's wrong, he's wrong regardless of his name or the age of his account.

Thank you. He is also wrong.

Could you supply a bit more reason and/or argument than just "he's wrong" and "the account is five minutes old, with a name that seems fishy to me". So far you have said exactly nothing that looks even remotely persuasive.

says who? they are people that no one voted for that decide for us what's hate speech and what is not.

Only if you decide to use their platform, which you're perfectly free not to do...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com