FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.
Facebook is, of course, not violating the legal principle of free speech. They are absolutely violating the moral principle. In the same way, if someone came over to your house and made some political argument you didn't like you would be perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave - but you'd be wrong if you claimed that you were open to hearing all kinds of opinions in your house, or that you were completely open minded.
Your comment is also needlessly hostile. Play by Facebook's rules or get out? Imagine applying this sentiment to any other objectionable thing Facebook has done. Facebook's users are just users, not automatons, and until Facebook takes over HackerNews and starts banning people for criticising them, then people should feel no hesitation about voicing fair criticism of Facebook here.
Do you and your daughter kick them out?
Or
Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room?
It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it.
But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or grand mother.
As a token concession, if he insults my father or any of my uncles, I'll let him have an, uh... "discussion"... with them while they "...work out their disagreements..." But that's not gonna end well for him either. They're all Vietnam Vets. The pissed off enlisted kind. Not the contemplative commissioned kind.
And do you believe me to be violating a "...moral principle..." by refusing the discussion? Or, more precisely, do you feel my daughter and I have a moral obligation to openly discuss such subjects? Are we "...absolutely violating the moral principle..." of Freedom of Speech by bouncing the loudmouth?
That reads like you said that there's a fairly high chance that his daughter is a whore. You should either retract or clarify, depending on whether you meant that or not.
Or did I completely misread this?
Is it your view that a man's property rights are inversely proportional to the number of people who covet his property?
In so many words - I guess. I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property. I suppose I should have written that in the first place! At the very least, respecting those rights is not the paramount virtue. I also believe that the claim "private property first amendment need not apply" is not, by and large, a principled stance when ostensibly the same mob eg cheers on the lawsuit against a bakery for not making a cake.
Sorry for the snark earlier.
>I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property...
Then that's where we differ, and we'll never agree. Apple and Toyota are still private property even if they sell and manufacture things all over the world. As more people covet an entity's property, the importance of protecting that entity's property rights becomes more important. Not less.
And, (to be honest, I had to google this whole "cake" thing), you again are well within your rights to refuse service to anyone if you are a members only service. For instance, Costco is members only, so they can even disallow blacks shopping there if they want. Please understand, I'm not saying that Costco has racial exclusivity clauses in its membership agreement. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just using that example to make the point that they would undeniably be within their rights to do so. Just as many members only country clubs do. It's private property. It's members only. It's Costco's rules. It's the country club's rules. Sorry rich black people, you'll have to golf somewhere else.
And again, the nicer the country club. The more people who covet it. The more people who want to use it. The more important it is for us to protect their property rights. Property rights and Freedom of Speech are very much the same thing. You don't really have one without the other. If you infringe a racially exclusive country club's property rights on some twisted notion of free speech, you are very much necessarily infringing the free speech rights of the country club.
As I've mentioned the purpose of free speech is not to allow any person to deliver any collection of words. The purpose of free speech is to allow people to discuss different ideas. When, and to the extent that, you prevent discussion of ideas, you are opposing the moral principle of free speech.
If someone were to insult my daughter they'd be communicating the idea "Let's fight". If someone were to tell me that they discovered my daughter were engaging in prostitution, not as an insult, but to talk about it with me, of course that would be very different. I'd want to know so I could talk to her about it and find out what was going in her life. The issue is not the words, but the intent. Insults aren't welcome in my home. Sharing important information certainly is.
I would have no complaint if insults were banned on Facebook, or people were prevented from being mean to one another. I would also have no complaint if larger accounts were subjected to harsher scrutiny than smaller ones. That's not what's happening though. Some people, with certain political ideas, are punished for nominally violating rules. This is an effort to prevent discussing these ideas and is, as I mentioned, absolutely a violation of free speech.
Facebook is, of course, legally free to violate free speech. That's their choice. Likewise, it's my choice to criticize it and point out hypocrisy to the extent that they claim to support the free exchange of ideas.
> you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally
But this part is sadly not happening. Less than ever is there any reason to form a consensus. Social repercussions don't seem to work anymore, now that everyone can find communities believing in whatever they want to, no matter how incompatible those believes are with those of others. We have to find ways to reverse that trend, before it can only be resolved with violence. Everyone of us, including cooperation like facebook, taking responsibility seems like one of the best options we have.
When I make an important decision I like to explore options and arguments for and against those options. Imagine that your kids are of the age they need to be vaccinated. You read about it online and find tons of positive things, but in real life your friends tell you that vaccines will cause autism. If you post about it online then you'll be banned because the government is trying to cover it up. You create a post talking about it, and sure enough - you are banned! That's pretty suspicious - isn't it? How can you trust that you understand an argument if you can't see the reasons supporting the other side?
Conversely, suppose you hear someone say vaccines cause autism. You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence.
Not for everything, correct. But there also are ideas that can hardly coexist and areas were consensus seems necessary. Politics is an obvious one, since at the end of the day the laws we make will govern all of us.
> You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence.
It'd be great if the world / human nature worked that way. But then we also wouldn't have got to a point were falling vaccination rates are a problem.
> [..] If you post about it online then you'll be banned [..]
Simply banning everyone doesn't sound like a good way to form consensus, doesn't it? That's a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Have you ever seen someone advocating for banning someone for genuinely asking questions? Do you think the people this article is about were just asking questions?
But yeah, determining who is a bad faith actor isn't an easy task. Especially in highly divisive times.
Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.
The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-t...
(In Facebook's case, at least, I'd say that ever since they moved on from the simple chronological "wall" showing posts as submitted, replacing it with a "timeline" where their algorithms - with plenty of input from "sponsors", etc - decide what you'll see, they have chosen to become a content publisher.)
Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform.
But then they must also be held responsible for what they do choose to publish - including liability for harmful content such as libel, false advertising, etc.
So tell me, does Facebook have Freedom of Speech in your view?
Parrhesia, freedom of speech in the courts and assemblies(and outside public assemblies)?
No, I'm pretty sure it has always had to do with the governments and the governed. It seems popular these days to conflate the general concept tolerance with freedom of speech.
Tolerance has it's limits though as per the tolerance paradox. Freedom of speech says the government shouldn't draw the line, but society at large absolutely should be allowed to.
EDIT: Outside of specific venues and contexts what you could say in Ancient Athens society was much more rigidly defined and there was much less tolerance for breaking those norms than in the USA today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Same basic scenario? Or there further nuance?
It's like if someone owned all of the streets outside of your house and censored you on their private property.