Facebook doesn’t owe them anything.
Edit: a couple of words.
You’re telling me that they can’t find “1000 true fans” as a base?
Farakhan in particular had a large following before the Internet was a thing.
Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.
When you have a platform and you use it to abuse people, real damage is done.
Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame.
The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that a person is not culpable for someone else's actions?
If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.
Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.
Still doesn't resolve the question of deplatforming and banning though. There's still considerable inconsistency at play here, with people like Dorsey saying social media is a human right, and then exiling people with no transparent "due process" or recourse for making amends. As deplorably as we treat our criminals, they eventually serve their term and regain (most) of their freedoms (and arguably, should regain them all).
You’re suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent? That should be obviously absurd when you consider that a social network’s audience spans multiple countries’ justice systems.
I'm questioning the premise that "speech deterrence is needed at all, or that it's a good idea even in principle.
If you're not inciting violence, which is violence and so against the law, then what justification is there for censoring speech? These companies that provide free services are censoring for optics, with a purely profit-motive to placate advertisers. This motive will not discriminate solely against hate speech, but anything even remotely controversial will eventually be censored, and these services will become the same bland pablum we've had on cable TV for decades, reducing the rich and diverse tapestry of online content we've enjoyed for decades.
Furthermore, considering how influential social media is, by encouraging this type of censorship, we are creating new social norms whereby large corporations are now essentially permitted to overtly meddle in our elections. Where's the oversight for this? Already considerable evidence exists that conservative viewpoints are censored more widely.
The motive on the part of activists pushing this is that the internet is "spreading hate", that it's led to an increase in radicalization and violence, etc. Except there's precious little evidence this is the case.
Studies actually done on radicalization [1] show the internet increases opportunities for radicalization simply because you're exposed to so many diverse viewpoints, and it creates an echo chamber effect because you then follow only the sources that reinforce your bias, but they do not find evidence for accelerating the process of radicalization, for radicalization without physical contact, and for self-radicalization.
The narrative spun is that right-wing terrorism is increasing in the US [2], therefore the echo chambers from these internet sites is at least partly responsible. Except that doesn't explain why the US's rates are rising while the rest of the world's rates are falling. This speaks to local circumstances driving the increase in violence.
All in all, there seems to be considerable danger to encouraging these corporations to make up their own rules and censor without oversight, and there are few upsides that I can see. It might make some people feel like they've "done something", but there's precious little evidence that these measures are effective or even necessary.
[1] https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...
[2] https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-fueled...
Legally culpable for what?
>If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.
At least some people can see past their own noses! The people celebrating this news are firmly in the "well surely this could never be turned around and used against ME!" camp.
The harassment campaign from his fans, emotional trauma, etc.
People seem really fond of jumping over a lot of steps to blame people for their indirect influence apparently without realizing how accepting this sort of argument makes us all culpable of fairly heinous crimes.
Gene Rosen, a Newtown resident who was reported to have sheltered six Sandy Hook students and a bus driver in his home during the shooting, has been subject to harassment online alleging he was complicit in a government coverup,[58] among other things.[59] Some journalists have cited such incidents as part of a "Sandy Hook Truther Movement" analogous to the 9/11 Truth movement.[47][60][49] A writer for the Calgary Herald reported that the movement self-identifies as "Operation Terror."[55]
In May 2014, Andrew David Truelove stole a memorial sign from playgrounds dedicated to victims Grace McDonnell and Chase Kowalski.[61] He then went on to call the parents of Grace McDonnell, proclaiming that he stole the sign and that he believed their deaths were a "hoax".[62] He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[63] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to one year in prison.[64]
Robbie Parker, the father of victim Emilie Parker – after doing a CNN interview on the day after the shooting – became the target of conspiracy theorists, who claimed the interview was staged.[65] Parker has been attacked by theorists who believe he is a "crisis actor" and was "getting into character" before going on CNN to grieve over the loss of his child.[65]
In April 2016, Matthew Mills, a man from Brooklyn, accepted a plea agreement with prosecutors on one count of interfering with police arising from an incident in November 2015, when Mills angrily approached the sister of murdered teacher Victoria Soto—who is regarded as a heroine for her attempt to protect her students from the shooter in the Sandy Hook attack—shoved a photograph in her face, "and began angrily charging that not only did the Sandy Hook tragedy not take place, but that Victoria Soto never existed."[66][67] Mills entered an Alford plea and was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation.[66]
In December 2016, Lucy Richards, a woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was the youngest of 20 children murdered.[68][69] Pozner has been particularly targeted by Internet trolls and conspiracy theorists because he has vocally fought back against them.[70] Richards had been expected to plead guilty to one count of transmitting threats, with both the prosecution and defense to recommend a sentence of probation and house arrest. However, in March 2017, Richards—who was free on bond—failed to show up to court for a change-of-plea hearing and sentencing. An arrest warrant was issued, Richards' bond was revoked, and she was soon apprehended.[71] On June 7, 2017, Richards was sentenced to five months' imprisonment.[72]
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Ha...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...
Alex Jones is himself probably a little unhinged, but why does the responsibility for what other unhinged people do fall on him? Did he specifically incite this harassment or violence? He's already being sued for his alleged part in this, so the law will decide his culpability.
But I still fail to see what this has to do with whether or not people with controversial views should have a right to use services like Facebook or Twitter, like any other citizen. I've expanded on the problems with these new norms here if you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584
I find your comment quite hateful /s