Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg
axios.com
axios.com
Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of right and wrong on the President of the United States. His opinion, right or wrong, is of national importance. What he says is a matter of historical value, showing the culture of America and its leadership at the time. It provides a check on power, letting the citizens know what their President thinks on certain issues and allows them to form their own opinions on whether the President is a leader they can get behind or try and vote out.
Is more info like that really useful?
There are republican and church leaders who are now condemning him since his “looting and shooting” tweet.
His tweeting continues to influence people’s perception of his character.
Anything posted through those means should be maintained as a historical record.
I agree with how Twitter handled it; they made it clear that it was in violation, hid it by default, however kept it.
In my mind, I need to consider a situation as if the president tweets out something that _clearly_ violates ToS; such as something overtly racist, or a direct threat.
As a 100% fake example:
> "I am encouraging the Military to use live ammunition tonight in DC. Anyone out after curfew deserves to be shot on site!"
The fact that this was by the president is 100% important, and needs to be available to be seen by anyone that wants to see it. Anything less is a huge safety risk, and in my opinion, if a platforms removes that content it constitutes gaslighting the public.
This way a private company doesn't decide or is responsible what gets archived/deleted/censored/annotated but it always gets archived using what worked for every document produced by a president for decades.
I think you have a point of it being archived but I think you're wrong about who should archive it. At the moment the president tweets official policy (maybe debatable, but let's assume it is), so those tweets should fall under the presidential records act and be archived by the white house staff. Then it doesn't matter if they are later deleted by whatever social media company, or even if are censored or have a fact check attached to them. The original message is stored and kept. (well, at least in theory)
Monarchs are above the law: a president should be required to follow every law & every rule to the same degree as any other citizen.
He should have access to special information, and be involved in the world in ways regular citizens can't (meeting with terrorist organizations to work on peace, for example).
But the laws of the land should apply to everyone, equally. I have no idea why that would be a controversial opinion.
No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well.
There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that.
No exceptions, no mercy: if a President oversteps, they should be forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us.
Yikes. I'm not sure that sort of rhetoric is really helping your argument.
If the president were to announce a racist policy or glorifies a violent military action, we should know.
I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event.
The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying.
Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,
But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform.
The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
Besides which, it's also a matter of public record keeping. How unfortunate it would if by spicing up an unpopular decision with a few choice words, the President of the United States could count on having things sneak under the radar/get caught in the pipes.
In short, you like being muzzled? Have at. I will not stand for anyone having the same done against their will. No matter the level of repugnance, obscenity, or inconvenience to myself.
What would the world do without those oh so valuable examples of what not to be?
Free speech does not mean there cannot be limits on that speech.
And as I've said a few times now, any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event. So I don't buy the "matter of public record keeping" argument. There will be plenty of ways to know that the President yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, with the information put in proper context.
The alternative is a world where the flames of Rwandan-style genocides (where local & government sponsored radio messages were used to incite massacres) can be stoked on Twitter. We're already seeing a "light" version of that in a microcosm with Trump fanning flames of unrest on social media.
As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
I refuse to accept the proposition that it is acceptable to quash any form of dissent so long as there is a crisis going on, and you can come up with a catchy aphorism.
I do accept there is stuff you shouldn't say, but that's just it. It's a normative value. That is allowed, and people have vastly different ones. The key is to note the repugnant ones, recognize them for what they are, and don't make of yourself the same shining example of what not to be.
>As much as you might want this magical world where no speech is limited, you can't have it both ways in the real world.
How magical a world is required to facilitate peaceful coexistence other than to by default doubt every single last thing you see on the Internet?
To be aware of the utility of manipulating and instigating people through the use of information warfare techniques? In the world of purportedly honest people, the Liar is king! So understand that around you are so many that endeavor to be Kings! It doesn't take much to question what gets forced upon you informationwise and to take responsibility for the actions you alone embark upon given the information you are shown. Take this personally to heart, and be willing to set the example for your community. When an equilibrium is achieved, you'll have done your part.
The only outcome of silencing something is to give it legitimacy. Let it echo. Let it ring from the rooftops. Let the Jester make a fool of himself and move on. It is in silence and what isn't said that our fears and anxieties hide, that we abandon our higher natures, and succumb to the bewitchment of our primal instincts.
A man can be reasoned with, and reckon his way out of line of Bullshit. An animal is led by the nosering of the passions and instincts of the moment into all manner of barbarism and atrocity.
Is this, this resortment to the treatment of your fellow man as some beast it? Do you truly think so little of your fellows that they need be muzzled? That they be forced to gnash their teeth that the feebleminded around you not fall victim to their spell? Are you so confident that you too are not under the influence of the same hysteria gripping them?
We can only be responsible for ourselves, and those that delegate to us the responsibility of their care. In the execution thereof that responsibility it is paramount to not behave in a reckless or deplorable a manner, and to return to them the responsibility of their own care when we see we are unfit to discharge that duty.
To inflict such harm as to censor or to deprive of liberty for the mere notion that someone whom delegated to us not responsibility for them, or for whom we did not saddle ourselves with responsibility for them through rite, sacrament, or conception is the most insidious and perfidious of acts to perpetrate on our fellow men.
We accept vigilance, and preserve the notion of inherent liberty because fundamentally, to not is to invite forth all the wickedness of our forefathers and forebearers in all the atrocity they too bore out in the struggle to create a fairer, brighter, better tomorrow.
Bring not silence to the stage of life. Rather let it ring with the sound and fury of your birthright. Should good men cry out over the din of the fools, there can be but peace in the end though the tempest itself of the time be a trial to bare.
I will not stand by and see yet more right carved out. I will not create more "thems". Today's fool is, was, will be later's, yesterday's, tomorrow's sage, and not one man has the right over any other man to determine what he shall or shalt not speak. We have all committed the sin of the fool or cretin at some point, just as we will again and again. The most dangerous among us being those that entertain with cocksurety they won't.
Speak your mind by all means; do with that spoken by others what you will; but don't you dare still another voice the longest day you ever live. Should you try,may the noise of those around you drown you out in their exclamationsof shame and impedance for your impetuousness.
Speech not protected by the 1st amendment includes: obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Note that incitement is VERY narrowly defined.
But a politician having unfettered access to provide propaganda is not allowing leadership, if anything it's getting closer to single party control.
> If you really believe that a post is going to cause people to go to go do real-world violence, then that’s not the type of thing that I think we should have up even behind a warning
I believe this may have been what OP was referring to
You could make the case that Twitter only has to enforce this for accounts of importance. Yet there are plenty of officals who have tweets calling for violent jihad, the killing of homosexuals, so on and so on that have been made since the first warning... and that label has still not been applied.
Twitter is editorializing, and I greatly fear they are going to ruin Section 230 for all of us.
For example if Twitter decided to annotate people’s tweets about coronavirus with a “fact” about it originating from China, it wouldn’t be untrue, but it would appear such notices would serve some public opinion shifting effects no? How they select what facts and what tweets to even annotate could be used to pushed an agenda through careful selective information control.
I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.
Actually Trump knows this and is saying and doing what his base wants to hear. Believe it or not prior to politics he was quoted to support gay rights and abortion. He panders to the religious right and is trying to play left and right against each other by dividing, because that cements his right wing base. So such action taken by the left allow his supporters to dig in. It gives him publicity and he doesn’t care that it’s negative in the eyes of the left because he obviously isn’t pandering to the left in any way.
I agree that public officials' correspondence should be archived and publicly available, though, related funny story: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filin...
When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president?
I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could post what he does.
You didn't.
You made an exception for president X of whatever nation and that's fine. It's also fine that you mention the _national_ importance.
The problem is that you probably won't apply that rule equally when you consider that facebook operates in several countries. Some with presidents, some without. Some with a working democracy and a rule of law, and some not.
If you think he gets a free pass because he's _your_ president, that's fine. But don't expect people in other countries to follow your reasoning because we didn't elect him, we don't even want him and he's not special to us to deserve a free pass.
Bolsanaro for example, says false things - would you know if you weren't brazillian?
How would FB achieve fairness in its policy if it put a flag on Trump and didn't on Bolsanaro, or other even worse world leaders?
What about some Random leader of a tiny nation somewhere who believes in witchcraft?
There are calls being made here which seem easy to Americans, but the processes behind it cannot be reapplied at scale.
How do Social Media firms handle that? How does anyone morally balance that out?
But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently?
Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?
Your reason: "He's a president" isn't sufficient.
Societies work according to the rule of law. If the law doesn't make an exception if a customer to your business is a world leader, then why should you automatically assume businesses should make an exception for a president, or whatever world leader?
If your position is that businesses should make exceptions for your president then convince your congress to make this into a law. Currently this isn't a law in your country, let alone in mine.
I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.
Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?
Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
Yes it is [^1].
> Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
An incitement to violence is a specific thing, and it must be both specific and reasonably actionable. "Kill the Xs" is not an incitement to violence.
[^1]: Podcast with transcript. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...
> Now that we have agreed that not all speech is protected, is this particular speech we are talking about protected? The answer is that first we start with a presumption that a law punishing speech for its content or message or subject matter violates the First Amendment.
> We look to see if the speech falls into a short list of well-defined historical exceptions to the First Amendment; obscenity, defamation, fraud, speech that’s integral to criminal conduct. And if the speech doesn’t fall into one of those narrow categories, the government cannot restrict it, unless it can pass that incredibly tough test called strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal.
> So how much does saying you can’t shout fire in a theater help you in doing that analysis? Not a bit. It’s empty words. Every time someone says it I get a little more misanthropic.
If you want more background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
So, as to whether it's illegal to shout Fire! in a crowded theater (which isn't on fire), I still don't know. The StackExchange folks lean toward it probably being illegal, especially if you end up causing a panic, depending on state. https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28853
These companies spend billions of dollars annually on infrastructure and engineering to host user content. How can Republicans be asking the government to step in and dictate over that multi-billion investment? Doesn't that fly in the face of everything they believe about government's role in the private sector?
In your example, of course the pro-life CEO can do whatever they want with content on their site, assuming it was uploaded by users within the site's terms of service. If someone were actually paying for hosting of the content, they would have a case to get upset about having it taken down. But that's not the kind of contract that users of social media sites have made with the companies.
In the book, Guardians of the Internet, two cases are mentioned:
Case 1:
Mexican gang violence was caught dramatically on video and went viral. This sparked a conversation and brought attention on a major issue since The government had been suppressing this information to project an image of security.
This video pierced that veil- until it was seen by (I believe) British citizens who woke up in the morning.
They called their friends at Facebook who realized it broke their rules and removed it.
Case 2:
Contrast this with how Facebook handled the boston Bombings.
Facebook mods removed gore images because that broke their rules.
And then a message came on high telling people “no, This is newsworthy and it goes through. The rules are in abeyance.”
If country like Mexico Can’t have that benefit, then Facebook is effectively using power in one place to decide what goes through and in other places is choosing not to exercise it.
Facebook is then trapped by its choice.
What should FB do in a country like Brazil? Hungary? Russia? India?
Heck, could any theoretically company find the right policy people and be able to pay them to tell their teams what the right call is?
Facebook's solution currently is this "we are not the arbiter of truth" comment, and working with governments to create govt agencies to set up rules which FB can then follow.
So What’s the right call in this situation?
Even if one decides certain types of incorrect content should be removed, he realizes there's no chance for this to be applied evenly to all individuals and organizations, especially when the only example given by these activists is a single person.
I'm ok with them filtering "illegal content" or rather I don't think that's a choice that they have and is something to address within the legal system rather then at a social network level.
Abuse of the system? Like they are sending too much traffic/spamming/malware/etc is fine to limit. Threats, allow users to block each-other; I'm fine with restricting people who attempt to circumvent other peoples blocks.
Porn meh; I don't think it's a real issue I think it's great to allow users to filter pornographic content if they don't want to see it.
My issue is when they start getting into filtering out "incorrect" statements, "dangerous" ideas, even "hate speech" (an every expanding category), etc. It's very distressing that Jack Dorsey thinks twitter has a moral responsibility to remove certain viewpoints from discussions and believes that these discussion will shape the future of our society.
Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.
I sincerely hope that was all sarcasm.
Someone will probably comment soon to explain how your proposition is not at all absurd. A theater will be mentioned.
Time to shut down the free speech.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.
The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. This includes speech, which is already regulated in our society.
And as a society, we have spent ample effort to distinguish harmful speech - promotions of hate, abuse of minors etc...
This framework is clearly outlined in our laws and everything fb has done so far has been lawful.
One of the major proponents of this “let’s allow as much free speech as possible” framework is to establish an competitive marketplace of ideas, so that instead of legislating away bad ideas, as a society, we choose not to adopt them through reason.
This is why I think FB should be allowed to do what it’s doing.
As to if the recommendation and ranking algos are doing their job to help ideas be battled out in an transparent and efficient way, or simply creating an ideological echo chamber, that is another issue altogether.
We, as consumers, need to be vigilant, and choose a platform that we think is good for each one of us and our society.
In this case, have a discussion as a nation and choose between the Twitter and Facebook model.
I truly believe this is the American way.
If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.
Disclaimer: Former FB employee.
That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.
...Facebook, probably.
"You can't split us up! Our backends are unified!" "Un-unify your backend." "...oh."
PR blabber. They need to start printing these responses as "Facebook's Public Relations department responded to Axios with a general response." or something.