Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhh__ | Hacker News Reader

I assume this is a mistake, although I think they're mad I don't think the SWP are malicious a la some political sects

Yes, it seems unlikely this is deliberate. The SWP is about as likely to forment a revolution or incite violence as Judi Dench. They're a bunch of harmless eccentrics.

According to the article, it was not just the page that was removed. That could have been a mistake, I suppose. But Facebook also banned "dozens of leading SWP activists". That sounds like a very deliberate action to me.

To me that sounds even more like an algorithm at work, and quite possibly one more concerned with identifying possible fake accounts than identifying political violence

(Relevant context: the SWP is tiny and inconsequential, but very active in coordinating its [unlikely to be violent] messaging and inflating its importance. Nobody would know who its "dozens of leading activists" were to target them. And its local group pages are still up and easily discoverable by searching, so if it was a deliberate action to silence the party it would be a very sloppy one)

> that sounds even more like an algorithm at work

It doesn't matters.

You are as much responsible for decisions done by your algorithms as you are for decisions done by people.

If you can not guarantee that algorithms work in the parameters of moral and law you can not use them.

It is that simple.

Quite literally. The only vaguely-'revolutionary' thing the SWP have done in the last 10 years is provide protest signs for movements that other, more influencial groups of people started.

If I see any pictures of UK footage I can usually identify the signs the SWP have given out by the font.

Facebook is a private platform: they're free to block any content they want, malicious or not.

Excellent, let's reduce everything to "it's a private company, end of story". Such a simple approach, no need to think any further.

I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house?

Not trying to take a stand in the argument of whether the companies should be allowed to use the "private platform" excuse to get rid of any content they don't like, but I disagree with your analogy specifically.

>I assume I can also beat my children as long as I do it inside my private house?

Beating children is illegal for anyone by law already. Removing something spray painted on your walls or deciding what books people get to discuss in your own book club isn't illegal, and neither should it be. I hope you understand the nuance here, and why it makes your analogy flawed.

Ah yes, the law. Lets Remove Section 230 protection for Facebook, so folks can now sue them. After all, the original justification for 230 was that they have no capability to moderate their users. That is clearly no longer true today.

One problem with moderating content in this way is that it makes it clearer and clearer that they no longer need the protections provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

It's not injurious to them to moderate content, clearly, since they are doing it.

By pulling this crap and especially by doing it algorithmically they are pushing the internet in a difficult direction.

I don't understand the argument here. It's not injurious to them to moderate content because they have §230. §230 isn't there to protect online publishers from the court of public opinion; that's impossible. It's there to protect them from libel lawsuits.

If §230 went away, and Facebook continued moderating, they would be liable if anyone posted defamatory content to Facebook -- something which surely happens on a constant basis.

no - the reason that 230 exists is because it was argued effectively that the task of moderating content was too great, to the point that it be an undue burden to internet companies.

If that is not currently the case and these companies can effectively moderate the content on their networks without driving themselves out of business with the cost, well, they don't have the justification for 230's exemption anymore.

You appear to hold some very idiosyncratic beliefs about section 230. It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law.

It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to moderate everything posted to their site.

It's still quite obviously true that Facebook is not able to moderate everything posted to its website. What are you trying to say?

>It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to moderate everything posted to their site.

It doesn't. It outlines that internet companies ARE NOT PUBLISHERS. As a result, they aren't liable for the things that people or other companies publish on their platforms.

>It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law.

They weren't immune under preexisting law, they were actually liable as they could be treated as the publisher of any content on their platform. The reason the exception was carved out was because it was considered detrimental to the development of the internet and the free spread of ideas on the internet if websites were forced to moderate content completely.

It's actually a very interesting exception, too, because in effect this means companies like facebook are not held liable for publishing things on their platform, just so long as they didn't create the things they publish. It also provides them immunity to perform any kind of moderation they like.

The problem is that this exception was built for the prior internet. It depended on and was intended to build up the idea of personal control over content, where a person could decide what content they did and did not want to see online. That's why they were required to have a message telling users they can get parental controls and blockers.

>It's still quite obviously true that Facebook is not able to moderate everything posted to its website. What are you trying to say?

That's not obvious. I run ads on Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other platforms; there is moderation before publishing for every ad I post. It's not perfect and often has problems, but it exists and it's expanding.

The problem is that they want it both ways. They want to be able to silence those whom they find objectionable AND hide behind the legal protections of Sec 230 the rest of the time.

I really wish we could move beyond this tired thought-stopper in these equally tired debates.

No, they have to keep with laws of the countries they operate in.

In difference to the US:

- some countries clearly differentiate between private and cooperate

- have proper free speech laws which are not limited to government inference into free speech but free speech itself

- have laws about discrimination and protection of political organizations which does not allow you to arbitrary "block" people

etc.

I don't know about UK law. But I'm pretty sure this would have been unlawful in Germany, and potentially all of EU (due to EU wide regulation, but while I'm pretty sure about Germany I'm less so about EU wide regulations).

They are also mainly motivated by money, which allows us to make at least educated guesses as to what happened in matters like these

That's irrelevant, because a private company can't be compelled to support someone else's speech against their will. If you don't like it, then take political action.

Edit: For those unaware, this is the devil's advocate take. HN has been remarkably pro-corporate censorship lately, and only a matter of weeks later its coming back to bite pro-censorship advocates.

I'm mostly tired of this take, especially by technologists.

First off: you're right. You can't compel a private company to support speech. But the entirety of political discourse happens online now. There's a clear and prevailing interest that free speech can happen online, at scale.

Honestly, the market will take care of it: who's comfortable hosting their content on the platform any more? They've alienated the right and the left.

At the end of the day/century, FB is just a random internet site/app. Discourse is online, yes, but the zeitgeist left FB years ago. Zuck's fate will catch up with him fast, now that their network effect has broken, or is close to doing so.

It's already over. FB/IG/WhatsApp are all clearly dead, in the Grahamian sense.

Sure, but you're also missing the downstream consequences/chilling effects. Maybe you're right insofar as it should motivate people to create new platforms, but with even the cloud operators willing to deep-six a business... well I don't know about you but I can't afford to host a social media site with hundreds of thousands of users in my basement anymore – not to mention the credit cards, banks, and payment services now willing to kickban anyone they don't like...

That's why Facebook must become a public entity.

That's quite a leap.

Newspapers, journals, radio and other publishers have to maintain some basic decency, even if they are public.

Exactly. This was what Facebook wanted, for whatever reasons. Unless they say otherwise.

You're assuming, rather uncharitably, that people in favor of "private entities cannot be compelled to host the speech of others" only support that point of view because it serves other political stances they hold, rather than as a general principle.

A site is free to ban all left-wing groups, all right-wing groups, all centrist groups, all groups with an 'e' in their names, all hate groups, or all of the above. Others are free to react to those bans accordingly, and choose whether to associate/support/host the site or not.

That argument falls flat when a huge majority of speech goes through the platforms of 2 or 3 companies. "Big" tech doesn't even begin to convey the scale we're talking about here.

So if executives of Google, FB and twitter all make a deal with oil companies to ban anyone advocating clinate action, thats fine?

Well, in a capitalistic society with government oversight, you can expect the strong arm of government to lay the ban hammer on them. Participate in our society and be governed by the rules of our nation. As a capitalist fanboy I cant wait for the sanctioning to happen.

Not if it discriminates on protected characteristics, in UK law. This isn't, but you can easily imagine many of the countries it operates in hjaving multiple laws that restrict its freedom to block whatever it likes. Some protect registered political parties (like the SWP) freedom of speech I think even (but not thre UK AFAIK).

Until they aren't.

> I assume this is a mistake...

This isn't their first 'mistake' to shut them down. Unless of course Facebook believes that this group has broken their rules which resulted them on getting shut down.

Regardless, Facebook is a private platform and can shut down whoever they want. Mistake or not.

> Regardless, Facebook is a private platform and can shut down whoever they want. Mistake or not.

No.. I mean yes in the US but not necessary in other countries.

Not all countries free speech and anti discreminatory laws which are as weak as in the US (the US free speech law is just about government interference in free speech but not free speech itself).

In Germany this would have been in violation with multiple laws as far as I know.

Newspapers are peivate, but they have to follow some rules. And pay taxes

> The SWP Facebook page regularly posts [...] against Boris Johnson’s Covid policies.

I can't find any specifics on the position they hold, but the UK is pretty much in line with the US on mask mandates and lockdowns in hotspots.

Might want to read up on Comrade Delta.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com