Hacker News Reader

Comment by pugworthy | Hacker News Reader

But... isn't banning an ex president for life important? Who SHOULD decide? And how?

I would say that's an easy question. No, it's not important. Who should decide? Whoever at the company is given the authority to ban people from their website. How? Following whatever protocols they come up with? Want to have their own pseudo-court system? Go for it. Want to have a ban lottery so people may just randomly be banned for no reason? Go for it, it's your website do what you want with it.

This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? I'd say they've violated the original social contract, and that of the open source web, and are now subject to regulation – by entities they helped put in place in government.

This whole thing is becoming a dystopian nightmare.

Edit: Image if AT&T started shutting off Democrat's cell phones.

What does the “premise of a public square” mean?

What social contract did they enter into?

What legal obligation do they have to their users?

It's in their ToS. That's a contract, right?

What’s in their TOS? That they’re a public square? That access to the platform and expressive freedom of the users trumps facebook’s moderation rights?

I don’t think so.

I think the right term for what they're referring to is "privatization of the public square".

While I really dislike the fact that Facebook and Twitter have so much say in who gets a platform, the fact remains that they are private businesses that are not subject to any regulation on who they allow on their platforms.

Remember that government regulations can also be used by "the other side" when in power.

> This is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot?

'now'?

May I submit this news article from 12 years ago into evidence? :) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breas...

This idea of Facebook as some sort of haven for free speech seems to be a new invention; it's always been pretty censorious.

> Who SHOULD decide?

The only answer that can only be acceptable here — as flawed as it is — is a board originating from the UN

I don't think the UN has jurisdiction.

They didn’t have jurisdiction over air travel either, until they did.

Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework.

Ideally, there would be 'very simple and clear regulation' put forth by the government, and then it should be 'easy' for FB's 'independent panel' (doesn't need to be anyone special, but maybe some lawyers) to make the calls.

Then it can be taken up in the courts if need be.

We definitely need move this away from the control of the private sector of this there is no doubt.

And also, I'm very wary of lifetime bans for things which are crossing the threshold into the public commons i.e. FB/G etc..

I suggest there might be a better way to do this.

> Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework.

The UN has many, many specialised agencies with legitimacy, jurisdiction, and judicial frameworks:

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

I think we’ll see one for media networks

They have no legitimacy in this case, and just because an agency exists, doesn't really give it legitimacy either.

The UN is a grab bag of patchwork things, some for the better, some for the worse.

This is the last thing we want the UN involved in.

If there were people truly suffering from this, then they'd be a great place to have an agency to give voice to the issue, but beyond that, no.

> They have no legitimacy in this case, and just because an agency exists, doesn't really give it legitimacy either.

What does legitimacy mean to you in this context? I don't disagree that mere existence doesn't grant it, but I'm not sure I understand what (or who) would, in your view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com