But some folks meme'ing about stocks? Come on.
Edit: If you're spewing hatred on me for some kind of retribution, shame on you. This isn't a place for that.
I'm not suggesting the average poster/average discussion has necessarily broken the law, but there's likely more than a few who have.
And if Facebook went "What's happening in here may be illegal and is too much of a business/legal risk to us to continue to condone, so we've shut it down. We've also updated the rules for all groups in the future to reflect this." - That'd seem to be kind of reasonable.
-----------
Banning it with an arbitrary, inaccurate reason and seemingly no clear guidance as to what the lines of acceptable/not are going forward? That's what I take more issue with.
I think platforms have to be able to moderate content to function, but that the rules surrounding it should be as transparent and consistent as possible.
This is demonstrably mistaken. Look, here's an entire Wikipedia article on limits to free speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
And if you're talking about the ill-defined philosopical concept of "free speech", that's also mistaken. Free speech is a subservient value in pursuit of free society; if an instance of speech would do damage to the freedoms of others (e.g. slander) then it is morally just for that speech to be forbidden.
Black-and-white thinking isn't the recourse here. Free speech is a nuanced topic, and not as cut-and-dry as you have been led to believe.
It is, actually. Your edge cases are disingenuous (or maybe you've just misunderstood them). It's like saying killing someone is a nuanced topic. Sure, there's moral complexities with things like abortion, war, or euthanasia, but, generally speaking, killing someone is pretty black-and-white wrong.
Free speech is the same way. Let's not mince words.
Ironically, this has left me speechless. Surely you realize the inherent contradiction of arguing that something is emphatically all-or-nothing, and then turning around and moderating your position with a strategically-placed "generally speaking"? Which is it? Is it nuanced or isn't it?
The bottom line is that there are exceptions to freedom of speech, including morally-justifiable ones. We don't need to treat adherence to freedom of speech as some sort of religion that admits no heresy. It is a generally good idea to distrust anyone who tells you how (not) to exercise your speech, but that doesn't mean you can't independently derive from first principles a reasonable set of self-consistent morals around when it is proper to value other rights above it.
I doubt it. Cases in point:
> I should not be free to
> I should not be free to go around telling all your friends
Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech.
This is the main issue, people not speaking their mind. Just speak what you feel. Don't worry, we still have some free speech left. You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.
And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision.
In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?
That is for thr courts to decide. He can sue. But Twitter should not ban Reuters from their platform.
He wasn't "doxxed." Why do people use that word so willy-nilly these days? Reuters did some investigative journalism and found out his identity through public sources. He's not a confidential informant, he wasn't trying to keep his identity a secret, and he was voluntarily interviewed by WSJ anyway.
And even if he was doxxed, it's up to the courts to decide of free speech outweighs the right to privacy. This is one of those edge cases that will sometimes be answered in the negative, and sometimes in the positive.
You reap what you sow.
It's not "you reap what you sow" and you're not handing GP some funny "gotcha". It's just plain obvious decency.
Some people don't get that, and then they're surprised that most normal humans think it's suspicious, as if they don't get it on purpose. Then they get upset because they start to look like nazi sympathizers.
That is what "you reap what you sow" looks like.
People aren’t really upset about deplatforming extremists/neo-nazis. They’re upset about the deplatforming of mainstream groups and falsely labeling them “neonazi extremists”
If a lot of people move to e.g. the fediverse facebook equivalent, that shifts power away from facebook and makes it harder to deplatform people. So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it.
I don't "want a world where people can be deplatformed". I am 100% in favour of better censorship resistance, open messaging, etc and I 100% think whatever "bad" comes out of a system like that would be far outweighed by the good it brings.
But that doesn't mean I'm against Facebook deplatforming assholes. Hell I'm against Facebook as a whole, but as far as their current role in society plays? They have a stupid amount of influence over large swathes of the population and that's a problem.
The problem is no matter how I phrase this, you'll think I'm in favour of Facebook "censoring people"; whereas my position is that Facebook has actively given new tools for assholes to spread hateful messages, including not just the groups systems but active recommendations, advertising, sorting algorithms which prioritize engagement (read: flamewars), etc.
In short: I'm in favour of Signal and against Facebook. How's that contradictory?
If I built an uncensorable distributed/federated FLOSS Facebook equivalent (fedbook?) with distributed moderation (personalized so it censors out the things that would offend you/spam from your feed, or whatever you set it to) and it became popular, would you be for that?
Do you think it that Hateful Ideas wouldn't be compelling on such a market?
Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? I could respect wanting to deplatform absolutely everyone, in a unabomber way. But somehow I doubt that's your position.
I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.
I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question?
> I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.
What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes.
> Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't?
This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix.
These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.
I'm suspicious about how much witch-hunters actually want the king gone, or whether they wouldn't want to replace him with a cheka later. They have a vested interest in power staying centralized. This all makes it a lot funnier when it's their sister being burnt at the stake. Someone might even break out a saying.
With how evasive you're being, I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light, similar to the guy who's "Just asking questions about race".
I've been on HN for six years, if you truly want to know them, you can look at any of my older posts.
Since you can "only assume", maybe seeing that you're wrong will finally get you to stop "assuming"?
& personal attacks are not tolerated here, FYI. Going to stop replying now.
That's rich, given the condescension you've shown in this thread.
Where I come from, trawling through people's post histories is creepy.
> your favorite pair of steel galoshes
Get your assumptions out of here if you want this to be a discussion, please.
I am all for removing violence and terrorism groups from social media. At the same time, I am against censorship from these companies in other matters.
The responses here are disgusting, contemptful and vile for what I thought was a reasonable stance.
Are you for Anarchy? otherwise, people in position will decide a lot of things for you including truth.
If facebook moderators wore fancy clothes and hit things with gavels on camera when making judgements, the situation would rapidly improve.