[pdeuchler]

This is not the point.

The point is that there now exists backchannels between governments and corporations who control modern communication, and those backchannels are being used to censor anything.

The content of the messages does not matter one iota, they could have the best intentions in the world. The slippery slope is that we have people in power making decisions without checks and balances, and especially without the checks and balances we already have in place. Even assuming intentions pure as driven snow eventually those backchannels will be abused. It is a matter of when, not if.

That is the slippery slope.

[davemel37]

You are making a few incorrect assumptions.

1. Israel isn't censoring anything. They are offering to help Facebook identify content that FB already determined they will remove(inciting violence.)

2. Governments in every country already control communication, Working directly with Facebook is a step towards less government control, not more.

3. The article mentions that hate speech is a slippery topic, not slope. The article is NOT saying abuse might happen in the future, it is saying that determining what is hate speech or inciting violence is slippery implying its arbitrary and subjective...but inciting violence is not subjective at all IMHO, which all that is being discussed.

4. This idea that slippery slope and the importance of free speech is absolute is ridiculous! In my opinion, that all flies out the window when someones life is at stake. Period. Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes.

Yes, abuse is always a risk, but in my opinion, I would rather elected officials, we can vote out, be the ones who we are trusting over a corporation that we have absolutely no say or control over.

Facebook's ability to manipulate, control and influence the world is WAY MORE TROUBLING TO ME THAN AN ELECTED (AND ACCOUNTABLE) OFFICIAL's ability to potentially abuse power!

Edit: added the word NOT to point 3.

[Synaesthesia]

I would just like to point out that in Israel the media is not free and open, there is a military censor through which all publications must pass. People have been charged with posting pro-Palestinian statements on facebook or Palestinian poetry.

[mamon]

>> Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes.

This is a very sad thing, assuming that a life itself is the most valuable thing in the world.

The truth is: if you value your life more than your freedom then sooner or later you'll be made slave.

[alanwatts]

>I had reasoned this out in my mind; there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty, or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other; for no man should take me alive;

-Harriet Tubman

[davemel37]

I couldn't disagree more.

Perhaps if I experienced slavery, I would prefer death, but from where I sit now, I would rather be alive than dead, even if it meant not being free.

I can't imagine what my grandparents went through in concentration camps, but it seems to me that they did everything they could to survive...and I am grateful for that, otherwise, I wouldn't be here today!

[Myrmornis]

Mentioning your grandparents is irrelevant. We don't dislike Israel because it is Jewish or because we have no sympathy for what happened to Jews in the past. We dislike it because it is a nation (nothing to do with jewishness or any religion; a political entity) of educated people with western outlooks and lifestyles which fails spectacularly (they all do, but even more than most) to live up to the moral standards we expect of such nations.

[davemel37]

Huh?

I mentioned my grandparents in the context of freedom vs. dying...a very relevant point.

I wasnt talking about Israel in that comment nor did I invoke Judaism or the holocaust in its defense anywhere else.

However, considering how you went on the defensive to a point that wasnt relevant at all (this post isnt about liking Israel, it is about censorship and the limits of free speech)...

It really does beg the question if you dislike Israel for reasons other than the moral standards to invoke from your high horse...I dont know you so I have no opinions about your own prejudices, but I think you should take a hard look in the mirror...if only to be truthful to yourself.

[davemel37]

I guess people are raised on different value systems (or develop them on their own.)

My value system puts human life above all else.

[pdeuchler]

It is an indisputable, historical fact that when you prioritize safety over human rights you will end up with an order of magnitude greater loss of life.

The only possible way to value and protect human life is to value and protect human rights, and that includes free speech. The minute you subsume those for safety (or as you put it, "human life", but we've also heard "for the kids", "terrorism", "immigrants", "communists", "monarchists", etc. etc.) you have not only given up your rights, but your life to the powers that be. And those powers do not have your best interests in mind.

These things are not separate, please do not turn this into a false dichotomy. We must protect both human rights and human life, but only by the acquiescence of our rights may they take our lives.

[davemel37]

I am not a historian nor am I interested in an ethical debate. From my vantage point...censoring Facebook posts that incite violence(many of which are linked to actual violence), is a no brainer over the alternative of being afraid of Facebook or Israel censoring that content.

But, maybe I am just an evil person sacrificing the rights of the masses...

[gohrt]

> Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes.

Which life?

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

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

[davemel37]

Any and all that can be saved. I don't have answers to these problems...but, given the choice between censoring a Facebook post that calls for the slaughter of women and children in Israel, versus worrying about the slippery slope of censorship... the choice is black and white to me. Censor It!

[matt4077]

Almost all of your points are ridiculously wrong and some sound like a parody of Orwell.

Here, just concerning no 3:

There are different mechanisms by which speech is regulated. It's well accepted that you can be held responsible for your speech if it's illegal (i.e. defamation or the "FIRE!"-yelling classic).

This is different from censorship in that speech is regulated after it's published, not before.

It's also a widely-held misconception that life is more important than anything. Quick thought experiment:

- Current estimates are that costs about 38,000$ to save a life for the most efficient NGOs.

- Say the US presidential election costs about 5 billion.

=> Should we cancel the election or let those 125,000 people die?

[jomamaxx]

"The point is that there now exists backchannels between governments and corporations who control modern communication, and those backchannels are being used to censor anything."

These backchannels exist between all governments and all media outlets.

[lr4444lr]

There is no slippery slope, because Facebook simply doesn't "control communication". Its network has no special status by legal fiat.