[DominikR]

Well I would say that is up to Twitter, Facebook and Reddit shareholders to decide since it is their property.

You don't get to cancel property rights because you don't like the reporting there. You also don't get to cancel freedom of speech because you don't like what someone is saying.

[d_e_solomon]

A private company censoring the content on their platform is not a violation of freedom of speech. I believe that the point being argued is that they have a responsibility to filter out automated messaging.

[DominikR]

> A private company censoring the content on their platform is not a violation of freedom of speech

It's not, but a third party forcing FB to censor or me to shut up is censorship.

> I believe that the point being argued is that they have a responsibility to filter out automated messaging.

No, there is no responsibility whatsoever. Users are free to not use the service if they don't like it.

If you see this different then we have different views on what private property is.

[d_e_solomon]

> No, there is no responsibility whatsoever. Users are free to not use the service if they don't like it.

I own private property. It's true that I'm free to paint my house an obnoxious color and let it fall into ruin. It doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to my neighbors and community to provide upkeep to my house and ensure it's aesthetically pleasing.

Similarly, I believe social media and the media has a larger responsibility to our civic discourse even if they are a private company. Is that a legal obligation? No, but it's a moral obligation.

[DominikR]

> It doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to my neighbors and community to provide upkeep to my house and ensure it's aesthetically pleasing.

Can your neighbours sue you if you paint your house in an obnoxious color? No? Then there is no responsibility.

Why is it that I, for whom English is only my 4th language has to explain to you what the English word responsibility means?

If for you responsibility is just a fuzzy term with some feelings attached then we don't need to discuss this matter as FB can't be held accountable to that kind of responsibility anyways.

> Similarly, I believe social media and the media has a larger responsibility to our civic discourse even if they are a private company

I do not doubt that you believe many things, but first you have to show what responsibility actually exists and then show if and how that applies to Facebook if you are going to make such an argument.

[grzm]

"a third party forcing FB to censor or me to shut up is censorship."

Would you expand on this? I don't follow how a third party other than the state could force Facebook to censor?

[rokosbasilisk]

Are you serious? Germany forces facebook to censor, and thats just one example.

[grzm]

I know Germany's free speech laws are different from those in the US. Is the censorship you're referring to as a result of these free speech laws, or something else? I'm interested in learning about non-government entities forcing Facebook to censor, which is why I asked "a third party other than the state".

[DominikR]

I'm not going to answer such a question pretending you are a 3 year old that really doesn't know how media + government collude and operate to control society.

You are incapable of seeing how it poses a threat to freedom of speech when all major media combined call for censorship? There's no point for me to engage in a discussion with you.

[grzm]

I'm sorry, but I think I'm asking a different question.

I'm not asking about whether Facebook can engage in censorship. That was addressed by you here:

> A private company censoring the content on their platform is not a violation of freedom of speech

It's not, but a third party forcing FB to censor or me to shut up is censorship.

I'm asking how a third party (someone other than Facebook or the government) can force Facebook to censor.

I think figuring out how to create a constructive online community is an important and complex issue. It's not as simple as letting everybody do whatever they want. And limiting what can be done includes limiting speech in some way. How you do that in a way that's not censorship is a legitimate question.

[d_e_solomon]

You've veered off into conspiracy theory and name calling. Nice.

[bbctol]

Just saying "it's their property" might not address the underlying question. Should it be? How important does a platform get before it needs public regulation to prevent harms to its users?

[eli_gottlieb]

And additionally, in a democracy, isn't one voice per human being the only appropriate principle? Why should the angriest, shrillest people with the deepest pockets get to swing public discussion by just bombarding the rest of us with their propaganda until we regurgitate it?

[E6300]

If everyone must speak at the same volume, then broadcasting or any kind or public speaking are impossible. All communication must consist of 1-on-1 conversations or among small groups. If you allow broadcasting, then eventually some voices will be louder than others.

[eli_gottlieb]

>If everyone must speak at the same volume, then broadcasting or any kind or public speaking are impossible.

No, you can have one voice broadcasting, and as long as it's still one very loud voice, it's only one voice. This is part of the psychology of how people measure veracity of information: through apparent public consensus. So you can have CBS broadcast something, and that's fine, but it becomes problematic when CBS buy themselves a thousand Twitter bots with names like "Joe Smith" or "DankMemes88", thus giving the false impression that thousands of people are all in consensus.

[E6300]

Alright, fair enough. How could you fix that, though?

[d_e_solomon]

I think the point is that if a voice is speaking louder, than it has a larger responsibility to the public. If the voice is automated on a platform, and isn't serving the public good, then the platform has a responsibility to prevent it.

[E6300]

The main point of eli_gottlieb's comment was that money is effective at swaying public opinion. This is obvious. It's the whole point of advertising and marketing. I think whether the source is automated or not is a secondary concern, since all broadcasting involves some automation.

I don't agree that a broadcaster has a responsibility to their audience. If a broadcaster starts screwing up consistently -- for example, by relaying false or unsubstantiated information -- the audience has the choice to move on to the next guy.

I also don't agree that it's necessarily the platform's responsibility to control what's on it, although it has that option.