[wayne_skylar]

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite.

When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair.

By prioritizing certain posts based on what the algorithm thinks will make you stay on the site longer, they are prioritizing, thus interfering with free speech. When I post something, my message will have a lower chance of reaching some of my followers. How can facebook justify tipping the scales for one type of message over another and call it free?

[bavell]

I find it so funny how people think "freedom of speech" protects them from private enterprises. The first amendment protects your right to freedom of speech from the GOVERNMENT, and only the government. "Congress shall make no law..."

Their algorithm is not interfering with your free speech because you have no right to free speech on THEIR platform. Facebook can manipulate you, shame you, ban you, etc. from their platform and you have (practically) no recourse. They don't owe you anything, you chose to use their service and abide by their rules. No one is forcing you to use them or any platform (whether or not you feel social pressure to do so is another matter). I choose not to engage with most social media and am much happier for it.

All that said, I DO think some social media platforms have overstepped their Section 230 protections and are dipping their toes into publisher territory. They want their cake and to eat it too.

[nisuni]

The First Amendment, as you correctly point out, protects freedom of speech in certain cases that are not really relevant here.

However, people might support a higher standard for freedom of speech, and might wish businesses also concur in protecting it.

This is not in the law, but very often people have moral standards that are stricter than the law.

Therefore, I don’t see any contradiction here.

Myself, I full acknowledge that Facebook is not bound to grant freedom of speech to its users by the First Amendment, but I still wish it did so.

[humanrebar]

This. Human rights are universal rights regardless of who attempts to exert control. Government is in particular interesting because of its monopoly in violence, but other powerful actors and groups need to be responsible and accountable as well.

[sneak]

The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com.

To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website.

[staticassertion]

I don't think the parent is contesting that. It is true that Facebook has a right to moderate the contents posted to their site, but also true that by prioritizing some content they undermine the "neutral platform" objective that they use to justify not moderating the content (beyond extreme situations).

[sneak]

Facebook has the right to moderate, edit, prioritize, deprioritize, delay, republish, voiceover, or whatever-the-hell-else content posted to their site.

My statement about Facebook's right to editorialize is not limited in scope to moderation. Facebook has the right, for example, to hide all posts by a certain ethnic minority group if they so choose, or to publish only racist posts and nothing else, if that were their policy. It's their website.

I think there should be additional regulation restricting this, but only for DMs and perhaps small, private groups, where the platform is serving as a communications tool. Censoring those types of communications is actively harmful to society.

Facebook deciding what is or isn't in your news feed is Facebook's freedom of speech.

Ultimately, I support Facebook "erring" on the side of leaving content up. I would even support free expression restricting regulation regarding their legal ability to censor DMs; that is to say that, when functioning as a person-to-person communications medium, they should not be permitted to arbitrarily suspend accounts or censor messages. When your Facebook account is otherwise suspended, you should still be able to log in and send and receive messages from your contacts. Imagine if the telephone company stopped your ability to send or receive SMS if you said things on the phone that they didn't like!

That said, for the part of Facebook that is closest to "web hosting", it's their show, and their rules. It's entirely up to them if they wish to editorialize in the feed, although I agree it's harmful to society and that the state should educate and train people to avoid Facebook, the same as they do with alcohol or gambling.

[staticassertion]

I think you've completely missed my point. None of this is about what Facebook has the right to do.

I will try to reiterate as clearly as I can.

1) Facebook is criticized for the content it hosts

2) Facebook claims that it is simply a platform, and that it does not want to moderate, editorialize, or otherwise modify the content as such, erring on allowing content

3) Facebook actively modifies content in terms of how it is displayed, which makes (2) seem like a really stupid argument

Again, none of this is about what they are obligated to do, it's just about the hypocrisy of trying to say you're a content agnostic platform while actively grooming your content. It's made worse by the issue of that grooming prioritizing engagement, which almost always means that the most controversial content is what you see.

[aero142]

Yes, but Facebook clearly wants you to believe that it is the user's freedom of speech being restricted, not their own freedom being restricted. At the same time, they want to be a "platform" and claim they are not legally responsible for what is being said, they just promote it.

[bhupy]

Unless there's some other context that I'm missing, the current boycott appears to be caused by Facebook's unwillingness to delete a (non-sponsored) Facebook post by a world leader.

If they were to do this, they would 100% be restricting the free speech of the leader in question, as well as that of the audience to read that speech. Facebook empowers its users to block / mute speech that individual doesn't want to read. It does not, however, empower you to prevent me from reading something that I, personally, have no issues reading.

This seems consistent with the principles of free speech, non-chronological feed notwithstanding.

[pjc50]

Yes, I think this is an important distinction to remind people of.

On youtube for example, what's "inside the frame" is speech of the uploader. All the stuff around it, especially recommendations, is Google's. Google have the right to not reccommend fascists if they don't want to.

[satokema_work]

The (also legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech should extend to privately-owned de facto commons, and is a concept beyond the enumeration in the American Bill of Rights.

[phatfish]

I agree there is a problem with private corporations that control publishing platforms with such a large reach. Twitter and Facebook are really the only ones at the moment with that power (in the "anglosphere" at least).

However, for laws to be created that force them to publish posts that fall under "free speech" their algorithms must be fully open and auditable. Otherwise they still hold the power to sensor, or their algorithms could be covertly gamed by those in the know.

Otherwise your speech might not be the same, or as free as mine, but who would know?

[ethbro]

As clear a way to put it as I've heard.

But all companies seek to become monopolies for purposes of profit, while avoiding being seen as monopolies for purposes of responsibility.

[kolbe]

That may be the real intent of facebook when they defend freedom of speech, but it is not what they are claiming it to be. They claim to be defending their users' rights.

[klyrs]

Facebook has a right to free speech. They can moderate and curate content on their site.

Their commitment to your free speech is "free as in beer" -- as in, you're giving them content and they don't pay you a dime for it.

[ykevinator]

Agreed, and companies are free to boycott

[klyrs]

This got flagged? Yes, freedom of association is still relevant in 2020.

[toss1]

Of course they have a right to free speech

What they do not have a right to is the claim that they should be treated as neutral carriers (like TelCos) when they in fact constantly exercise editorial control for the placement each item.

(If they merely posted a chronological list, they would have a valid claim for free speech and no exercised control)

[klyrs]

lol, this thread almost entirely gray. I'd love to hear from the downvoters about what is so intolerable about this very mild, respectful, and on-topic conversation...

[three_seagrass]

I don't think Safe Harbor is the same as net neutrality with ISPs.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

So Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it wants but when it comes to FB making decisions about free speech we need to force them into submission?

If you don't like it, move to another platform, isn't that what you guys always say? :)

[derp_dee_derp]

the person you responded too didn't mention anything about twitter and you seem to be chasing straw men.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

I was pointing out the hypocrisy and the double standard.

Twitter has been in the news cycle for censoring/manipulating tweets of Trump. On HN I see a lot of people defending this decision by noting they are a private company and you can switch social media services if you want.

It seems you cannot switch services, the mob will always find you and push their "ethics" and "facts" onto you.

[RNCTX]

Listed corporations are not "private companies."

They gave up privacy when they sold stock/bonds on public markets.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

Twitter is a publicly listed corporation as well (since 2013) so that argument makes no sense:

https://thenextweb.com/twitter/2013/11/07/twitter-just-becam...

Either way, that's a strange moral line to take on all of this, whether a company is public or not.

[RNCTX]

Yes, they are.

There's nothing strange about it at all. If you want to sell securities on public markets you have to abide by certain rules. It's completely reasonable, and I know that corporations and their apologists like to throw around "private" as a buzzword and pretend like they should have free reign, but they do not.

There is no such thing as a "private" publicly traded company.

[WhompingWindows]

American free speech is a legal concept from the late 1700s, before germ theory, trains, antibiotics, flight, or even the Civil War to end slavery. Free speech is a concept from the time where a majority of US power was in the hands of slaveholders...when "speech" meant what your mouth or printing press could produce.

Can we really expect this antiquated legal concept to neatly interact with technology from 2020? Did the founders think it a good idea to allow incendiary and dangerous communication to millions instantaneously? We can't know, they didn't have that debate.

Edit: Someone want to comment and explain why this is downvoted to -2?

[solarwind]

Your argument is ad hominem, a logical fallacy where one attacks the character or motive of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

Furthermore, free speech is a natural human right, to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, not an Americentrist historical accident.