[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.