[imgabe]

We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws. If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose. We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public. If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted, not via some intern at Facebook looking at a couple of posts and making a unilateral decision with no public accountability.

[dragonwriter]

> We have laws against violence, and we have a justice system and law enforcement to enforce the laws.

We do. That doesn't conflict with platforms having standards that prohibit advocacy of violence.

> If they believe there is a credible threat, they should investigate, that is their purpose.

It wasn't a threat, it was advocacy /incitement, which is a different thing.

> We can hold them accountable via voting and their actions should ideally be transparent to the public.

Their actions, by law, are not transparent to the public, and instead are subject to among the broadest exceptions of any public agencies (beyond defense/intelligence) to transparency laws. Not that your fantasies about law enforcement transparency, even if true, have any relevance to Bannon's incitement.

> If Bannon is part of a real, literal plot to place Fauci's head on a pike at the White House, that is the avenue through which it should be prosecuted.

A plot/conspiracy is a third thing, different from both a threat and incitement.

And no one is talking about prosecution.

Facebook isn't a public utility that is somehow obligated to relay and promote all speech equally without filtering with the only controls being after-the-fact actions by law enforcement. You are free to create a service with those terms of use and try to compete with Facebook, if you wish, but that's not what Facebook users have signed up for. And, while I've certainly seen examples of Facebook being overzealous in enforcing their “Community Standards”, this particular case doesn't come close to that.

[imgabe]

> Facebook isn't a public utility that is somehow obligated to relay and promote all speech equally

I understand what Facebook is and isn't obligated to do. I'm not saying they are obligated to be neutral. They are not obligated to play the role of speech police either. I am saying it would be better for society as a whole if they leave adults to make up their own minds about speech. Speech should not be controlled by corporations.

Yes, they can impose whatever limits they want. That doesn't meant that it's good or that we should be happy about it or that we are not allowed to question whatever limits they impose.

And sure you can argue "just don't use Facebook". That is fine, for now. Facebook is a large, but not completely necessary part of society. What happens when it becomes larger and more necessary (or another company does) and we've already imbued them with the power to decide what people are and are not allowed to say? Do you think then they'll just give that power up?

Have you seen that episode of Black Mirror where you can literally ghost people? I forget exactly, but there was some way to punish people by making them physically invisible and inaudible, so they had could barely interact with the world. I guess they could still eat, but they couldn't talk to or be acknowledged by anyone.

Obviously, getting banned from Facebook is not that, but it's maybe Version 0.01 of that, and I get the distinct impression that people here would be perfectly fine with that as long as it happens to people they don't like.

[true_religion]

Bannon isn't making any threats. He is calling for the laws to be changed so he can legally execute people for thought crime, and not holding the party line.

Essentially, he wants dictatorship.

It's not illegal to promote dictatorship but it is gross, and he should be publicly shunned for it.