[Caprinicus]

This is such an overly simplistic take. Depending on where you are in the country, you could easily suspend some combination of power, water, heat, road access, banking, or internet connectivity to individuals purely by restricting access to private property somewhere down the line. Simply accuse them of violating the terms of service. We collectively agree that is unacceptable, because those things are basic utilities.

We’ve let only a half dozen websites more or less completely control the internet on the front and backend - far fewer than the number of utilities it would take to turn off someone’s electricity. That kind of power is not just a free speech issue, it’s a national security threat and it’s only being celebrated because it’s being wielded, for now, against people we don’t like.

Imagine a future election where one candidate wants to classify social networks as utilities, and the other candidate wants to do nothing but set puppy orphanages on fire. Candidate 1 has her social media pages cancelled for nebulous violations to a labyrinthine TOS, and she loses the election - because that is how people are reached in the modern world.

[hash872]

If you can't get banned for inciting a coup against a democratically elected government- can you get banned for anything? His conduct was arguably illegal.

In your ideal world of free speech, is Islamic State allowed to post recruiting videos or call for generalized action? If not, is that 'censorship'? Can you openly call for violence? Can you post revenge porn? Can NAMBLA have a Facebook page and sign up underage members?

The only overly simplistic take is imagining that the world's largest communications platform isn't allowed to have rules or a Terms Of Service. That's just incredibly naive- one can't realistically run a planetary scale (hell, even a small town-scale!) platform with no rules on speech. You seem to be advocating that rules themselves are impermissible. This is an unrealistic take, I'm sorry.

I think that Facebook & others would be best served by having more explicit rules and an independent arbitration system- which they've begun with the Oversight Board- that can make common-law style precedent that gets expanded over time. In your example, the banned candidate can apply to be reinstated- hell that's the case right now, Facebook has lost every case brought to the Oversight Board other than the Trump one!

[Caprinicus]

If something is “arguably” illegal, then that is what the law is for. We in fact have a very complex and refined branch of government designed specifically to decide whether something is illegal or not, and it works far better than a bunch of underpaid Facebook employees answering to shareholders and in the case of speech that is actually dangerous, it has the authority to go and arrest people.

[hash872]

Can Facebook remove Islamic State recruiting material- yes or no? If so, why isn't that 'censorship'?

Also please answer- threats, revenge porn, the North American Man Boy Love Association- can they be removed from social media? Wouldn't that be censorship as well?

I'm a bit fascinated by this argument that we should be relying on the government to remove bad speech- that that's somehow not censorship