[chmod600]

If everyone involved in the conversation wants to be involved, and no laws are broken, and the platform interferes, then it's censorship.

If there's some kind of algorithm putting the content in front of people who didn't ask for it (e.g. not followers/friends/subscribers/whatever), then you have a point.

[LeifCarrotson]

Technology changes - magnifies, accelerates, projects, distorts - many social effects. One of those is removing the previously invisible, small cost of spreading an idea.

If two people want to have a conversation or exchange a letter, or one person wants to speak to everyone within earshot or post a sign for people walking by to read, that's one thing. Maybe you say something dumb, and it gets shot down, or maybe it gets propagated, but it needs to have an R0 greater than 1 to endure. If you need some level of capital and agreement to have a publisher run a thousand pamphlets with your idea, that's another, you can leverage previous efforts to amplify weak ideas, but more people are involved and able to provide some sort of sanity filter. On the Internet, the cost to promote an idea is near zero, and algorithms can amplify something dumb but catchy to millions of people in a heartbeat.

It used to require a few seconds of talking per person you wanted to reach, now it costs a few seconds to post a message that might be seen by millions. The difference is minuscule in absolute value (perhaps a monetary value of a few cents) but huge in relative terms (how many percent less than a few cents is zero cents?).

Maintaining policy on censorship while ignoring this massive change in the landscape is shortsighted. Yes, a physical public venue ought not censor someone who wants to talk to other people there, but a digital platform with an audience of millions should think carefully about the effects of messages that their technology amplifies.

[13years]

You only have two choices, let all information be available regardless of whatever downside there may be, given that at least you still have some control over how to deal with that, or live in a truly Orwellian society in which you have no control over what you know.

[munk-a]

The world isn't a black and white place and there are a variety of more nuanced stances between those two extremes. Any amount of censorship doesn't necessarily and immediately devolve into 1984.

[13years]

And yet you are witnessing exactly what I describe today in realtime.

Censorship went from censoring crazy conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in 2017, to affecting everyone in the public as well as heads of state.

I said this was going to happen the very day he was deplatformed. With great power comes great temptation and abuse nearly a certainty to follow.

[munk-a]

Free speech issues are never simple - but their solutions is never found in the extremes. We've already, as a society, compromised free speech to make exceptions for discriminatory speech and violent destabilizing speech - we're already compromising how available all information is and it's necessary to have a functioning society.

Right now the US, specifically you guys - most of the rest of the world is handling this better - has a huge issue with false information around vaccine efficacy and dangers. This issue must be resolved if you want to be included in an open world once again - some level of censorship is going to be required.

[13years]

> we're already compromising how available all information is and it's necessary to have a functioning society

I would call that a functioning prison. Not a society.

Freedom is extremism in a world of tyranny

[13years]

> has a huge issue with false information around vaccine efficacy and dangers

It is fascinating your viewpoint here, as the false information identified in the US is true information elsewhere. The reason for this is precisely the censorship and information control.

Reasonable censorship is an oxymoron

[burnished]

Can you substantiate this? It seems pretty loaded, and I'm reminded of that fallacy where you state there are only two extremes possible as outcomes, you doing that on purpose or what?

[13years]

How to propose there is a middle ground? What everyone imagines is that if we only censor what is reasonable to censor it will be fine.

The fallacy is that we always view this from our personal perspective, yet we will not be the ones who make those choices. We give up that role to someone else.

Who has this role over society has immense power. Some would argue greater than governments themselves. It is only a matter of time before that vector will be exploited. It is in principle the same idea as regulatory capture, yet the incentives for capturing speech are far greater than a typical regulatory body.

[ben_w]

Unless I put her account on snooze, I regularly see posts that my (literally) abolish-money/anarcho-communist ex shares, even those from groups which I have repeatedly marked as “block all content from this group”.

[decremental]

So just unfollow her. It sounds like you have some major issues with her personally anyway so how is this a failure by the platform and not just you subjecting yourself to a negative situation?

[ben_w]

The stuff she writes directly (rather than liking memes from groups she’s in) is as interesting as any other friend’s posts. Reason I mention her politics is because they’re about as extreme as you can get.

The problem is that Facebook is convinced that I, a British citizen living in Berlin, want to see “Bernie Sanders Dank Memes” (or whatever it was, there are many) even though I’ve clicked on the button labeled “don’t show me ‘Bernie Sanders Dank Memes’“.

The “even though I’ve clicked on the button” is especially egregious, in this context.

[droidist2]

Yes, I hate how Facebook (and especially Twitter!) have now chosen to not just show me my friends' posts, but posts they like and respond to. A like has basically become a retweet.

[decremental]

I can certainly understand and sympathize with not wanting to see Bernie Sanders dank memes.

[underseacables]

Why are you still friends with your ex ?

[ben_w]

Because she’s a good person and we split on good terms.

[kspacewalk2]

Facebook is a private company that allows you to sign up to use its wholly-owned platform, and it's allowed to censor for whatever clever/asinine reasons it comes up with. Your only recourse is to disengage.

[ravenstine]

The reason the private-company argument is really tired is that it's simply not something that we take to its logical end in society; the returns of company freedoms are diminished and even counter-productive when a company reaches ultimate freedom to do whatever it wants. A diverse society isn't sustainable if people from different backgrounds don't have the same opportunities to participate in society. This is exactly why, no, you can't only allow whites into your business and you can't ignore the needs of the disabled, among any number of things. It would work excellent under a feudalist system, however.

Likewise, if companies like Facebook get so large and influential that they (and a small number of other NGOs) provide the only meaningful channels of communication between groups, we are dooming freedom of expression if Facebook, Google, or whomever are free to silence you in order to pander to politics and advertisers. Especially not when Facebook works for the federal government and gets tax breaks and subsidies. Your individual rights mean more than the right of a giant corporation to make lots of money and have undue amounts of power.

[mikem170]

Whole heartily agree! From this medium post [0]:

> In the United States the statement is often heard, that “corporations are private businesses, so they can do whatever they want.” This assertion is particularly false when referring to entities like Facebook, Amazon, Exxon, and Pfizer, because…

> - the phrase goes directly against a basic knowledge of the history of incorporation — corporations were originally designed and granted special legal privileges by government, only because they were expected to serve a pubic good.

> - the phrase goes directly against the dictionary definition, and investment industry terminology — a public company is defined as a company whose shares are traded freely on a stock exchange, hence the term IPO (initial public offering).

> - the phrase ignores real-world government involvement—many large corporations are state and federally sponsored (e.g. subsidized, bailed out, and given perks), by money which ultimately comes from the tax-paying public.

> In reality, all big corporations are some combination of state-chartered, publicly-traded, and government-sponsored. By definition many are public companies, while others have complicated hybrid characteristics.

[0] https://ptolemy3.medium.com/but-corporations-are-private-com...

[stale2002]

There are other recourses actually.

The other recourses are that our lawmakers threaten them with law changes until these platforms start acting like platforms.

I am sure that we can come up with some laws that are constitutional, if we are creative enough, that will damage these companies.

Lots of people hate these platforms these days. We'll pass some law, eventually.

[justanotherguy0]

At&t is a private company, and it isn't allowed to censor your calls for whatever clever or asinine reasons it comes up with.

[Retric]

AT&T is highly regulated, what they can and can’t do has little to do with the average company.

That said they are allowed to do quite a bit such as blocking calls between individuals.

[justaguy88]

and facebook could perhaps become highly regulated in the same way depending on how politics goes

[justanotherguy0]

Not being allowed to do things is called being regulated. So Facebook shouldn't be regulated in the same way that ATT is because they currently aren't being regulated in the same way that ATT is?

That's a bit pedantic.

[barney54]

No. An important recourse is to complain. Not engaging is one, but complaining and highlighting the problems is perfectly acceptable.