[toss1]

No, it is an editorial decision.

When a newspaper editor decides a story has insufficient credible sources, or lacks any of a variety of qualities that constitute good and responsible journalism, and so does not publish or broadcast it today, that is an editorial decision, it is not censorship.

When an algorithm or human decides that a story has the same qualities, or that it has insufficient 'engagement metrics', and refrains from amplifying it across millions of accounts, that is also not censorship.

By your definition, if I post something and it doesn't make good 'engagement' metrics and FB/Google/YouTube doesn't promote it, that's censorship — Nonsense— it is an editorial decision. And, restricting or boosting amplification based on a metric of sourcing, value, truth, moral compass, is also an editorial decision.

These decisions are already being made thousands of times per second. It is past time that the deciders become responsible for their decisions.

[lostmsu]

I guess you missed this debacle:

> There are also a few websites, whose entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger. It was discussed here previously. thedonald.win is a political example of such censorship.

Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).

[toss1]

>>I guess you missed this debacle ...entire domain is banned in Facebook Messenger... a political example of such censorship.

If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company — they should be fully free to say or not say, broadcast or not broadcast, serve or not serve, anything/anyone they want. Did I miss some governmental agency ordering them to not broadcast that source or set of messages? Should HN be unable to ban bad actors?

>>Besides, "no, IT is a X" is not a valid counterargument to "IT is a Y" unless "is a" is a relationship of IFF (which it is not in this case) or X and Y do not intersect (which they do).

Not quite. It is true that an IFF relationship would establish it absolutely. If not, it's still in a fully arguable area, and my argument is not to have some govt censorship bureau, but a requirement for more responsibility, that the tech companies, who now make editorial decisions at a scale and scope that dwarfs any newspaper ever, are held as responsible for their content as any newspaper or broadcaster.

(And, if they want to go back to being a 100% straight carrier, with zero 'recommendation' engine, and preseinting only a chronological timeline of posts from your actual contacts, & similar restrictions, then they can go back to being carriers.)

[lostmsu]

> If you are an absolutist about free speech, you should be loudly cheering this decision. Facebook Messenger is a private company

What? The freedom you are talking about is the freedom of association, not the freedom of free speech.

> ...

Doesn't matter if you call this stuff "recommendation engine" or "editorial decisions", it is still censorship by definition. This is the newspeak George Carlin had a relatively known take on.

Stop calling the censorship "editorial decisions". We are not debating the "editorial decisions" part, we are debating the censorship part.

[toss1]

IIRC, we are talking about your complaint that Facebook Messenger banned and doesn't carry messages from some domain. That's a speech/press issue, not association.

(If you really want it to be association with which FBM is somehow interfering, where is the govt order? Otherwise, meet all you want, but where is the requirement that some other property owner host you? Are you interfering with freedom of association rights because you put up a 'No Trespassing' sign and my band of drummer and bonfire artists can't come on your land for our meetings?)

The last time I checked, any tech communication platform is owned by the stockholders and managed by the executive team. They are a non-govt entity.

As such, they have rights to publish or say, post, broadcast whatever THEY choose. Or, to not do so. Similarly, if HN finds a user abusing the forum, they are free to ban them.

Was there some govt order requiring FBM to ban the trump-related domain? If so, please post a citation.

If you have no official government action coercing the ban, it is a private decision. If that private was made by an algorithm, it was a recommendation engine or algorithmic. If it was made directly by a human, it was an editorial decision.

It seems like you are arguing AGAINST freedom of non-govt entities to say or not say, publish or not publish what they want.