|
|
|
|
|
|
by lostmsu
1647 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
(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.