tat tvam asi wrote: who ever allows the most free speech will likely come out on top in a larger competitive sphere. Whoever is branded as anti-free speech, and one sided censorship, will almost definitely wane in popularity. And take the related monetary hits.

Probably it's not that simple. The revenue comes from ad revenue. 4chan definitely has the lowest standards for decent behavior and truthfulness, but most people don't want to go there (except, perhaps, like one takes one's children to the zoo to gawk at the beasts). The idea that I don't have to worry about verifiable, provocative lies being spread on facebook definitely makes it more attractive to me.

Ordinary human community is not libertarian. People who want to be anti-social can go do it by themselves. If anything, most people are too intolerant and tribal, and that's where the internet echo chambers are finding their niches. The biggest social problem for our time is the one of reaching across those boundaries which so easily become barriers.

ant wrote:

The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?

I like the argument that states these social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies. They become defacto public arenas.
Accordingly, when they decide what content is deserving of censorship, they not only prohibit the exercise of free speech, they also practice discrimination at will, without legal consequences of any kind whatsoever. Autonomy is no longer protected and there is no recourse under the law to protect people from being discriminated against.

What is being blatantly discriminated against here is a certain political worldview.

The hypocrisy from the Left here is obvious:

-- A PRIVATE company like Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to withhold certain forms of birth control from its employees just because its owners hold certain religious views. They are guilty of discriminating against people who want access to any form of contraception they wish, and should not be denied any because they do not share the same religious worldview of the owners of said private company.


--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.

Let's look at this. Hobby Lobby's purpose is to sell people craft supplies and such. It can pick and choose whose wares it sells, can legitimately discriminate regarding any product. Facebook's original purpose was to connect people; it added a news and information function as time went on. Can't it legitimately decide whose "wares" it wants to allow through its servers by setting up quality control standards? You imply that Infowars represents a different "worldview" and that this is somehow innocuous. Fb says no, what Infowars has is defective (i.e., fabricated) products, and they refuse to host them.

Is there hypocrisy in liberal opposition to Hobby Lobby's policy of not providing its employees coverage for contraceptives, while liberals uphold a private company's rights in other areas? That's a more legitimate argument to have. I don't have my mind made up.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.

Who are you to tell a private company like Facebook how they enforce their policy? If their policy is that no Nazist propaganda is allowed on their website, who are you to say that's wrong, and that Nazis should be allowed to speak their mind on the website of a private company?

If Infowars is indeed disseminating Nazi propaganda I'd agree to censoring them immediately, As I would if they were inciting violence against a person or groups of people.
You'll have to show me evidence they are.

If you can't produce the above your reasoning is a fallacy of accident.

Cyberspace is in its infancy stages. It's introducing unique questions of law the courts undoubtedly will be addressing for years to come.

DWill wrote:

ant wrote:

The writer of this piece does not understand the difference between government censoring and the rights of private companies to control content (not to mention maximize profits). Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Pinterest are social media sites, video sites, etc., with standards and criteria for content. They are also publicly trade companies that have to address concerns from stockholders. Is the writer of this piece genuinely shocked that these corporations are manipulating the press in order to gain positive coverage? Is it a dark day in history when Facebook removes Russian propaganda? Is it a dark day in history when Youtube removes my movie clip (from the movie The Messenger) due to copyright infringement?

I like the argument that states these social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies. They become defacto public arenas.
Accordingly, when they decide what content is deserving of censorship, they not only prohibit the exercise of free speech, they also practice discrimination at will, without legal consequences of any kind whatsoever. Autonomy is no longer protected and there is no recourse under the law to protect people from being discriminated against.

What is being blatantly discriminated against here is a certain political worldview.

The hypocrisy from the Left here is obvious:

-- A PRIVATE company like Hobby Lobby should not be allowed to withhold certain forms of birth control from its employees just because its owners hold certain religious views. They are guilty of discriminating against people who want access to any form of contraception they wish, and should not be denied any because they do not share the same religious worldview of the owners of said private company.


--- A PRIVATE company like Facebook can discriminate and or completely censure a person or organization base strictly on a worldview.

Let's look at this. Hobby Lobby's purpose is to sell people craft supplies and such. It can pick and choose whose wares it sells, can legitimately discriminate regarding any product. Facebook's original purpose was to connect people; it added a news and information function as time went on. Can't it legitimately decide whose "wares" it wants to allow through its servers by setting up quality control standards? You imply that Infowars represents a different "worldview" and that this is somehow innocuous. Fb says no, what Infowars has is defective (i.e., fabricated) products, and they refuse to host them.

Is there hypocrisy in liberal opposition to Hobby Lobby's policy of not providing its employees coverage for contraceptives, while liberals uphold a private company's rights in other areas? That's a more legitimate argument to have. I don't have my mind made up.

What a horrible analogy.
A worldview vocalized is an expression, not a "product" for purchase.
Expression can only be done through speech, or writing.
Expression in most cases is protected by law. There are exceptions that prove the rule, of course. One being speech that incites violence against people.

Former Facebook employees have openly admitted the company routinely suppresses conservative news:

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-wor ... 1775461006

Alex Jones has promoted a conspiracy theory that the shootings at Sandy Hook did not occur. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is what freedom of speech exists to protect.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/al ... ok-n893841
Furthermore it is part of a pattern of paranoid propaganda which led to death threats against the parents.

We are not talking about unpopular opinions or worldviews, we are talking about mental illness on a social scale.

Harry Marks wrote:Alex Jones has promoted a conspiracy theory that the shootings at Sandy Hook did not occur. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is what freedom of speech exists to protect.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/al ... ok-n893841
Furthermore it is part of a pattern of paranoid propaganda which led to death threats against the parents.

We are not talking about unpopular opinions or worldviews, we are talking about mental illness on a social scale.

Right. And saying the Twin Towers were obliterated by the US government and not by terrorists is another wacky conspiracy theory that although as crazy as they are, still do not constitute a promotion of violence or physical harm to people, or groups of people. Forms of violent, hate speech are not, and should not be protected by law.

You may not like it, but conspiracy theories not promoting violence or hatred, however foolish, are protected under the law.

The Sandy Hook conspiracy claptrap likely hurt lots of people's feelings. The threats may or may not have been directly related. It has to be shown the alleged threats were the result of overt calls of violence. Can that be demonstrated?

Harry Marks wrote:Alex Jones has promoted a conspiracy theory that the shootings at Sandy Hook did not occur. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is what freedom of speech exists to protect.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/al ... ok-n893841
Furthermore it is part of a pattern of paranoid propaganda which led to death threats against the parents.

We are not talking about unpopular opinions or worldviews, we are talking about mental illness on a social scale.

Unfortunately, false information exists for those who wish to be misinformed. Those who want to believe the Sandy Hook shootings were staged can find that information somewhere on the internet.

But it's interesting to note that, as Harry alludes, InfoWars and other content from Alex Jones were removed from social media sites, not for being false and misleading, but for using speech that was hateful and/or dehumanizing. None of these things fall under the protection of the First Amendment because, again, these are private companies that have every right to police what kind of content they are hosting.

I just don't buy Ant's argument that social media sites have such a monopoly on online forums of open social discourse, "they no longer fit the definition of "private" companies." I would argue for one that people have an obligation to use their own brains and get their news from credible news sources. We are all free to get our news from YouTube or eat our meals from KFC, but these are probably not good decisions. Caveat Emptor. We all have every right to make bad decisions. That's the price of freedom.

Someone else pointed out that the NYT would never publish Alex Jones stuff. So why would Facebook be beholden to different rules? I don't see much of an argument there.

But it's interesting to note that, as Harry alludes, InfoWars and other content from Alex Jones were removed from social media sites, not for being false and misleading, but for using speech that was hateful and/or dehumanizing. None of these things fall under the sphere of the First Amendment because, again, these are private companies.

It would be entirely content dependent. If the speech was intended to incite violence, it should not be allowed to remain online.
You might be blowing up the word to mean encouraging ACTS OF VIOLENCE, when in fact the particular expression is calling for no such thing. Your cognitive biases might be in play.

I don't believe the Sandy Hook example was a call for violence. It may be distasteful, but not a call for violence.

Do you know how many people and so called "news sources" regularly post hateful, dehumanizing items about the president and his cabinet, and have not been banned by social media sites like Facebook and Twitter?
I could post countless links as exemplars all day.

It's only a matter of time before someone brings this matter to the highest court(s) of the land.

It is more comfortable (and convenient) to apply the same old law to situations that are now much different than they have been pre-cyberspace.
Isn't it?
Laws are often reinterpreted. The courts will ultimately be involved.

So I operate a string of coffee shops, several of which are located in densely populated gay communities where people go to frequently discuss social, family, and political issues that directly impact the LGTBQ community. I instruct my managers to ask any customers to leave if they are heard speaking of related topics because it is contrary to my personal likes and ultimately my worldview.

Why would that be appropriate as long as these same customers were not yelling "FIRE" or causing direct bodiliy harm, physically endangering other customers, or inciting mob violence?
It wouldn't be appropriate.


Who are Facebook's "customers" and why do they all congregate in Facebook's cyberspace?
Shouldn't they be afforded the same protection under the law as my coffee shop customers?

Ant wrote:If the speech was intended to incite violence, it should not be allowed to remain online.
...I don't believe the Sandy Hook example was a call for violence. It may be distasteful, but not a call for violence.

First, why do you insist that violence is the standard? Whether you're on Facebook or not, you've probably seen recent ads where they're attempting to bring FB back to earlier friendlier times, with fewer bots, fake news, and so on. You seem to be saying private corporations should not be allowed to make that determination, everything short of directly advocating violence must be published on all media sites (including broadcast television?). Who would write those Terms Of Service, the Government?

Second, as I recall you are a grief counselor or a consultant to that helping profession. So I'm surprised you don't have more empathy towards the Sandy Hook parents. Imagine your client's 5 year old child is shot up by a lunatic, then other lunatics call their phones and flood their social media accounts demanding to know where they have hidden their children, how much were they paid for their fake story, etc. On and on relentlessly for years. It has gotten so bad that some of those parents are suing Alex Jones. In response, Jones' lawyers are attempting to publish their home addresses etc. The freaks harassing Sandy Hook families electronically now will escalate once they know where the parents live and work. Facebook and other social media corporations must assist with that crap?

Third, not sure you are aware that what sparked these bans is Jones actually inciting violence. In a recent video he barks about "They are coming. So get your battle rifles ready!" (IIRC, Jones has also threatened to shoot Bob Mueller and others.)

Finally, most of these bans are temporary, from 7 to 30 days. As stated earlier, his web sites are not affected. It's not censorship, and wimpy at that.