Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

Post by raarts » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #97

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this comment a lot. Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does. It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that. And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the peopl…

> But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.

Post by aikah » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #177

r_smart wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is…

The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.

Post by aikah » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

BlackFly wrote: post #115

kinkdr wrote: post #85

Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules. If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.

Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American. Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color. The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no…

Post by aikah » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #206

kinkdr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems. A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.

No, a better solution is regulation. A personal solution that can be put into action immediately is switching to an open alternative.

Post by kakarot » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #81

kakarot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa buddy, that's some pretty heavy socialism. Anyone can make a forum. Mandating moderation rules creates a restrictive barrier for entry and actually harms free speech that falls out of acceptable range

Whoa buddy, that's some pretty limited free market regulation thinking. There's plenty of laws that only apply on certain companies, after n employees or x revenue. Should be pretty feasible to devise a law that applies to sites with more than n active users such as Facebook and twitter and the likes and not to your neighborhood forum.