11–20 of 178 posts
Not even that -- make a group for your business or product or band or political group, get people to sign up, and see how far free amplification goes.
Or, in other words, it is the current belief that everyone is entitled to voice and spread their opinions, weaponized by greed slash laissez-faire capitalism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the abstract, no. But we already know that Facebook excludes free speech: simply attempt to post a photograph containing bare female breasts on Facebook or a Facebook-owned property like Instagram, and it will swiftly be removed for violating “community guidelines”. So Facebook themselves have clearly excluded themselves from the former.
Fair. Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship
Death threats, and many other forms of hate speech, are illegal in many jurisdictions, and yet that is not used to justify a blanket ban on angry text.
> The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship
It is not obvious to me that these things are even separable; to pick but one obvious example, a topless photograph posted by advocates for an equal right for both men and women to be topless in public is clearly political speech.
More broadly, look at someone like Larry Flint. The pornagraphic is the political. The current hand-wringing over “censorship of political speech” seems terribly narrowly focused on but one fairly conservative form of speech, to the point that it’s a bit hard to take at face value.
Facebook has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is "you don't go to jail for saying something." You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud.
You voluntarily subscribe on social media though. Nobody is forcing you to hear their noise
Facebook has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is "you don't go to jail for saying something." You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud.
Does China putting pressure on the NBA to stop players from saying pro-Hong-Kong-protests things not fall under the gambit of censorship/free speech issues as far as you're concerned?
(Heck, even in terms of the US constitution, public institutions banning some symbols or items have been overruled based on first amendment grounds. So just banning a student from wearing a certain type of t-shirt is also a free speech issue.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that serious? Why shouldn't Facebook be permitted to operate their business in an explicitly partisan way if they so choose?
Simple: because they’re too big
Reality - life's much better getting off social media and hanging out with friends in real life - and instagram has a bit less outrage machine stuff - easier / quieter place to share pix of the kids playing and catchup with what folks are up to.
There are two parts that I don't think are contradicted by this article:
1) Facebook, twitter, and other social networks give people a voice and a community.
2) If these platforms are censored in a country, it has a great effect on free speech in the country.
Now, there are some good questions related to the article to ask here:
a) Are these platforms actually a problem because of the amplification of outraging?
b) If they are, how does that impact our society?
c) Is there a way to empower people (and keep the benefits of current platforms) without increasing the negative effects as well?