111–120 of 178 posts
I’m more interested in why Facebook is marketing their platform to be about free speech. Is it a defensive move against potential regulation? - e.g. “if you regulate us, you’re taking away peoples right to free Speech”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they get too big.
I appreciate the snark, but I'll just say anyway that I'm actually asking what are the factors that determine when a company is "too big"?
This is a reflection of a larger point, which is that any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. Especially with the introduction of Libra, that's starting to sound less like a cliche and more like an axiom. This also (should) give the rest of us more input in how the company does business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A vanity place with pretty people pushing random products in their feeds. How is that "nice"?
Not quite as poisonous as other places. And some people actually post nice stuff. It’s what you make of it and harder to go to shit.
"The problem is that Facebook doesn’t offer free speech; it offers free amplification." 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're just called 'Kraft Singles' - they aren't cheese, even by American definitions!
That's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients. > https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...
"Your firm's "Kraft Velveeta Pasteurized Process Cheese Spread" product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(g)( 1) of the Act in that it purports to be or is represented as a food, namely pasteurized process cheese spread..."
So it's official: Velveeta is not food!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're just called 'Kraft Singles' - they aren't cheese, even by American definitions!
That's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients. > https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...
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.
This is just a slogan people keep saying, and whilst it's useful fodder for one side of the debate, I'd encourage you to question it. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the concept of free speech outside of what is protected by the US constitution. That is what people are often talking about, and even though their legal recourse (in the US) is often limited to only preventing government censorship, we are fre…
Not all opinions are equal and they shouldn’t be treated as such. It doesn’t quite work with free will and all.
Sounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech itself as a legal concept comes with limitations based on community guidelines, including obscenity and pornography. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation... I don’t believe there is any country in the world today for which “free speech” means that anything that can be said is legal and protected, but many people seem to think otherwise based on the name.
I was always under the impression free speech advocacy is the spirit of unlimited speech and not the literal word of law in speech. For example, I recall lots of controversy that is the deplatforming of various alt-right advocates and speakers (Sargon of Akkad for example, or 8chan, or the banning of various subreddits). And while it is literally legal for a private entity to no longer want to service parties it does…
The latter one, being irreverent and speaking to power, is never guaranteed to be legal nor come without negative consequences or having your platform removed, so if that is the one being referred to, the feigned incredulity about Facebook taking it down is misplaced. It was always going to be taken down or fought against, if you’re going to say something they don’t like. In fact, the act is a provocation who’s goal is to stir the pot. The goal may be to shame or embarrass someone, or it might be to change policy and making things more fair, but a reaction is expected and desired.
For the other kind, legal Freedom of Speech protections, not all speech is protected. So, being incredulous about Facebook removing obscenity is misplaced here too, because removal of some kinds of things is completely within the bounds of Free Speech Protections.
Either way, in both cases, the speech is subject to community guidelines, and some kinds of speech will result in consequences you might not like. In particular, things that might be considered pornographic or obscene.
Note this is different from what Facebook might allow, and as far as I’m concerned they can make whatever rules they like and it doesn’t infringe on “free speech”. I’m making the separate point that Free Speech itself always comes with the same kind of limitations the GP comment was referring to.
I think that is misdirection. 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 am…
No, it doesn't. That the point. It gives people a some of curated information subset from what people they know is saying, probably out of context, and heavily biased. That's not a community, because it's not made of whole people.
They also give voice to some of your thoughts that they decide they want to. That's not voice, or at least, that's not voice to you, that's voice for them, while impersonating you.