Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 434 posts

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#351

Post by nine_k »

nine_k wrote: post #319
koboll wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned) frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the "JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their…

Ideally all the speech, including every kind of speech you find disgusing, should be left as is, without censorship. As long as it's not anonymous, you can see who is who (even under screen names), and value other speech and actions of these people accordingly. For instance, it would be easy to let anyone know that Paul Nehlen is a racist, by pointing at these posts As a service owner, you could collapse and mark cer…

(BTW I love how the downvotes confirm my point.)

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#352

Post by whatthesmack »

Lutger wrote: post #163
TechBro8615 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free pass on what exactly? This has gotten so crazy, I can’t believe people are protesting Facebook for not censoring a politician. Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. Do people really think that censoring, or even annotating, the President’s words will change how people feel about them? Like someone is going to read Trump’s message, think “oh right, mail-in ballots could…

Cambridge Analytica and meddling in the elections by Russian trolls is what happened. Also: a quite effective assault at climate action using misinformation, violent riots, a movement campaigning for civil war, ridiculous medical advise by the US president leading to deaths during a pandemic, etc. This all happened and permanently changed the debate. Free speech is poisoned these days and we can't simply ignore that.

> This all happened and permanently changed the debate. Free speech is poisoned these days and we can't simply ignore that.

Even if that is the case, it shouldn’t mean we give up on free speech and allow it to be effectively eliminated “so it can be saved”. Free speech with some censorship is just censorship.

A robust public debate is how ideas are fairly brought out and given an opportunity to thrive or die. Having Twitter or a government or “fact checker” or any other person/organization in the middle adding their outsized influence to the picture brings the whole debate out of balance. Why is Jack’s voice worth 1000x more than yours? Because he’s more “enlightened”?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#353

Post by root_axis »

brigandish wrote: post #253
lancesells wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.

Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If the…

> then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.

What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#354

Post by patagurbon »

stale2002 wrote: post #300
nscalf wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does there have to be an alternative? They can give speeches, send letters and emails, go on television, post to other social media platforms, yell in a park, release an album, etc. You have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to freedom of mediums of speech.

If this is your opinion, then why not go even further? If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?

One of these is clearly not like the other, in multiple ways. You're at the very least misrepresenting why these people are being banned.

Tax policy is not anywhere close the tweets at issue which often amount to terroristic threatening. If you started verbally abusing other customers in a grocery store, perhaps even implying you'll murder them, then yes, you'll be banned.

To the rest of your comment, are you seriously comparing tweets to food? You have a fundamental right to food, not to have your opinions transmitted by others.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#355

Post by patagurbon »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #336
XorNot wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protections the telephone companies have are based on their desire to remain common carrier status, and not being considered curators or providers of the content they carry. It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too. In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

>they can't censor as they are.

Yes

>A private company cannot censor

No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#356

Post by patagurbon »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #246
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves.

> This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves. Public airwaves? This applied during the landline days and it had more to do with the idea of monopolies/utilites/trusts. Either way, it debunks your point that non-government entities are all allowed to censor...

His point was that the 1st amendment applies only to Congress. There are other laws that apply to other entities, but currently no law prevents Twitter from censoring.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#357

Post by patagurbon »

adventured wrote: post #208
dmicah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the case, unless the platform is run by the government. The First Amendment applies to restrictions on free speech by the government, and is not related to the actions of private enterprises.

> unless the platform is run by the government. The First Amendment applies to restrictions on free speech by the government, and is not related to the actions of private enterprises. That's not quite accurate. There is precedence for regulating speech in private media for example, as in the case of broadcast networks. Broadcast TV networks are still restricted on speech/expression to this day, as are radio stations.…

It is accurate. Other laws can be created which apply to various other entities, such as corporations. But the 1st amendment specifically applies only to Congress.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#358

Post by deanCommie »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #211
deanCommie wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> movies, cop dramas, video games fiction > Trump not fiction How is this even a question? Fictional narratives and real-life actions are incomparable > Should we ban tweets linking to bail funds for arrested protesters since that's "glorifying" breaking the law? If they were encouraging violence, yes. They weren't encouraging violence, they were encouraging civil disobedience. Destruction of property and assault on…

As I say elsewhere, I could just as easily use your empty standard to ban tweets saying “A riot is the language of the unheard.” This quote sympathetically explains rioting as a consequence of oppression—and it’s a quote I largely agree with. And yet people as easily triggered as you may seek to have MLK banned since the quote serves as justification/apologetics/glorification of rioting—-a definitionally violent and…

Documentaries by definition should be DOCUMENTING reality not glorifying it.

War documentaries that glorify violence are propaganda.

We shouldn't ban them, but we should contain them the way we contain all propaganda - study it's means to an end, and contain it.

I'm pro rioting. I don't know why you think I'm triggered. Rioting isn't promoting violence. There is also a question of instigation.

Person A: Punches person B in the face

Person B: Punches person A back in return.

These actions are not equivalent. A instigated. B defended. A is being violent. B is not.

Person B: Destroys person A's property

Person A: Punches person B in the face

These actions are not equivalent. Person B did not perpetuate violence. They instigated, but A did not defend - they escalated from property damage to personal damage. B is not being violent. A is.

This ain't rocket science.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#359

Post by brigandish »

root_axis wrote: post #353
brigandish wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If the…

> then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies. What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]:

> Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.

In other words they'd be liable for what is published on their site whether by them or a third party.

Platform is not a legal term, it's a colloquial distinction from publisher, which in this case refers to either the "interactive computer service" (e.g. Twitter) or the third party (e.g. the tweeter). Interactive computer service isn't as catchy.

> Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?

My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#360

Post by brigandish »

prawn wrote: post #316
brigandish wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If the…

Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal. But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.

There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
Post reply on HN