Feel free to argue that Facebook should be allowed to censor others. But it is still censorship.

It is perfectly possible for someone to both think that Facebooks actions should be allowed, and are also censorship at the same time.

It would have a pretty small effect on other people's ability to engage in speech. But it is an effect none the less.

If you owned a huge amount of property, though, then this would be a larger amount of censorship.

It absolutely has something to do with the general concept of freedom of speech, actually.

Freedom of speech is a concept, not just a law.

EDIT: (At least, that's how it works in the US. Other nations, other laws.)

Either way, I think people have also a wrong idea of what censorship is. If I tell you can't take a shit in the middle of my living room and you claim that I'm censoring you, then maybe you should reconsider your logic and definition of censoring. This is basically the same.

There's no one who would advocate complete and total freedom of speech in every arena. Whether it's social, legal or self censorship, the question isn't about whether a line exists, it's where we place it.

I'm not changing what "freedom of speech means". I'm telling you that freedom of speech doesn't come with extra rights to give you the ability to disperse your thoughts and Facebook is also well within its own freedom of speech rights (as a Corporate personhood) to enforce whatever content rules they want.

Either way, I'm not even trying to argue here. You believe this is censorship. Fine. I respect that and really don't see that as an irrational thought at all. There's some sound reasoning around your idea that this is censorship. I just think that trying to create blanket definitions for "censorship" or "freedom of speech" is an easy escape to allow people to behave like shit. That's what I think. Totally a personal opinion, though.

Some people are better at compartmentalizing than others. They can hold freedom of speech as it applies to the government in one thought-bucket, while holding corporate-enforced limits on their ability to say whatever they want in another.

But others can't (or won't) compartmentalize. To them, the whole freedom from the government versus freedom from private corporations distinction seems arbitrary and distracting, especially in the US, where many government roles have been subsumed by private corporations.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, just trying to gain some perspective on the issue. Personally, I'm a compartmentalizer so I see your point.

In many ways, the unified absolute freedom of speech camp, no one should ever prevent nazis from posting on hacker news because it is a limitation on the nazis “freedom of speech” are arguing for a substantially more invasive understanding of freedom of speech: I am required to support, fund, enable and amplify speech that I find abhorrent and destructive.

By that logic, deleting spam from my blog comment section violates their conception of “freedom of speech”.

I would remain free to speak, just not on hacker news. Forcing hacker news to host content (spam, nazis, Holocaust deniers, assholes, etc.) is a much much more invasive position.

Would the mods banning spam violate free speech?

It is until it isn't. The big question here is: Is it a common carrier in which people use it, or is it responsible for content on there?

When they start sticking their hand in it to determine what is and isn't acceptible content on there, imo they violate the claim that they're a common platform/being a common carrier.

> Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything.

That's literally exactly what censorship is...........

Also reference the 14th amendment. Prior to it's ratification the bill of rights was construed only to apply to the federal government. It's ratification brought application of the bill of rights to the states, and then to private entities.

(I'm not arguing that Facebook shouldn't remove holocaust denial. I just disagree with this new and extremely narrow interpretation of "free speech" that has popped up like mushrooms everywhere and is being used to curtail free speech in many social and business contexts.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

... in the vain hope someone reads the first one or two sentences.

> They are not censoring anything.

Technically untrue. It isn't that much fun to defend holocaust denial. Maybe even illegal in my country, I don't know the details. But you do what you have to do. Ignorance is still the most potent weapon of facists.

lki876 is clearly referring to a philosophical principle, not whether Facebook's policies violates the U.S. constitution. There was probably some law legalizing Trump's murder of Qasem Soleimani too, doesn't mean it wasn't also a dick move.

The fact that the government isn’t violating an obligation to not restrict free speech does not mean that the principle isn’t being violated by other parties.

XKCD was wrong.