> Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.[1]
Facebook has enough power over communication at large to effectively suppress speech should they choose. Censorship does not have to be perpetrated by governments. Hence the terms self-censorship and corporate-censorship[2].
What people really mean when they talk about censorship is first amendment rights. Here, you are correct. The first amendment protects against government censorship only - nothing Facebook does could infringe your first amendment rights.
This is true, but remember that there's a lot of terrible things that the Constitution doesn't prohibit, e.g., murder. The fact that something isn't Constitutionally prohibited doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it.
I'm not saying Facebook is infringing my rights (I explicitly meant to say the opposite). But I do feel strongly that they are guilty of censorship, in the literal sense.
They might be in the legal right, sure. But you're never in the moral right if you're guilty of censorship.
Using your same logic, should Starbucks be required to let you stand in their store and say racist things? What if the manager thought you said something racist and kicked you out when you didn't actually say anything racist, is Starbucks guilty of censorship?
I don't agree. The snarky and smug "nuh uh, cuz it wasn't the government" responses [often maliciously] assume that complaints about censorship are talking about the first amendment, but I think people are generally aware that censorship can come from corporations too and their concerns are not limited to apparent violations of the first amendment specifically but are concerned with the more general principle of free speech (which predates the first amendment.)
There is nothing that presupposes that the entity has the obligation to carry your message. Just that the entity removes your message on the grounds that they do not like the material.
This comes up every time someone mentions that X(a private party) censors something. Yes, X is not the government. Yes, it is still censorship. If undertaken by the entity on it's own, it may not be illegal. If the entity had government influence in it's decision, than it may be.
There are some here that argue that the status quo is fine and others that argue that we need to change our laws and regulations to protect individuals from more privet enterprise censorship. That is where the debate is, not whether or not censorship exists.
And they do engage in censorship. See "Laptop from Hell" by Miranda Devine
As far as whether or not these companies engage in censorship, I agree that they certainly do. It's just that it's not illegal/unconstitutional, as per the 'censorship narrative' alluded to.
It's also highly immoral for them to craft their own narrative out of user generated content which was never the intention of 230. The crafting of a narrative of available information and the presentation thereof is called opinion which is the province of publishers.
Not every provider of user-generated content should have to abide by these rules, because the damage that can be done by a relatively small forum or website is usually minimal (although see sites like Kiwi Farms that may not technically directly encourage harassment but where it is nonetheless often perpetrated by sadistic individuals who participate in their forums), whereas the damage that can be done by a Facebook or a Google is much, much greater.
Regardless, rightful censorship is still accurately described as such.
And, this doesn't seem to be a story about censorship, IMO, because it was clearly accidental. It's a story about bad ML.
Surely you don't think corporations can't be criticised?
FB is completely within the law to manage their own platform. If you don't like the law then change it. Maybe your comments are misplaced.
Unfortunately there is a so-called "network effect", which prevents quitting for many users.
Why not? I believe it should, given its size. The phone company has an obligation to carry my speech. Net Neutrality would require ISPs to carry speech. There are a whole host of things the government can compel "privately owned" systems/companies to do.
In these kinds of discussions, scale matters. There is a big difference between compelling a company with a billion+ users to act as a platform and forcing a small business to do the same.
2) It's perfectly fair, and a good idea, to call out a thing as bad even if it's legal.
Starting about a month ago FB changed all their algorithms and a lot of independent artists are seeing 50%+ reductions in engagement across Instagram and Facebook.
I have artistic hobby pursuits and can confirm. Many times I'll post a piece of work and my friends won't even see it in their feeds because FB is gatekeeping content between artists and voluntary followers now, in favor of "influencer" content from cash-cow accounts that don't produce any art of their own.
It's sickening to say the least. Yes it's legal as of now but we should really be having a discussion about whether it should be okay to have a non-transparent gatekeeping algorithm between people who mutually chose to follow each other.
Personally I'd prefer that if if someone voluntarily follows someone, they should have a legal obligation to not hinder any communication. That person chose to subscribe, and they can choose to unsubscribe at any time. What they are doing is tantamount to the USPS paging through your magazine subscriptions and trashing some of them as the mailman feels that day.
Why does your speech come before Facebook's speech on Facebook's private platform?
Is auto-block a single post really censorship? Did they block everything from this person? Did they stop this person from similar speech elsewhere?
they should when they become a mega-corp
"mega-corp" is a term from dystopian cyberpunk fiction people just started applying to real life. "mega-corps" aren't a real thing (at least not until they become semi-autonomous states with their own currencies and private armies,) nor is "mega-corp" well enough defined that one can use it as a means to remove free speech and association rights. If those rights even worked that way, which they don't. Nor should they.
You may as well just say "any company I don't like," it means practically the same thing.
I just meant companies worth exorbitant amounts of money... like $1T+ ... not sure on the amount though... Do you work for them or the government?
Yeah, no potential for a slippery slope there at all. Nope, none.
>Do you work for them or the government?
Neither. I just think setting arbitrary, ill defined lines for denying fundamental rights is dangerously authoritarian.
Although, noting your beliefs in this regard and now your paranoia, I truly hope you never sit in a position of actual power.
same
< and now your paranoia,
oh, we are getting into it, lol
They were making the same mistake you are - arguing that they were not obligated to be even handed and non-discriminatory in the services they offered.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
> If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
> this is a glaring example of censorship and overreach by tech giant companies who control so much of the online space.”
That's the website slogan, not part of the article.
If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
Using a different example, I wanted to eat in a local restaurant [a privately owned company providing a public service entirely on their own terms] but I was refused entry because I am black and their "policies" [which is the reason I am given] prohibit entry to black people. I call attention to the situation by standing outside with a placard saying this restaurant treated me in a discriminatory way because I am black. The restaurant manager then comes to me and says, sorry that was a mistake caused by the 'patron classifier' [i.e. some vague entity that implies no actual person is at fault anywhere], and I can come in now.
So, do I understand correctly that you would say the restaurant is not operating any type of discriminatory policy because it reversed the decision when attention was publicly drawn to it?
To me, that reasoning does not seem to make sense. Being embarrassed into changing a decision does not stop your original decision being wrong in the first place. It simply means you want to stop attention being drawn to it and hope I will stop making a fuss if you make an exception for me on this occasion. You can continue making that same [wrong] decision for everyone else that is unable to complain and draw attention to their plight.
Yes.
> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
Maybe if they reversed it with a time machine.