Having been censored multiple times by tech firms, I fall squarely into one camp.
During the Snowden Disclosures, I took to Facebook with the documents getting published and started to do my own summaries.
Facebook implemented a policy in which it would not let any post that contained a link to a Snowden Document. In some cases they would let the content get posted, but I confirmed with a friend's account that it was not visible when scrolling my feed from another account. Posts about other content were all visible and otherwise had no problems.
I complained and Facebook got back to me with a customer relations paragraph about keeping their platform free of unwanted or questionable content.
Not long after I discovered through media, and then some friends from Turkey, that what I experienced was identical to state sponsored censorship that Facebook extends to the Turkish government.
This lasted for close to the entire duration of public attention on the global and domestic surveillance scandal.
(Other links and content in other scenarios, for example May Day protest organization, was similarly blocked by Facebook - at least in Seattle for the organizers that I was in contact with).
I love the unspoken sentiment behind your experience.
"I took to facebook to post links to grey legal documents rather than hosting them myself because I wanted facebook to be liable; Im shocked when they told me they didn't appreciate the transfer of risk. It's literally censorship I tell you!"
Freedom of speech is not, and hopefully never will be,"freedom to post on other people's servers unmoderated".
I like the reddit and 4chan model. Content is clearly compartmentalized by topic with different rules for each subcommunity. Of course they are not totally free of moderation but it still allows a greater diversity of opinions with seemingly diametrically opposed groups existing side by side.
Many of the big social networks lack compartmentalization. On the other hand twitter demonstrates that it's not necessary, just helpful.
> Of course they are not totally free of moderation
If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free time will dominate and drive out others.
It's incredibly cheap and easy to shit up a conversation, but quite costly to have an engaging dialogue. By having no moderation, you're actively choosing to reward shitposters, and punish quality contributors.
And, no, adding an up/downvote mechanism does not solve this problem.
Moderators have too much power in the reddit model. Subreddit's become their own lil fiefdoms... literally virtual real estate that different special interests vie for influence of.
Unforuntately, minority voices are stifled in almost every single subreddit. Sure you can say people are free to make their own subreddits for those voices, but for example a community like /r/canada has a very valuable virtual real estate in its name. Most new canadian redditors will at one point check out /r/canada because it's canada's subreddit. Unfortunately moderators largely stifle conservative perspectives, forcing them out to subreddits like /r/metacanada.
Perhaps this is a stupid question but why should e.g. treat these things _so_ fundamentally different than things we already have rules and regulations for?
Going back in time, what about newspapers and letters to the editor? Those had a clear range of what was allowed and acceptable.
Is there really anything stopping us from using these rules except for being afraid to not post bullshit everywhere unsanctioned any longer?
Because a lot more communication is done over private platforms these days. When working from home even informal work conversations are done over some cloud-hosted chat.
It's been this way since the establishment of state-sanctioned copyright with the Statute of Anne in 1710. Only now, in the USA, the experiment to privatize everything has continued on.
Proponents will argue you can own your own site, so long as the hosting is okay with what you say, you can run your own hardware, so long as the co-location center is okay with what you say, you can run the server from your home so long as your ISP is okay with what you say, and it will be delivered, so long as the various individual ISP of you readers also find what you say okay.
The end result is the American population of free-er and free-er from the government (which won't, almost, anymore do something against an individual for being the wrong X,Y, or Z. Why should they expend the effort? All they have to do is enforce Right To Work laws, and private enterprise will do it for them.) (The US Post Office may no longer seize copies of Fanny Hill, but I will wager it couldn't be posted on Facebook.)
The product is getting restless, the customers aren't happy with their brand being next to all of this inflammatory content. This was bound to happen in an ad-supported internet.
Howard stern. It doesnt matter that people are angry. People who hated him listened to howard stern more/longer than his fans. Facebook doesnt care that people are screaming mad. That emotion is just proof of how connected they are to the platform.
Society is a groupthink censor. If your beliefs are too extreme in any number of directions, society will eventually shun you. Whether you think this behavior is wrong or not usually depends on how closely your beliefs match the beliefs that are currently being shunned.
In some ways i envy the governments that block facebook. The threat of blocking is the only thing that changes facebook's behavior, normally by causing them to implement censorship. But western democracies cannot block facebook, and so lack real power. Facebook may scream about burdens and taxes, but those arent a problem if you have customers. Saudi Arabia controls access to customers and so is more important than any western legislature.
[+] [-] notveryrational|7 years ago|reply
During the Snowden Disclosures, I took to Facebook with the documents getting published and started to do my own summaries.
Facebook implemented a policy in which it would not let any post that contained a link to a Snowden Document. In some cases they would let the content get posted, but I confirmed with a friend's account that it was not visible when scrolling my feed from another account. Posts about other content were all visible and otherwise had no problems.
I complained and Facebook got back to me with a customer relations paragraph about keeping their platform free of unwanted or questionable content.
Not long after I discovered through media, and then some friends from Turkey, that what I experienced was identical to state sponsored censorship that Facebook extends to the Turkish government.
This lasted for close to the entire duration of public attention on the global and domestic surveillance scandal.
(Other links and content in other scenarios, for example May Day protest organization, was similarly blocked by Facebook - at least in Seattle for the organizers that I was in contact with).
[+] [-] lordCarbonFiber|7 years ago|reply
"I took to facebook to post links to grey legal documents rather than hosting them myself because I wanted facebook to be liable; Im shocked when they told me they didn't appreciate the transfer of risk. It's literally censorship I tell you!"
Freedom of speech is not, and hopefully never will be,"freedom to post on other people's servers unmoderated".
[+] [-] replies_to_all|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Ahjie1Ai|7 years ago|reply
Many of the big social networks lack compartmentalization. On the other hand twitter demonstrates that it's not necessary, just helpful.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|7 years ago|reply
If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free time will dominate and drive out others.
It's incredibly cheap and easy to shit up a conversation, but quite costly to have an engaging dialogue. By having no moderation, you're actively choosing to reward shitposters, and punish quality contributors.
And, no, adding an up/downvote mechanism does not solve this problem.
[+] [-] aldoushuxley001|7 years ago|reply
Unforuntately, minority voices are stifled in almost every single subreddit. Sure you can say people are free to make their own subreddits for those voices, but for example a community like /r/canada has a very valuable virtual real estate in its name. Most new canadian redditors will at one point check out /r/canada because it's canada's subreddit. Unfortunately moderators largely stifle conservative perspectives, forcing them out to subreddits like /r/metacanada.
[+] [-] marenkay|7 years ago|reply
Going back in time, what about newspapers and letters to the editor? Those had a clear range of what was allowed and acceptable.
Is there really anything stopping us from using these rules except for being afraid to not post bullshit everywhere unsanctioned any longer?
[+] [-] Ahjie1Ai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apocalypstyx|7 years ago|reply
Proponents will argue you can own your own site, so long as the hosting is okay with what you say, you can run your own hardware, so long as the co-location center is okay with what you say, you can run the server from your home so long as your ISP is okay with what you say, and it will be delivered, so long as the various individual ISP of you readers also find what you say okay.
The end result is the American population of free-er and free-er from the government (which won't, almost, anymore do something against an individual for being the wrong X,Y, or Z. Why should they expend the effort? All they have to do is enforce Right To Work laws, and private enterprise will do it for them.) (The US Post Office may no longer seize copies of Fanny Hill, but I will wager it couldn't be posted on Facebook.)
[+] [-] jerkstate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geggam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UncleMeat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatshisface|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldManRiver|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geggam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ahjie1Ai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kapauldo|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baud147258|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] setpatchaddress|7 years ago|reply
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-t...
[+] [-] tptacek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] replies_to_all|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sandworm101|7 years ago|reply