I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him.
Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of right and wrong on the President of the United States. His opinion, right or wrong, is of national importance. What he says is a matter of historical value, showing the culture of America and its leadership at the time. It provides a check on power, letting the citizens know what their President thinks on certain issues and allows them to form their own opinions on whether the President is a leader they can get behind or try and vote out.
Tweets were not deleted, you are using a strawman. Tweets were marked up with warning messages. It is perfectly sensible to mark as "factually wrong" a message that says "the sky is green" and as "inciting violence, but has to be kept for historic reasons" when the message is quoting a known oppressor and making threats.
To a certain degree I agree with you, although I think it should be practiced in conjunction with Twitter's strategy of flagging/hiding tweets. It seems like a good way to ensure the racist/violent/fake content can be moderated in some fashion.
I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.
Counterpoint: the POTUS has plenty of opportunity to get his voice heard independently of Twitter and Twitter has a right as to what they will publish.
> but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place.
When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president?
I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could post what he does.
You didn't.
You made an exception for president X of whatever nation and that's fine. It's also fine that you mention the _national_ importance.
The problem is that you probably won't apply that rule equally when you consider that facebook operates in several countries. Some with presidents, some without. Some with a working democracy and a rule of law, and some not.
If you think he gets a free pass because he's _your_ president, that's fine. But don't expect people in other countries to follow your reasoning because we didn't elect him, we don't even want him and he's not special to us to deserve a free pass.
I agree with you but why only the President? This gets at the frequent HN topic of big tech censorship vs freedom of speech. Why should we forcibly remove any posts at all? Why should _Insert_Big_Tech_Company_ get to tell me what's right and wrong as opposed to letting me make my own determination by reading it? When we remove censorship, we also invite others to critique and counter ideas that are deemed "incorrect".
Flagging is distinct from removing posts. Removing seems obviously wrong for the reasons you give. Flagging is probably ok, maybe even the right thing to do.
Devil’s advocate thought experiment: suppose I was a CEO of a large social media company and my personal view is pro-life. Should I remove pro-choice posts (or censor them with violence labels), or should I allow discussion on the topic even though I personally disagree with it?
I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.
Conservative Americans are traditionally all-in on respect for private property. One doesn't expect to go just walk on someone's lawn and put up a sign without the owner's permission. I honestly don't understand why the same respect doesn't apply to the services provided by private companies like Twitter and Facebook.
These companies spend billions of dollars annually on infrastructure and engineering to host user content. How can Republicans be asking the government to step in and dictate over that multi-billion investment? Doesn't that fly in the face of everything they believe about government's role in the private sector?
In your example, of course the pro-life CEO can do whatever they want with content on their site, assuming it was uploaded by users within the site's terms of service. If someone were actually paying for hosting of the content, they would have a case to get upset about having it taken down. But that's not the kind of contract that users of social media sites have made with the companies.
The point isn't to push a personal cause or belief. The goal should be to keep a safe space where people aren't allowed to threaten others and incite violence.
In the book, Guardians of the Internet, two cases are mentioned:
Case 1:
Mexican gang violence was caught dramatically on video and went viral. This sparked a conversation and brought attention on a major issue since The government had been suppressing this information to project an image of security.
This video pierced that veil- until it was seen by (I believe) British citizens who woke up in the morning.
They called their friends at Facebook who realized it broke their rules and removed it.
Case 2:
Contrast this with how Facebook handled the boston Bombings.
Facebook mods removed gore images because that broke their rules.
And then a message came on high telling people “no, This is newsworthy and it goes through. The rules are in abeyance.”
If country like Mexico Can’t have that benefit, then Facebook is effectively using power in one place to decide what goes through and in other places is choosing not to exercise it.
Facebook is then trapped by its choice.
What should FB do in a country like Brazil? Hungary? Russia? India?
Heck, could any theoretically company find the right policy people and be able to pay them to tell their teams what the right call is?
Facebook's solution currently is this "we are not the arbiter of truth" comment, and working with governments to create govt agencies to set up rules which FB can then follow.
Zuckerberg realizes that large corporations should not be arbiters of truth, because it cannot be fair, and it cannot work long-term, in my opinion.
Even if one decides certain types of incorrect content should be removed, he realizes there's no chance for this to be applied evenly to all individuals and organizations, especially when the only example given by these activists is a single person.
You know what's hillaroius about all of this; the tweet was literally correct. Whether you interpretted as a threat or a warning or whatever, looters have been shot and killed by store owners protecting their shops.
Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.
Uh no. The problem today isn't free speech, it's that the limits on how you transmit and disseminate it, favors the tiny, loud, misleading, ignorant few who can generate the most 'engagement'. Like you for instance. You're hear calling free speech dangerous, and that is such an absurd and ridiculous point of view I feel the need to respond.
Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.
> Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level.
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.
The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.
(Note: I get the sarcasm) A lot of valid points here, I think the problem is in the size of the platform for the message. There was a lot of self reflection by Vox over the last year about “yes shining a light on bad ideas can disinfect them but there is a danger in amplifying the message”. Sure every idea should be able to be voiced but should every idea be amplified to billions of people without context?
Let’s not first talk about what Facebook ought to do, but what Facebook can do.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. This includes speech, which is already regulated in our society.
And as a society, we have spent ample effort to distinguish harmful speech - promotions of hate, abuse of minors etc...
This framework is clearly outlined in our laws and everything fb has done so far has been lawful.
One of the major proponents of this “let’s allow as much free speech as possible” framework is to establish an competitive marketplace of ideas, so that instead of legislating away bad ideas, as a society, we choose not to adopt them through reason.
This is why I think FB should be allowed to do what it’s doing.
As to if the recommendation and ranking algos are doing their job to help ideas be battled out in an transparent and efficient way, or simply creating an ideological echo chamber, that is another issue altogether.
We, as consumers, need to be vigilant, and choose a platform that we think is good for each one of us and our society.
In this case, have a discussion as a nation and choose between the Twitter and Facebook model.
What is the reasoning behind taking down or flagging the comments (looking for responses, not rhetorical)?
If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.
> "It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse"
That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.
I'm pretty sure that Facebook won't do anything until they finish integrating the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp backends so that any future antitrust action won't be able to split up the company. They just need to postpone.
Mark Zuckerberg knows that Trump will probably be re-elected in spite of everything; it would be quite unwise for the CEO of any large public corporation to make an enemy of the most vindictive American president in recent history. His shareholders won’t appreciate the results of that.
>Facebook, for its part, said it was "grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback" and said "it is an important moment to listen, and we look forward to continuing these conversations."
PR blabber. They need to start printing these responses as "Facebook's Public Relations department responded to Axios with a general response." or something.
[+] [-] bluedevil2k|5 years ago|reply
Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of right and wrong on the President of the United States. His opinion, right or wrong, is of national importance. What he says is a matter of historical value, showing the culture of America and its leadership at the time. It provides a check on power, letting the citizens know what their President thinks on certain issues and allows them to form their own opinions on whether the President is a leader they can get behind or try and vote out.
[+] [-] king_magic|5 years ago|reply
No. The President isn’t above the law, and he shouldn’t be above the rules of social networking sites as well.
There are plenty of ways to archive and memorialize offensive/racist/vile posts from a President. The news media will do a fine job of that.
No exceptions, no mercy: if a President oversteps, they should be forcibly muzzled just like the rest of us.
[+] [-] krastanov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scaryclam|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VMisTheWay|5 years ago|reply
But a politician having unfettered access to provide propaganda is not allowing leadership, if anything it's getting closer to single party control.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saeranv|5 years ago|reply
I think it's actually very useful, and informative for people to know what their president is thinking, and frankly, how idiotic he is. The world would be in a much worse position if he was silent, and his supporters were able to deceive themselves that he was competent.
[+] [-] nsajko|5 years ago|reply
I agree that public officials' correspondence should be archived and publicly available, though, related funny story: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filin...
[+] [-] nocturnial|5 years ago|reply
When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president?
I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could post what he does.
You didn't.
You made an exception for president X of whatever nation and that's fine. It's also fine that you mention the _national_ importance.
The problem is that you probably won't apply that rule equally when you consider that facebook operates in several countries. Some with presidents, some without. Some with a working democracy and a rule of law, and some not.
If you think he gets a free pass because he's _your_ president, that's fine. But don't expect people in other countries to follow your reasoning because we didn't elect him, we don't even want him and he's not special to us to deserve a free pass.
[+] [-] damnyou|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johannes1234321|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] holler|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaitsu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rojobuffalo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malloreon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zepto|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_c_s|5 years ago|reply
Monarchs are above the law: a president should be required to follow every law & every rule to the same degree as any other citizen.
[+] [-] throwaway6274|5 years ago|reply
I don’t think people can have their cake and eat it too. Either the CEOs of these companies start imposing their personal views on their users or they try to make the platform as neutral as possible. In-between solutions are going to make everyone angry.
[+] [-] pavlov|5 years ago|reply
These companies spend billions of dollars annually on infrastructure and engineering to host user content. How can Republicans be asking the government to step in and dictate over that multi-billion investment? Doesn't that fly in the face of everything they believe about government's role in the private sector?
In your example, of course the pro-life CEO can do whatever they want with content on their site, assuming it was uploaded by users within the site's terms of service. If someone were actually paying for hosting of the content, they would have a case to get upset about having it taken down. But that's not the kind of contract that users of social media sites have made with the companies.
[+] [-] stingrae|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_c_s|5 years ago|reply
Similarly incitement of violence isn't a political opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
[+] [-] intended|5 years ago|reply
In the book, Guardians of the Internet, two cases are mentioned:
Case 1:
Mexican gang violence was caught dramatically on video and went viral. This sparked a conversation and brought attention on a major issue since The government had been suppressing this information to project an image of security.
This video pierced that veil- until it was seen by (I believe) British citizens who woke up in the morning.
They called their friends at Facebook who realized it broke their rules and removed it.
Case 2:
Contrast this with how Facebook handled the boston Bombings.
Facebook mods removed gore images because that broke their rules.
And then a message came on high telling people “no, This is newsworthy and it goes through. The rules are in abeyance.”
If country like Mexico Can’t have that benefit, then Facebook is effectively using power in one place to decide what goes through and in other places is choosing not to exercise it.
Facebook is then trapped by its choice.
What should FB do in a country like Brazil? Hungary? Russia? India?
Heck, could any theoretically company find the right policy people and be able to pay them to tell their teams what the right call is?
Facebook's solution currently is this "we are not the arbiter of truth" comment, and working with governments to create govt agencies to set up rules which FB can then follow.
So What’s the right call in this situation?
[+] [-] ve55|5 years ago|reply
Even if one decides certain types of incorrect content should be removed, he realizes there's no chance for this to be applied evenly to all individuals and organizations, especially when the only example given by these activists is a single person.
[+] [-] aceman22|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tick_tock_tick|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] machinehermit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avancemos|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BobbyJo|5 years ago|reply
Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels because people have started driving cars into buildings.
I sincerely hope that was all sarcasm.
[+] [-] entropyneur|5 years ago|reply
Someone will probably comment soon to explain how your proposition is not at all absurd. A theater will be mentioned.
[+] [-] ardy42|5 years ago|reply
I know you're being sarcastic, but this is kinda true. Prior to social media, speech was regulated at every level though a hive-mind of individual choices about what to disseminate and the fact that broadcasting was expensive enough that systems of peer review (of the speakers or their works) had to be implemented to access it out of necessity. Social media took the peer review out of broadcasting, which does not seem to have been a positive development in many respects.
The speech part of free speech is overrated, and the editorial function of the broadcasting peer review systems is greatly underrated.
[+] [-] hellisothers|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robocat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rojobuffalo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saltedonion|5 years ago|reply
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. This includes speech, which is already regulated in our society.
And as a society, we have spent ample effort to distinguish harmful speech - promotions of hate, abuse of minors etc...
This framework is clearly outlined in our laws and everything fb has done so far has been lawful.
One of the major proponents of this “let’s allow as much free speech as possible” framework is to establish an competitive marketplace of ideas, so that instead of legislating away bad ideas, as a society, we choose not to adopt them through reason.
This is why I think FB should be allowed to do what it’s doing.
As to if the recommendation and ranking algos are doing their job to help ideas be battled out in an transparent and efficient way, or simply creating an ideological echo chamber, that is another issue altogether.
We, as consumers, need to be vigilant, and choose a platform that we think is good for each one of us and our society.
In this case, have a discussion as a nation and choose between the Twitter and Facebook model.
I truly believe this is the American way.
[+] [-] tqi|5 years ago|reply
If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.
Disclaimer: Former FB employee.
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|5 years ago|reply
That's a pretty good way of describing it save that I would add that one side is failing to realize that they might lose and get hoist by their own petard of suppressing speech someday.
[+] [-] bokbok8379|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gman83|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OldManAndTheCpp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seunosewa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chance_state|5 years ago|reply
PR blabber. They need to start printing these responses as "Facebook's Public Relations department responded to Axios with a general response." or something.