Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[Deleted]

Yes as long as they are honest and clear about their stated policy changes they have fulfilled their obligation.

Well in this case (the article that started the thread), they mention they won't allow hate speech. Now that of course is a rather broad term, and I can certainly understand that people have some concerns about that.

[fengosa]

But they do have an obligation to accurately represent their stated policy, as in they cant say they don't discriminate based on factor x, then discriminate on factor x.

I'm really not sure what this has to do so with OP. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest those companies are doing anything of the sort.

[Flurryfang]

Don't think thats gonna happend. The faroe isles is part of a denmark-greenland alliance and Denmark is part of NATO. So bad choice of example xD

[PC2]

Why force them to such an onbligation in the first place?

Nobody forced Zuckerberg to value and seek neutrality, he is doing the right thing of his own volition.

[Pangean]

I honestly don't remember.

They stated that they did not find examples of the bias but could not guarantee that there may not be an example of it as a function of a mistake or someone not following policy. In other words they couldn't prove a negative.

[Felya]

There we go. I would have offered the answer to that question a lot earlier had you just asked, but I was waiting for you to get over your "omg communist!" phase.

Because otherwise your solution is to do nothing, which makes no sense.

And the answer is that "we" - as consumers - shouldn't always be so eager to consolidate all of our consumerism within just a few companies. The results are never good for us as consumers, yet we stumble into that trap over and over.

We don't and are not. You are free to use myspace, free to use daily motion. There is nothing you can do, short of government intervention to change that. People will gravitate to a better product, they will gravitate to a most suitable platform.

So no, I never said anything about government control, or forcing companies to do anything. I just think it's a mistake for us as consumers to always put all our marbles into one basket as we're prone to doing, especially in the case of our communications.

It's not a mistake, it's quality of product. Alternatives do exist and quite a few people use them. If nothing else, it shows that their TOS is not hindering their business. This isn't a thread about there not being an alternative. If you don't like it, don't use it. As long as there is a product superior to alternatives, that product will be used. Without government intervention, there is nothing you can do about it.

[Machismo]

Nobody forced Zuckerberg to value and seek neutrality, he values the right things of his own volition.

If you are demanding he be obligated to do something, there are only two ways to do it. You can do it with your wallet (or more specifically, their bottom line), or you can do it with the force of government. One of those involves freedom, the other results in authoritarianism.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Never said it was. Criticism of what Fox news does is as acceptable as you criticizing Facebook. The difference is I am not demanding Fox News change their model and actually be "fair and balanced". I recognize their right to act as the equivalent of RT for Trump and the GOP.

You might want to avoid in the future the childish assigning of views for me that I don't hold. You might think it strengthens your arguments. It doesn't.

I didn't assign anything.

And again, its exactly the same thing. People boo at Fox just like people are booing at Facebook.

[Reeve]

I see, so as long as its theoretically possible for someone else to get their voice heard somewhere, its all good.

So I gather all the Endus' of all the major platforms, and of all the news networks, ect to get rid of this "hate speech," but as long as someone can open up a server on the Dark Web and host a blog its all good?

So the concept of marginalization of voices is out? Huh, I wonder what the Social Justice crowd and activists would think of that.

It's pretty much impossible to prevent voices today, in a world where a couple hundred dollars can get you a website, and there are millions of websites out there representing all views. If Website X won't publish your filth, someone else will. There is plenty of market space out there for all viewpoints.

That doesn't mean you should legally be able to go to Twitter and force them to publish your message, any more than you should be able to legally go to the New York Times and force them to publish your Op/Ed piece.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But I am not demanding that Fox or Talk Radio change their operation to actually be fair and balanced and meet my criteria for that. You are. That's the difference.

You're right, I am. Because what they're doing is dishonest.

[PC2]

If you are demanding he be obligated to do something, there are only two ways to do it. You can do it with your wallet (or more specifically, their bottom line), or you can do it with the force of government. One of those involves freedom, the other results in authoritarianism.

I'm against government force. I never demanded that Facebook state that they value and seek neutrality, but I applaud them for making the ethical/moral choice.

[babyback]

If you are demanding he be obligated to do something, there are only two ways to do it. You can do it with your wallet (or more specifically, their bottom line), or you can do it with the force of government. One of those involves freedom, the other results in authoritarianism.

Zuckerberg "only" own like 25% of Facebook so the shareholders can technically oppose him to force a change if enough want to do so.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If you are demanding he be obligated to do something, there are only two ways to do it. You can do it with your wallet (or more specifically, their bottom line), or you can do it with the force of government. One of those involves freedom, the other results in authoritarianism.

Its more about social change. Just like that time (ironically imo) Facebook was bullied into an apology when they didn't run ads with fat women.

[Machismo]

You're right, I am. Because what they're doing is dishonest.

What Fox has long done is dishonest, are you going to demand that they change?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's pretty much impossible to prevent voices today, in a world where a couple hundred dollars can get you a website, and there are millions of websites out there representing all views. If Website X won't publish your filth, someone else will. There is plenty of market space out there for all viewpoints.

That doesn't mean you should legally be able to go to Twitter and force them to publish your message, any more than you should be able to legally go to the New York Times and force them to publish your Op/Ed piece.

Where did Theo mention legally forcing something?

[Machismo]

Zuckerberg "only" own like 25% of Facebook so the shareholders can technically oppose him to force a change if enough want to do so.

Once again, that's appealing to their bottom line, which is the way to deal with such things.

[glorygores]

When you sign the TOS, you waiver your right to spew whatever bullshit you want. If someone at Facebook etc genuinely wanted to you could be banned for saying " I like poop ". Time to grow up.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

What Fox has long done is dishonest, are you going to demand that they change?

Yes, thats exactly what I just said. I have no idea why you think I somehow am a fan of Fox news.

[Machismo]

Its more about social change. Just like that time (ironically imo) Facebook was bullied into an apology when they didn't run ads with fat women.

If you are demanding social change via government intervention, then you are opting for authoritarianism. It reduces freedom, it does not increase it.

[Reeve]

This is all completely incorrect.

What I'm doing is recognizing that what a platform publishes is the platform owner's speech. You don't get to force them to broadcast your speech against their will, because doing so attacks their freedoms.

Your entire argument is an assault on the concept of free speech, not a defense of it. You're denying those freedoms to platform owners. That's your argument, in a nutshell.

I'm not defending "might is right" of any kind. Just that everyone has freedom of speech, and yours does not act as a trump card.

Nobody is obliged, under any sense of free speech, ethical or legal, to broadcast your speech. You're free to express it yourself. In a public venue. In a private venue that will have you. In your own venue. None of those are being attacked. You still have your freedom of speech.

You're just not being allowed to seize other people's property for your own use, and attack their freedoms.

Pretty much exactly this.