Question to FB folks here: do you support censorship on a platform?

Uber
our_blind

Go to company page Uber

our_blind
Jan 9, 2021 36 Comments

Not related to recent news about about who-must-not-be-named

103 PARTICIPANTS SELECT ONLY ONE ANSWER
VOTE VIEW RESULT

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 36 Comments
  • I think broadly that social media/public online discourse is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Let loose and unmoderated it quickly devolves into porn, echo chambers and horrible racism. Once you moderate it, it’s impossible not to be an arbiter of truth, which in FB’s case is magnified because of the audience size.

    Overall I think it naive to let the platform go on unmoderated, but also think moderating it is a nightmare. I have no idea what the solve is.
    Jan 9, 2021 2
    • Adobe
      coliflower

      Go to company page Adobe

      coliflower
      What about a solution where each user moderates what they see? Let people post porn if they want. If nobody wants to see it etc then what’s the issue?
      Jan 9, 2021
    • Uber
      our_blind

      Go to company page Uber

      our_blind
      OP
      Facebook often compared with public space. Maybe solution should be the same. If someone wants to publish porn it will addressed via lawsuits and courts.
      Jan 9, 2021
  • Amazon / Eng
    KHCr70

    Go to company page Amazon Eng

    KHCr70
    This is always a dumb question coming from the far right because it literally makes no sense. No questions are black and white. You cant have literal 100% free speech because that would become the spawning ground for everything illegal.

    I can flip the question around and then say, do you support a child pornography sharing site? Or a site that discusses techniques to rape women? What if there was a site that catalogued the addresses of all girls under the age of 13 in your city?

    Do you support free speech enabling or promoting violence or targeted attacks/killings?

    Seems very strange to answer yes to any of these. And if you answered "no", then congratulations, you agree with the idea of censorship
    Jan 9, 2021 3
    • Amazon / Eng
      KHCr70

      Go to company page Amazon Eng

      KHCr70
      I didnt mean to imply you are far right. Just that this always a dumb question that gets thrown around like it's a yes/no question.

      No one disputes that rape is illegal. The question is, would you support a place that enables it by allowing people to collaborate? If no (probably everyone in this thread agrees), then that is a form of censorship, and hence everyone is ok with "some" form of censorship
      Jan 9, 2021
    • Uber
      our_blind

      Go to company page Uber

      our_blind
      OP
      I would ok if people can collaborate. If they doing illegal things while collaborated they will be punished according to law.
      Jan 9, 2021
  • Google
    68AcFg

    Go to company page Google

    PRE
    Microsoft
    68AcFg
    I thought the first amendment says that no free speech could be banned! Am I in the wrong country??
    Jan 9, 2021 5
    • Of course, Facebook is a business and free speech does not apply in the workplace. Free speech does not apply in any workplace.
      Jan 9, 2021
    • Sorry to clarify free speech does not apply in any private workplaces. Per Google apparently some government jobs do have free speech:
      "The First Amendment guarantees citizens the protection of free speech from intrusion by the federal government, explained Grant Alexander, an attorney with Alston & Bird in Los Angeles. "The First Amendment does not apply to private actors, and employers are private actors."
      Thus, government employees do have some First Amendment protections. "Employees working in the private sector often [don't understand] that the constitutional First Amendment right to free speech applies to government employees but not employees working for businesses,"
      Jan 9, 2021
  • I personally prefer zero censorship, but the vision that Facebook has currently about delegating censorship to third-party public committee makes a lot of sense. Focusing only on viral cases that might cause real harm also seems reasonable.
    Jan 9, 2021 5
    • Uber
      our_blind

      Go to company page Uber

      our_blind
      OP
      Found it. Looks interesting. Indeed it is better than nothing.

      What worries me is that this board is a group of people selected by another group of people which doesn’t represent the whole society. At least that I understand from the website.

      Would be nice to have legitimate institution which is supported by majority.
      Jan 9, 2021
    • Sure. This would be nice :)
      Jan 9, 2021
  • I support the law and common sense. Free speech has always been caveated with the exception that it's unacceptable to yell fire in the crowded theater.
    Jan 9, 2021 4
    • Apple
      LqEg38

      Go to company page Apple

      LqEg38
      Dems are in no hurry to act on 230 because the current arrangement suits them. All major tech companies are on their side, and they have immunity therefore they can unilaterally act without fear of legal consequences. And no, not all publishers create content. Book publishers publish the book but aren’t the authors. Likewise, newspapers have Op-Eds that are written by others. As long as the rules of what is and isn’t allowed are made known in advance and applied fairly, it will work well. Right now, there is no recourse if FB or Twitter selectively censor someone. They don’t have to explain to a judge which of their rules was violated and how. Without that liability protection, they would be held to a higher standard.
      Jan 9, 2021
    • Tech companies are not on anyone's side. Democrats consistently complain that tech is unfair to them and not doing enough to censor Republicans. You are correct there is no recourse against private companies developing their own policies. Is that something you would want though?
      Jan 9, 2021