Social Media and Free Speech?

[Martinus]

Facebook and Twitter are not really comparable to newspapers - more like public squares and streets. What if all streets, squares and parks were privatised and the owner said some speech is not allowed there?

I think you mean what if someone had a private estate and let everyone show up and do whatever they like before deciding to implement some order. The horror.

Nah. That would be closer to the example with Paradox, where the "free speech" function was not the purpose of the forum, just a side effect. Facebook and Twitter are, ultimately, speech platforms - they serve no other purpose.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

given all the other stuff Facebook allows/disallows Zuckerberg comes of as a hypocrite in this.

[garbon]

Facebook and Twitter are not really comparable to newspapers - more like public squares and streets. What if all streets, squares and parks were privatised and the owner said some speech is not allowed there?

I think you mean what if someone had a private estate and let everyone show up and do whatever they like before deciding to implement some order. The horror.

Nah. That would be closer to the example with Paradox, where the "free speech" function was not the purpose of the forum, just a side effect. Facebook and Twitter are, ultimately, speech platforms - they serve no other purpose.

Certainly they are facilitating communication, but I don't think they ever guaranteed you could say or post whatever you like - in fact, they have long had restrictions on what you can post.

And actually, they can serve the purpose of researching someone or looking at how an old acquaintance is getting on.

[Jaron]

Martinus is an insufferable cretin.

[celedhring]

It's not easy to establish a competing social network though. Everybody is on Facebook/twitter, which is the reason why everybody is on Facebook/twitter. If somebody were to create a "freer" social network, it would probably miss most of that audience. They are de facto monopolies/oligopolies, and we have had no problem regulating those historically to protect consumers and the market.

[garbon]

It's not easy to establish a competing social network though. Everybody is on Facebook/twitter, which is the reason why everybody is on Facebook/twitter. If somebody were to create a "freer" social network, it would probably miss most of that audience. They are de facto monopolies/oligopolies, and we have had no problem regulating those historically to protect consumers and the market.

Weird as from what I know, twitter only has someone like 330 million users and has been on somewhat shaking ground as of late with little growth.

Besides, perhaps I'm an oddity but I don't have most of my serious communications via facebook and if I want to discuss or share and image of something that is against there terms and conditions, I've a lot of options.

[celedhring]

Yet Facebook has like 150 million active users in the US alone, which is half the population. That's certainly a dominant position.

Note that I'm not plainly advocating to go and regulate their asses to oblivion, but it's an interesting discussion. The good their sell is actually their audience; you join Facebook because everybody is already in it. That stifles competition and prevents the growth of alternatives with less/more rules.

But ultimately you can make a case that if you have something you deem important to say, it's easy to host it anywhere and then link to it. And if it's interesting it will ultimately find its audience.

I don't have a set in stone position on this.

[garbon]

Yeah, I can't really speak to that as I didn't join facebook because everyone was already on it. I'm also inherently skeptical of its ultimate value, much the same way that I feel about buzzfeed. I don't find that any of facebook's previous or current 'speech' restrictions have actually limited my ability to communicate but then I'm also not in a position where I'm trying to use social media to reach thousands to millions of people. I suppose those individuals might have a legitimate gripe.

[MadImmortalMan]

Twitter has this little problem of not making money. I use it as a news feed, and it's pretty useful for trading, but it's a dead man walking unless it can find a way to monetize.

[Monoriu]

I think Zuckerberg is far too interested in changing the world. 

[celedhring]

Twitter has this little problem of not making money. I use it as a news feed, and it's pretty useful for trading, but it's a dead man walking unless it can find a way to monetize.

Funnily, twitter moves around a lot of money. A friend of mine works in digital marketing, and she tells me a popular account can command 3000€ for a single sponsored tweet in the Spanish market, and truly global accounts like popular sportsmen or celebs can easily reach 200 000€ for a single tweet. But twitter doesn't see any of that as they sidestep their official system.

[Tamas]

It's a service offered by a private company. It is not a basic right.

If you force Facebook to give room for (basically, publish) stuff they don't want to tolerate, the next logical stuff is to do that with TVs and newspapers as well, which directly leads to anti-homosexual rants and advertisements in the Advocate.

[celedhring]

What can and can't be said on TV is regulated in the US (and most western countries), though. Not sure I follow.

The big problem would be how to regulate such a transnational media as Facebook though. It's probably just not possible.

My biggest fear here is that the most important means of communication of this century (social media as a whole) ends up being regulated by unelected interests. And the invisible hand may not hold much sway here due to the size of the market incumbents.

[Gups]

I'm not on facebook. Does that mean I have less freedom of speech than someone who is?

[Tamas]

What can and can't be said on TV is regulated in the US (and most western countries), though. Not sure I follow.

The big problem would be how to regulate such a transnational media as Facebook though. It's probably just not possible.

My biggest fear here is that the most important means of communication of this century (social media as a whole) ends up being regulated by unelected interests. And the invisible hand may not hold much sway here due to the size of the market incumbents.

I would much prefer if Facebook let all idiots make their idiocy apparent to anyone, and I do think it is a bit of a shaky ground to "censor" something that is not forbidden by law. But I am against the idea of forcing what is a private service/business to give space for opinions it strongly disagrees with.

My example was about this: we do not force newspapers to print all editorials. If somebody send an editorial to a liberal newspaper, which is about "GODDAMN JOOS DID ALL BAD THINGS DEATH TO THEM" - then they will probably not print it, regardless of how awesomely written it is, because it strongly disagrees with their values.
And I am fine with that, its their paper its up to them.

Now if we force Facebook to stop censoring posts, I fail to see how the very same argument could not be used to stop other media from being selective about the submitted content they publish.