So, as many people probably have heard Marc Zuckerberg announced a zero-tolerance-policy for anti-refugee/anti-immigrant hate speech on Facebook. This comes after several smaller controversies of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. banning "offensive speech" and suspending accounts of "medium profile" people thought to engaged in such.
While the obvious response is that these are, obviously, all privately owned platforms, so their owners are free to set up any rules they like, do you see this having a potentially chilling effect on free speech in future? I mean, for many businesses, politicians and public figures, these social media are becoming more and more the main way to reach their base, and this will become more and more so in future. Would it be a concern then if all of them (there are not that many) decided to, for example, boycott a specific politician or a message, effectively distorting the democratic debate? Or, if this happened, would people simply move on to another, more free speech friendly platform?
Well, I don't use Zuckerberg's platform, though I know most westerners do. I don't think he should have as much power over people's communications as he does, but hey, we've given it to him.
I think if Facebook & Twitter & the rest were to make a habit of this, more alternative sites will crop up. Like Languish out of Paradox. :ph34r:
I have never seen so much ugliness as on Facebook the past year or so.
What rather normal people manage to write about refugees has been awful.
I don't think there's much chance of people moving to other platforms. Fb is pretty much THE platform these days, and will probably remain so. If we lose a couple of racists, who's going to care?
Quote from: Norgy on March 01, 2016, 01:34:16 AM
I have never seen so much ugliness as on Facebook the past year or so.
What rather normal people manage to write about refugees has been awful.
I don't think there's much chance of people moving to other platforms. Fb is pretty much THE platform these days, and will probably remain so. If we lose a couple of racists, who's going to care?
That is not the question I asked or the point I made. Come on, Norgy, you are better than that.
Quote from: Norgy on March 01, 2016, 01:34:16 AM
I don't think there's much chance of people moving to other platforms. Fb is pretty much THE platform these days, and will probably remain so. If we lose a couple of racists, who's going to care?
First they came for the racists, etc etc
But I think you're right, people aren't going to leave in mass over this. However, if FB gets too restrictive in general, people who feel stifled will start drifting away.
I think the idea is that governments should not impose restrictions on free speech. A private platform should be able to do so. If you don't agree with Facebook's rules, post elsewhere. Facebook's owners should have the freedom to set reasonable rules, and I think the anti-hate speech rules qualify as reasonable. I also think that, while Facebook is popular, it is entirely possible to live without it. I personally have abandoned it years ago, and only really use it to look at some sites.
Freedom of speech is not the right to be heard.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 01:39:59 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 01, 2016, 01:34:16 AM
I have never seen so much ugliness as on Facebook the past year or so.
What rather normal people manage to write about refugees has been awful.
I don't think there's much chance of people moving to other platforms. Fb is pretty much THE platform these days, and will probably remain so. If we lose a couple of racists, who's going to care?
That is not the question I asked or the point I made. Come on, Norgy, you are better than that.
You misoverestimate my intelligence, mate. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 01:47:04 AM
Freedom of speech is not the right to be heard.
That's usually what I say when the issue comes up.
Back in the days of print media, you actually had to write a letter to the editor to be heard.
And there wasn't any guarantee it'd be printed. But you could write said letter and get stuff off your chest.
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?
First they came for the Nazis, and I cheered them on because fuck Nazis. Then there was no one to come for me.
I guess Berkut is right and hardly anyone believes in freedom of speech.
This forum got started because a bunch of you guys wanted to say shit another forum didn't let you say.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 03:03:03 AM
I guess Berkut is right and hardly anyone believes in freedom of speech.
You're a fabulously wealthy, successful lawyer, and still you manage to sound like a 7th grader some times.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 02:26:05 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2016, 03:12:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 02:26:05 AM
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.
given all the other stuff Facebook allows/disallows Zuckerberg comes of as a hypocrite in this.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 03:41:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2016, 03:12:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 02:26:05 AM
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. :ph34r:
Martinus is an insufferable cretin.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on March 01, 2016, 04:28:36 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think Zuckerberg is far too interested in changing the world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2016, 05:05:05 AM
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.
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.
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'm not on facebook. Does that mean I have less freedom of speech than someone who is?
Quote from: celedhring on March 01, 2016, 06:34:17 AM
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.
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
Combine this with stuff like Elon Musk cancelling a Tesla delivery to someone who was critical of him - and you get a potentially problematic picture as celed puts it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
It's like the state deciding which newspapers can be carried at newsstands. And while I understand that freedom of speech is about the state not limiting it, not private actors, I portend that Facebook has control over more speech than most states on Earth.
Again, I'm still not sure it's something to be alarmed about. One can pack up and go elsewhere and publish their stuff, but the immense audience FB has gives it undeniable power.
Quote from: celedhring on March 01, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
It's like the state deciding which newspapers can be carried at newsstands. And while I understand that freedom of speech is about the state not limiting it, not private actors, I portend that Facebook has control over more speech than most states on Earth.
No, that would be a bad Martiesque analogy. It isn't really like that at all.
I generally recoil at all such efforts to control speech, for the slipper slope reasons. That said, without opining on this particular issue, you have to agree that there is an issue with online forums becoming incubators of hateful ideas that would otherwise not have much legitimacy. I'm not a believer in following ideologies to the utmost purity without regard to where they lead. If "free speech" online leads to a very ugly place, then maybe some control on free speech online is called for. After all, online speech is missing safeguards against abuse of free speech that are present in face-to-face conversations, such as desire to not be seen as neanderthal.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 01:23:02 AM
So, as many people probably have heard Marc Zuckerberg announced a zero-tolerance-policy for anti-refugee/anti-immigrant hate speech on Facebook. This comes after several smaller controversies of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. banning "offensive speech" and suspending accounts of "medium profile" people thought to engaged in such.
While the obvious response is that these are, obviously, all privately owned platforms, so their owners are free to set up any rules they like, do you see this having a potentially chilling effect on free speech in future? I mean, for many businesses, politicians and public figures, these social media are becoming more and more the main way to reach their base, and this will become more and more so in future. Would it be a concern then if all of them (there are not that many) decided to, for example, boycott a specific politician or a message, effectively distorting the democratic debate? Or, if this happened, would people simply move on to another, more free speech friendly platform?
I don't see what FB does or does not do as a threat to free speech.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 03:03:03 AM
I guess Berkut is right and hardly anyone believes in freedom of speech.
Wait, what?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
So what are you advocating then?
Presumably, the owners of facebook have a right to free speech as well, and could exercise it by banning people they aren't so keen on .
I don't see why Facebook as a private company would have an obligation to offer a platform for any kind of content. If they exclude certain content because of their own views or because they think that furthers their business interests that's fine with me. Just because a network has been very successful in market penetration doesn't mean it all of a sudden has other obligations than any other privately owned platform.
Quote from: Zanza on March 01, 2016, 12:51:16 PM
I don't see why Facebook as a private company would have an obligation to offer a platform for any kind of content. If they exclude certain content because of their own views or because they think that furthers their business interests that's fine with me. Just because a network has been very successful in market penetration doesn't mean it all of a sudden has other obligations than any other privately owned platform.
This. The market will decide how wise and tolerable their policies (on this and many other things) are. Facebook isn't the first social media giant on the block, and it won't be the last.
Quote from: Zanza on March 01, 2016, 12:51:16 PMJust because a network has been very successful in market penetration doesn't mean it all of a sudden has other obligations than any other privately owned platform.
Actually, that's not true. A company with market dominance does have other obligations that other privately owned companies do not have. This is a core principle of antitrust law - at least in Germany or the EU at large.
As an aside, one of the reasons for this change was that Merkel had taken facebook to task for not having more stringent anti-hate measures in place - or so the news media told me.
At least in the US, antitrust regulation is about the prevention of monopoly pricing. Don't see how that applies to a free service.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
So what are you advocating then?
Well, I am not sure - I just wanted to start a discussion. But as I pointed out to Zanza, there is extensive precedent of imposing additional obligations (including obligation to supply good or service on equal terms to every customer, unless it has an objective justification - such as scarcity) on dominant companies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:41:40 PM
At least in the US, antitrust regulation is about the prevention of monopoly pricing. Don't see how that applies to a free service.
I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.
Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:41:40 PM
At least in the US, antitrust regulation is about the prevention of monopoly pricing. Don't see how that applies to a free service.
Microsoft gave a copy of Internet Explorer "for free" with every purchase of Windows. That drew a lot of antitrust interest...
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
So what are you advocating then?
Well, I am not sure - I just wanted to start a discussion. But as I pointed out to Zanza, there is extensive precedent of imposing additional obligations (including obligation to supply good or service on equal terms to every customer, unless it has an objective justification - such as scarcity) on dominant companies.
Does FB systematically let some people do hate speech and not others?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:46:30 PM
I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.
Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.
Of course. But no one is claiming that Facebook is charging monopoly prices for ads.
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:47:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.
So what are you advocating then?
Well, I am not sure - I just wanted to start a discussion. But as I pointed out to Zanza, there is extensive precedent of imposing additional obligations (including obligation to supply good or service on equal terms to every customer, unless it has an objective justification - such as scarcity) on dominant companies.
Does FB systematically let some people do hate speech and not others?
The justification is not objective if it is based on arbitrary, vague criteria. I would say that "hate speech" is quite vague and certainly its interpretation varies wildly from a country to a country and from a person to a person.
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2016, 04:47:46 PM
Microsoft gave a copy of Internet Explorer "for free" with every purchase of Windows. That drew a lot of antitrust interest...
Because of the possibility that free IE would drive all competition out of the market and MS could then charge monopoly prices for its browser.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:46:30 PM
I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.
Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.
Of course. But no one is claiming that Facebook is charging monopoly prices for ads.
Why are you bringing US law into this?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
Why are you bringing US law into this?
Because its relevant to Facebook's operations in the US and because of the possibility that you misunderstand the basis of EU monopoly law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
Why are you bringing US law into this?
Because its relevant to Facebook's operations in the US and because of the possibility that you misunderstand the basis of EU monopoly law.
I was talking about German and EU antitrust law to Zanza and I already said I am not arguing this as a legal case for Facebook, but more as a template for regulating Facebook's behavior. As for your second point, the good folks at King's College London thought it appropriate to give me a postgraduate diploma with distinction in EU monopoly law so I dare say the possibility is slim.
Yep, no diploma-carrying retards about in the world. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:38:49 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 01, 2016, 12:51:16 PMJust because a network has been very successful in market penetration doesn't mean it all of a sudden has other obligations than any other privately owned platform.
Actually, that's not true. A company with market dominance does have other obligations that other privately owned companies do not have. This is a core principle of antitrust law - at least in Germany or the EU at large.
Yes, you are right. I was only aware of the obligations it has towards its competitors (e.g. browser wars, telco privatizations), but not regarding the service it offers as you say in one your posts here. I can see how equal access to a market dominant service is something you should demand under EU antitrust law. Seems sensible.
That said, I don't think it applies to either Facebook or hate speech.
Facebook in my opinion isn't market dominant. You named several competitors with similar reach in your opening post.
And even if it were, I don't think the particular case of hate speech would fall under equal access. Quite the opposite actually as many European countries limit hate speech in many forms, so using antitrust law to protect it does nit make sense. Extending it to Facebook, even on a half-voluntary basis through public pressure instead of laws, seems logical.
I personally prefer the American approach to free speech, but I guess that comes with the American approach to antitrust law, which I gather from this thread (I haven't got any clue myself) does not have the provision of equal access to services.
I guess you can't have the best of both worlds...
Quote from: Gups on March 01, 2016, 07:11:25 AM
I'm not on facebook. Does that mean I have less freedom of speech than someone who is?
It means you miss a lot of UKIPers and assorted morons.