I think it's morally reprehensible and therefore support Facebook's employees movement to work to change Facebook's actions.
These are not contradictory views.
If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster?
I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.
I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.
They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical?
> I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people.
You're clearly having a normal one.
of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
Trump's threats were repugnant and disgusting, but it's not Twitter or Facebook's place to tell people that. It's important, as citizens, to hear what politicians are saying and form our own opinions. The consequences of Trump's threats will not go away just because Twitter told everybody they were violent threats. Shooting the messengers won't help anything.
Have corporations imposing their "morals" on public communication would be a very dangerous slippery slope, IMO.
These are media and ad companies and people want them be the gatekeepers of permissible speech.
good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
But in response to the subject of your comment: don't they already do this regardless? Isn't inaction a moral response in itself? In the same way that [as a loose example, so don't shoot me if it falls short] Coca Cola or Nestle see no moral problem with consuming entire regions' fresh water supplies for profit? Is it that American Express or Wells Fargo making a moral decision when they deny a credit application to somebody who may need it to eat? Surely those institutions are as public as any social media platform.
I think there is a lot more to work through there. Personally, I'm in the camp of the people should push for what they see as the right action: be it that a beverage company stops exploiting disadvantaged regions for their fresh water supplies or an internet company tags a post/comment as containing whatever kind of information might be questionable. Long, slow, hard road may it be—most people seem inclined to do better by each other on the large scale. The more options they have to do so, and the less potential gain by acting anti-socially, the better. It's definitely a complex problem [trying not to ramble, but even "acting out" can be a social act rather than anti-social, hence the complexity].
Boy...
Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
You think the supposed contradiction is between legality and morality of not censoring certain speech. The actual contradiction is between claiming to support people's right to free speech while also supporting policies that undermine one of the main reasons that right is important in the first place.
This is not a matter of spherical freedom in vacuum. This is a practical matter of whether a tiny number of people should be able to effectively control country's political processes because those people happen to own certain technological tools.
> claiming to support people's right to free speech
To be clear, I didn't claim this, in the sense that I don't support the ideological right to free speech that some people do. I fully support consequences for saying stupid and things. Much as you are free to say something I disagree with, I am free to tell you it's stupid, or stop associating with you in response.
i dont
> Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens.
facebooks not trying to force its employees to change a decision they made regarding free speech, so how does that make sense?
Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world.
Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow.
Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right.
You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
I am not, but personally I think planning to commit a crime should not be a crime until you act on it and it becomes "attempted".
> For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right.
Yes, I think that would be counterproductive. I think the discussion should try to find where this line is, and in this specific case, if platforms have any additional duties aside from dealing with what would be actually illegal. On this front, I think the problem is less about what additional kinds of speech should be regulated, but more towards the ability on social networks to basically force yourself in front of other people who don't want to interact with you, something which I don't consider a right at all.
As a social network, they should protect users from obscenity and hate speech, but as a media outlet they really shouldn't editorialize.
In some sense, at least as I see it, there's a big difference between following a friend or coworker versus following Trump or some celebrity.
I agree, but I think interfering with the communication channel is the wrong response. To me it feels like, "We don't like what Trump is saying, so we should stop letting people see it." Realistically that isn't going to make Trump go away or change his policies or teach him a lesson because he can just as easily give a press release, give a live speech, hold a rally, call into the news, etc. It won't change the message, just the medium.
Looking at it another way, Facebook employees should have the same responses available to them as everybody else. If they don't like what Trump said, they should reply to his post and tell him, go out and protest, or whatever. But what they shouldn't do is force their opinion on everybody else.
If the employees are dissatisfied with the direction of their company they are free to voice their dissatisfaction and ask for a change.
Personally I don't participate in any of those platforms, so I don't have a stake in any of it.
I do work in the larger publishing sphere, though, and I can assure you I would not appreciate being told I would be forced to run a regular column for an authority figure spewing misinformation and vitriol.