In my view all these arguments people are making about "open environments", or "bad faith actors", or extremism or what have you are completely irrelevant. A privately owned, NON-governmental, environment is allowed to be as "open" or as "closed" as they please. If a "bad faith actor" wants to act in "bad faith", (whatever that is?), then that's their prerogative. That's their Constitutional liberty. (You ever consider this? Who, exactly, is defining what "bad faith" is anyway?) And extremism in content is fine, you don't like it, don't look at it. (Or in Facebook's case, don't have it on your system. That's fine. That's FB's Constitutional liberty.)
The Constitution really does provide room for obvious solutions to all of the arguments people are making. There's really no need to get bent out of shape about a lot of these things.
At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split.
The other issue is that these platforms are so big that they literally dictate narrative in many cases, or at least to their audiences.
If the banned go to Gab and 4chan, then there is no "monopoly" on distribution. The Constitution is what allows for the alternative options to even exist. It's GOOD that we have the alternative options. That's not a "bad" thing.
And what is wrong with people going to "open" platforms that "breed exclusive extremism"? I don't see anything Constitutionally wrong with that. (Keep in mind, you or I not liking something does not mean it should be Constitutionally restricted.)
I agree. But one problem with bad-faith actors is they can bring productive discussion to a near standstill, due to the time / attention / emotional-energy costs.
In a lot of ways, Facebook is as much of a country as the Vatican is.
When other things have such powerful network effects we force them, through the state, to treat people fairly. For instance, utilities like water and electricity are natural monopolies because of the limited physical space for the infrastructure. Social networks aren't quite the same but there are powerful similarities.
If you talk about a Free Tibet in China, you risk having your legs broken and your family put in camps.
If you violate Facebook's ToS, you might get banned from their website. Then you can just type literally any other website into your address bar and be on your way.
The key difference is the penalty: is it going to jail or some people roll their eyes and stop being your friend?
I don't think it's ever going to be "people enthusiastically try to understand your positions and respect them". That has been the ideal in the US, but historically I can't find the pages in a history book where it's been largely true.
>can not accept cash donations via any payment processor
>has had their domains revoked from multiple providers
>is only barely able to be able to protected from (numerous, expected) DDoS attacks due to being kicked off Cloudflare, etc.
There comes a point when a person is not free to express their content on any platform on the web despite a lack of government censorship.
In hunter-gatherer days if you had extremely antisocial ideology your tribe probably just left you in the desert and you died.
But... I'm not at all sad that Daily Stormer has trouble staying online.
Free speech means you're allowed to say whatever you want. It doesn't mean that anyone has to give you a platform to say your piece. It doesn't mean that people can't react negatively to what you say. It doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what you say.
Assuming there is reasonable diversity in your options for platforms[0], and yet you still can't find a place for your speech, maybe you're just an irredeemable asshole and should change your views[1].
[0] The current availability of this is certainly debatable.
[1] Maybe you're not and you actually are being unjustly oppressed and censored. But I don't believe that's the case with the Daily Stormer.
Should the government compell private internet service firms to service anyone?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/4/12092740/un-resolution-con...
How did you reach that conclusion?
History repeats itself and people on the left want to pretend you solve this problem with the debate club.
People respond with their best arguments when they are confronted with bad ideas.
People respond with censorship attempts and violence when they are scared that their own positions are weak.
Better not let him iterate the overreach in the first place.
And of all the ways FB is making the world worse, "letting Nazis have a soapbox" is least of their problems.
Mein Kampf is still available for purchase in NZ. I've personally looked through his manifesto and think it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements. If you understand people like that, maybe you can identify them early on, or encourage attitudes in general that would prevent those xenophobic ideas from developing.
it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements
How about the explicit calls for assassination of specific individuals, among other direct incitements to terrorism?
The fact that NZ has a censor is abhorrent.
Where were the free speech advocates back then? And why are they so vocal now that the extremists are a different skin color?
Secondly regarding the most recent NZ manifesto, it isn't a well argued thesis as much as a dump of memes and shitposting.