This isn't any different from removing protesters from private property.
Facebook is private property.
Facebook is private property.
Let's pretend there was a massive Harvey Weinstein-like sexual harassment scandal at Facebook Inc. And Facebook responded by removing any posts mentioning the scandal or blocking the account of any journalists that reported on it.
Would you shrug your shoulders and say "private property". If not, then I think you have to admit that Facebook has some obligations to not abuse its moderation powers. If not in the formal legal sense, at least in a cultural and moral sense.
I think the grandparent was indicating that this is mostly a debate between the positions "Facebook should be broadly permissive of legal speech" and "Facebook should shape the discussion in ways that benefit the public good". The argument that Facebook has a moral right to do whatever the hell they like is mostly just a cudgel of an argument, though, to be picked up when it suits whichever of the two "real" arguments you support.
One refutation of this "private property argument is instrumental" position is the one the grandparent mentioned: That the people making the argument would "support" Facebook taking down speech that they deem "just". If the private property argument only holds for taking down unpalatable speech, it's not a position that's held honestly.
Making the argument even when it's not compelling (that is, even when there are other hypothetical cases in which it doesn't sway you) isn't necessarily hypocritical.
There is also a difference between disliking a company covering up its own bad acts and a company preventing a 3rd party from using its resources for a thing that walks up to the edge (and in many people's opinion crosses over) into inciting other illegal acts.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Since it should be obvious not to use Facebook if you dont agree with their service’s tendencies.
Do you object to Facebook censoring child pornography?
How nakedly egregious does the crime have to be before you're ok with Facebook censoring or removing it?
It doesn't sound like you consider solicitation to commit a crime of violence to be a serious enough offense. So I guess promoting, instigating or encouraging treason, sedition or subversive activities is acceptable to you.
We conceded our communication to private ISPs, to private, device manufacturers, to private websites.
When people feel they cannot be heard, something is going to give.
The left has been in this position forever. But somehow we’re supposed to sympathize when a bunch of yokels storm into a parliamentary procedure and start shooting it up?
> The internet is nearly entirely private and controls the vast majority of communication.
Yes it's private, that doesn't mean they can't own it, they can setup their own private servers and be free of restriction.
Facebook needs to make all posts non-public to become private property. Then they can moderate.
Every time that this topic comes up, where the discussion is about the right and wrong of censorship, about finding a moral balance for safety and justice and expression, trolls like these jump in and give the "well it's not illegal so suck it" argument. It's tiresome, it's in bad faith, and it incites an emotional response from the reader.
Secondly, your tone suggests you'd think I have an inconsistent worldview if I believe moderators should perform any moderation action at all? You'll have to explain how that makes sense to you, because moderators providing escalating warnings to users that post insubstantive and volatile comments is something that's been with me for a long time and I'm rather fond of the practice.
> This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment.
As to this, fair enough. I had wrongly assumed this comment to be implicitly taking the other side of the GP comment, simply calling for its removal instead of refuting it (you’d be surprised how much things like this happen)
1. Tiresome; it gets made every thread, rebutted every thread, and no progress is made in the discussion. It's time to stop saying the same thing over and over.
2. In bad faith; it does not respond meaningfully to the discussion. Something being legal does not make it ethically optimal.
3. Inciteful; these comments are lightning rods for emotional arguments in the replies. If a comment always causes low-quality discussion, then it's a low-quality comment.
You're free to disagree with my points. I suppose I started the character shitflinging by calling the author a troll, but I really think anybody that's been reading HN for long enough (a decade, in that user's case) can do better if they intend to.
At least as a reader of comments that's what I'd rather read: a well thought out rebuttal, than to never see the exchange due to moderation. Eternal September and all, it's fresh for someone.