Facebook's Trump ban upheld by Oversight Board, for now(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Facebook's Trump ban upheld by Oversight Board, for now
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56985583
326 comments
They don't claim to be objectively fair. They claim to ensure that Facebook is acting in alignment with us stated policies and values.
Whether they're being objective judges is a question, but they've not trying to determine if facebooks policies are objective, but if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently.
Whether they're being objective judges is a question, but they've not trying to determine if facebooks policies are objective, but if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently.
if facebooks non objective policies are enforced fairly and consistently.
What is more honest is to say 'our policy for moderating this area of FB is our employee Alice here. If Alice thinks your post doesn't belong here, it's gone!' That's close to the way message boards used to work.
Definitions, etc, should be handled by the court (aka the obscenity laws a few years ago).
I don't think FB is in a situation where they can claim "it's not possible to be fair so we aren't going to try".
I believe an imperfect solution in good faith is much better legally than not complying (aka why amazon is in the hot seat).
I don't think FB is in a situation where they can claim "it's not possible to be fair so we aren't going to try".
I believe an imperfect solution in good faith is much better legally than not complying (aka why amazon is in the hot seat).
That's all very well and good for your friendly neighbourhood forum. But facebook is not a small forum, it's a massive chunk of the internet. I'm not at all confortable with gigantic tech benemoths with more power than many nation-states being able to dictate what is acceptable or not. At this point they're so big that they absolutely need democratic oversight.
They reap fabulous rewards for their scale and dominance. They should also pay the prices for that scale.
They reap fabulous rewards for their scale and dominance. They should also pay the prices for that scale.
I've been rolling your comment over in my mind today. Clearly you're right that FB has too much power, but I hope we find a better solution than to allow a succession of startups to approach FB's size, and then sanction them or break them up.
I would prefer we alter the design of the internet/web in ways that provide more accountability (ie: built-in disincentives to shill or troll) and more control (eg: privacy, and the ability for users and groups to filter out kinds of content they dislike — ads or gore or malware or propaganda or etc...) to its users. I realize accountability and control oppose each other, but we could strengthen one in some contexts and weaken it in others. I've actually, in the past, speculated on HN about specific ways to achieve that.
That said, in the short term, I agree FB should pay a price for its scale.
I would prefer we alter the design of the internet/web in ways that provide more accountability (ie: built-in disincentives to shill or troll) and more control (eg: privacy, and the ability for users and groups to filter out kinds of content they dislike — ads or gore or malware or propaganda or etc...) to its users. I realize accountability and control oppose each other, but we could strengthen one in some contexts and weaken it in others. I've actually, in the past, speculated on HN about specific ways to achieve that.
That said, in the short term, I agree FB should pay a price for its scale.
For anyone more curious about the oversight board, zuck did a series of podcasts a while ago where he talks about different things concerning Facebook direction. One of them was about his ideas and goals for the oversight board, specifically. It seems like a good idea but I don't trust him to do anything at all in good faith. I got the impression it's Facebook version of shoveling money to Mozilla so you have something to distract regulators with. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/06/mark-challenge-jenny-marti...
One of them was about his ideas and goals for the oversight board, specifically.
Isn't the board supposed to be independent of Zuckerberg? Now that the board is created, his ideas and goals for the board should have no bearing on it, right?
Isn't the board supposed to be independent of Zuckerberg? Now that the board is created, his ideas and goals for the board should have no bearing on it, right?
If they are compensated by Facebook, and if their positions require reappointment, then they are not independent of the company.
Couldn't say. As far as im aware they choose what cases to take up independently. I doubt they have a blank check to just start doing whatever they feel like, though. They still have a mission statement designed by him.
.
It's not really a customer service thing. It's staffed by law professors, activists and human rights people, all, I assume, very well paid. It's more a check on high level things like the idea of filter bubbles.
Here is a link to the actual decision:
https://oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversight-bo...
This part is interesting:
Within six months of this decision, Facebook must reexamine the arbitrary penalty it imposed on January 7 and decide the appropriate penalty. This penalty must be based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm. It must also be consistent with Facebook’s rules for severe violations, which must, in turn, be clear, necessary and proportionate.
https://oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversight-bo...
This part is interesting:
Within six months of this decision, Facebook must reexamine the arbitrary penalty it imposed on January 7 and decide the appropriate penalty. This penalty must be based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm. It must also be consistent with Facebook’s rules for severe violations, which must, in turn, be clear, necessary and proportionate.
So as is so predictable the moment this "oversight board" gets a controversial case they decide to wash their hands of it and throw it to FB in a game of hot-potato. I guess if anyone fears for their personal safety the safest option is the path of least resistance.
> The Board argued that Facebook had essentially issued "a vague, standardless penalty and then [referred] this case to the Board to resolve".
Yes, that's the idea of your existence. FB wants YOU to DECIDE on cases it may not be able to itself, you know, your entire job?
"Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities" - Not at all, they want to know what you think to make an informed decision, the entire purpose you exist.
> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook
No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in high places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials.
What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job.
> The Board argued that Facebook had essentially issued "a vague, standardless penalty and then [referred] this case to the Board to resolve".
Yes, that's the idea of your existence. FB wants YOU to DECIDE on cases it may not be able to itself, you know, your entire job?
"Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities" - Not at all, they want to know what you think to make an informed decision, the entire purpose you exist.
> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook
No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in high places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials.
What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job.
Government positions are on the frontline of the policy making debate and the execution of it, paired with how humans communicate imperfectly, it's doomed to be controversial. If anything we should give more leeway to politicians to express themselves in areas of contention.
We in fact already do that, just not uniformly. The media run defense for one side while distorting and assuming* the worse of the other. We have plenty of examples of the media covering the exact same thing but coming to different conclusions based on the political leaning.
It's so tiresome to point this out and get immediately gaslighting replies.
We in fact already do that, just not uniformly. The media run defense for one side while distorting and assuming* the worse of the other. We have plenty of examples of the media covering the exact same thing but coming to different conclusions based on the political leaning.
It's so tiresome to point this out and get immediately gaslighting replies.
How about we don't allow politicians on social media at all? Let them use their own official websites to communicate with the public. No commenting or replying allowed. They should not be allowed to edit old posts, televised and recorded political speeches should be archived and kept on the website... and all of their media should be kept up on that site forever.
There's literally zero need for politicians to go on Twitter or Facebook at all. They should only be allowed to have written communications via official channels with official statements. Everybody knows where to go to read the official statements. Then they can't accuse anyone of censoring them. There's nothing stopping people from posting links onto Twitter or whatever other SM you want to use.
There's literally zero need for politicians to go on Twitter or Facebook at all. They should only be allowed to have written communications via official channels with official statements. Everybody knows where to go to read the official statements. Then they can't accuse anyone of censoring them. There's nothing stopping people from posting links onto Twitter or whatever other SM you want to use.
Whether or not that would be better for society, it would very much violate constitutional freedom of speech. There is no "how about we don't allow" in this case. Or rather, the way people would have to do that is through a constitutional amendment.
It would also set a bad or ambiguous precedent. Are TV, radio, newspapers off limits too? If so, what about the annual State of the Union address to the nation? What about the (yes, small) group of people who don't/won't/can't use the internet?
It also wouldn't really help all that much: As you said, nothing stops normal citizens from posting links: similarly, nothing would stop them from posting to SM everything their favored politician writes on their official site. It might stop the specific politician from posting stuff, but that just means it would take a few extra minutes to be posted by someone else.
It would also set a bad or ambiguous precedent. Are TV, radio, newspapers off limits too? If so, what about the annual State of the Union address to the nation? What about the (yes, small) group of people who don't/won't/can't use the internet?
It also wouldn't really help all that much: As you said, nothing stops normal citizens from posting links: similarly, nothing would stop them from posting to SM everything their favored politician writes on their official site. It might stop the specific politician from posting stuff, but that just means it would take a few extra minutes to be posted by someone else.
Totally agreed. Look at Teddy Locsin, top diplomat from the Philippines. He's sick and tired of naval incursions by his ambitious neighbor so he went on quite a vulgar rant against them.
>> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook
> No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials.
I'd argue for the reverse. The statements of a political figure must be evaluated in as positive a light as possible. Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).
> No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials.
I'd argue for the reverse. The statements of a political figure must be evaluated in as positive a light as possible. Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).
There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone.
If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight.
I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either.
IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.
If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight.
I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either.
IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.
Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.
None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience.
It's different.
What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
It's different.
What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
But if you then brag about your locker room conversation to a journalist while on the record, that then become in the public stage.
profanity isn't a real conduct issue, though, unless the president is using it in speeches or in diplomacy in such a way that it makes the country look bad.
and I doubt many people who dislike trump would accept jackson as an archetype of acceptable presidential behavior.
and I doubt many people who dislike trump would accept jackson as an archetype of acceptable presidential behavior.
I tend to agree but there are exceptions such as the Philippine foreign minister, Teddy Locsin, who told the Chinese Navy to "get the fuck out" of their waters via Twitter.
They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.
It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.
I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.
Acting presidential went out with the Clinton administration- it was widely commented on at the time (see the commentary around him appearing on Arsenio Hall), but the media loved the cachet/ attention too much to let it get beyond the Sunday morning talking head shows.
I spend too much time on r/politics.. It's mostly people getting outraged together about contextless headlines, quotes, soundbites, articles, and etc. Mostly.
It happens here too. cough basecamp cough.
It happens here too. cough basecamp cough.
The plebs should have more rights to speak freely than the politicians. Or more accurately, the reverse should never be true.
Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.
> Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.
No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
tact != dumbing down
If anything, it's the opposite.
If anything, it's the opposite.
It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL.
I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
>The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech.
Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
It's a double standard though. Maxine Waters recently told George Floyd demonstrators to "get more confrontational". Pelosi defended her and said it wasn't a call to violence, and Twitter didn't ban her, despite George Floyd protests having a history of devolving into looting/violence. Trump said "And we fight, we fight like hell. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." and Pelosi said that was incitement of violence and he got banned from the internet.
So... who gets to decide what counts as incitement or not? Apparently whichever party has the largest influence over the mainstream media/social media companies.
So... who gets to decide what counts as incitement or not? Apparently whichever party has the largest influence over the mainstream media/social media companies.
> like "fight" out of context
Yet the people who are most angry about calling for a "fight" are the same ones that defend much worse from the likes of Maxine Waters...
The platform evaluating rules for Trump while allowing worse from others - in power or out - is the problem. Examples exist everywhere of much MUCH worse than Trumps non-calls for violence... yet he's the only one to get banned and have a Crusade/Jihad held against him? Says more about the hypocrites that hold double standards than it does about Trump - who's the same bombastic blowhard he's always been.
Yet the people who are most angry about calling for a "fight" are the same ones that defend much worse from the likes of Maxine Waters...
The platform evaluating rules for Trump while allowing worse from others - in power or out - is the problem. Examples exist everywhere of much MUCH worse than Trumps non-calls for violence... yet he's the only one to get banned and have a Crusade/Jihad held against him? Says more about the hypocrites that hold double standards than it does about Trump - who's the same bombastic blowhard he's always been.
There are just so many instances of left-leaning politicians inciting, encouraging, or supporting criminality, that there's no defense for the one-sided enforcement of moderation by Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the rest of them. I have a list below of articles I dug up from just two minutes of web searches. There are substantially more instances than just these as well, but none of these people are banned, nor is their content censored. We see the same one-sided enforcement with fact-checking, which has been slowly degrading into partisanship as well. These days I often see fact checks with the label "missing context", that aren't really a "fact check" but cast doubt on a claim typically from a moderate or right-leaning voice.
-----
All the times Democrats used the word "fight": https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...
Chuck Schumer (and others) inciting/supporting rioting at the Capitol during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-viol...
Democrats claiming the 2016 election was stolen and inciting violence against Trump: https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-in...
AOC justifying rioting: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
-----
All the times Democrats used the word "fight": https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...
Chuck Schumer (and others) inciting/supporting rioting at the Capitol during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings: https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/03/chuck-schumer-used-viol...
Democrats claiming the 2016 election was stolen and inciting violence against Trump: https://defconnews.com/2021/01/11/all-the-times-democrats-in...
AOC justifying rioting: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080
I don't think the use of a word like 'fight' should be treated differently for powerful figures/politicians - it feels a bit arbitrary. Why not treat Facebook or Twitter as a platform that in aggregate has that degree of influence and power, and ban all uses of the word 'fight' across the entire platform? Think of it like what Apple did when banning the 'pistol' emoji across all their operating systems. Why does it matter whether one politician does it or if ten thousand activists do it - after all, in 2020 the latter group incited a lot more violence than Trump is alleged to have incited.
My perspective is that these efforts to ban speech or speech that includes "human emotion" (like 'fight') would be a step too far for everyone. Right now those rules are being applied to only one side (the right), and so others (on the left) are deeming this censorship acceptable. This is quite evident if you look for all the instances when Democrats used the word 'fight' (https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...).
> a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence
But this is why our society is built around individual, personal responsibility. Those that follow a call to violence are still, solely, responsible for their actions. Our justice system charges those individuals that engaged in criminality on Jan 6th, not Trump. Why should these massive tech platforms be any different in determining who they censor or ban?
My perspective is that these efforts to ban speech or speech that includes "human emotion" (like 'fight') would be a step too far for everyone. Right now those rules are being applied to only one side (the right), and so others (on the left) are deeming this censorship acceptable. This is quite evident if you look for all the instances when Democrats used the word 'fight' (https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/trump-team-plays-videos-of-dem...).
> a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence
But this is why our society is built around individual, personal responsibility. Those that follow a call to violence are still, solely, responsible for their actions. Our justice system charges those individuals that engaged in criminality on Jan 6th, not Trump. Why should these massive tech platforms be any different in determining who they censor or ban?
[deleted]
I'd argue that celebrities of all kinds should be held to higher standards for truth and good behavior.
More followers means more potential for misuse.
More followers means more potential for misuse.
> Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).
That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest.
This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.
That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest.
This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.
We generally punish culpable people in more senior positions more severely. Mafia bosses get bigger sentences than low-level street thugs. In the aftermath of WW2, high level Nazis received death sentences.
I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.
I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.
I'm not much of a fan of lower standards for authority figures.
Completely agree. Their whole statement is completely bizarre IMO. As you state, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this board was (or at least should be) to act as arbiter in these cases where there is really no right answer - Facebook is guaranteed to get pilloried (as they already have) no matter which side they come down on, so at least having a semi-independent board to make these decisions should keep them as neutral as possible.
On the other hand, I think it also highlights the reality that the US has deep, unbridgeable divides now that really nobody wants to touch, even if it's their job to do so.
On the other hand, I think it also highlights the reality that the US has deep, unbridgeable divides now that really nobody wants to touch, even if it's their job to do so.
> What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job.
Arguing over what the job's board should and shouldn't be means it's too late and FB snuck this travesty past us. Private companies shouldn't be instating boards to oversee themselves to begin with.
Arguing over what the job's board should and shouldn't be means it's too late and FB snuck this travesty past us. Private companies shouldn't be instating boards to oversee themselves to begin with.
They did their job, which is basically to determine if FB has correctly applied its policies particularly in the context of freedom of expression. It's a ruling that took 2 parts: 1) The initial decision to ban was okay but 2) The "indefinite" part was too ambiguous without reference to specific FB policies and so they must reinstate Trump's account or to provide concrete policies to justify its actions within 6 months (which I would agree is too long)
This is no different than any other appeals court, at least in the US: An appeals court can rule for/against something but it can also push the case back to those who made the initial ruling and force them to reconsider.
This doesn't even mean that FB is going to be the final decision maker here: After FB makes their case (if they decide to do so) for a perma-ban, the board can then review that and make a final decision on whether FB's application of policy in this case. All they're saying is FB did not provide that justification initially and must now do so.
This is the way systems of justice typically work. It is not a one-time binary decision. It is an iterative process refining the legal (or rules-based) question to hone in the core of the issue.
Did the board have the authority to make the ban permanent? Sure. Should they have done so? Absolutely not. It would set a bad precedent for them to allow FB to get away with decisions on the basis of vague justifications. It's forcing FB to support its decisions with specific references to its policies. In the short term that probably feels unsatisfying to anyone looking to end this saga one way or another, but in the long term it is telling FB it can't make arbitrary decisions unsupported by its own policies.
The only thing I disagree with is that 6 months is really much longer than required for this. FB has had plenty of time on this issue, they shouldn't need more than a few weeks to get this done.
This is no different than any other appeals court, at least in the US: An appeals court can rule for/against something but it can also push the case back to those who made the initial ruling and force them to reconsider.
This doesn't even mean that FB is going to be the final decision maker here: After FB makes their case (if they decide to do so) for a perma-ban, the board can then review that and make a final decision on whether FB's application of policy in this case. All they're saying is FB did not provide that justification initially and must now do so.
This is the way systems of justice typically work. It is not a one-time binary decision. It is an iterative process refining the legal (or rules-based) question to hone in the core of the issue.
Did the board have the authority to make the ban permanent? Sure. Should they have done so? Absolutely not. It would set a bad precedent for them to allow FB to get away with decisions on the basis of vague justifications. It's forcing FB to support its decisions with specific references to its policies. In the short term that probably feels unsatisfying to anyone looking to end this saga one way or another, but in the long term it is telling FB it can't make arbitrary decisions unsupported by its own policies.
The only thing I disagree with is that 6 months is really much longer than required for this. FB has had plenty of time on this issue, they shouldn't need more than a few weeks to get this done.
> the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere
Why do elected positions need to be held to a different standard?
Why do elected positions need to be held to a different standard?
I agree it's time for the "board" to do their job... and wish they'd do the same job for those calling for violence - and doing so - for years before and after the "capital riots"...
IE: Why isn't Maxine Waters banned everywhere? She's ACTUALLY called for more destruction and had it happen... compared to Trumps "call" which specifically said "protest peacefully".
This is all a waste of time and the hypocrisy is astounding... rules for thee but not for me. Wokeness at its deepest levels of hypocrisy.
IE: Why isn't Maxine Waters banned everywhere? She's ACTUALLY called for more destruction and had it happen... compared to Trumps "call" which specifically said "protest peacefully".
This is all a waste of time and the hypocrisy is astounding... rules for thee but not for me. Wokeness at its deepest levels of hypocrisy.
invisible(4)
"One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department" big news
The board is full of law professors, human rights activists, and even one former PM, and their funding is irrevocable. I would give them time to see if their reputations generalize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Mem...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Mem...
Reminds me of Iran
>In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
>In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
What checks and balances exist on the board? What mechanism does the board have to ensure a sufficient diversity of ideologies?
I've seen news outlets describe the Oversight Board as a "Supreme Court" of sorts. With the US Federal Judiciary, there's a mechanism by which judges are appointed by democratically elected bodies (setting aside the debate around how different elected bodies are composed). As a result, we have some modicum of ideological diversity in the Courts; you have originalists, "living Constitutionalists", and everything in between. The balance experiences shifts every few decades, but by and large it's remained a balanced body.
If the Oversight Board really is a "Supreme Court", how can we trust that its composition will be made up of the right balance of perspectives? If the board members elect new board members, what happens if the board members become increasingly homogenous and create an endless negative feedback loop of self-selection[1]?
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
I've seen news outlets describe the Oversight Board as a "Supreme Court" of sorts. With the US Federal Judiciary, there's a mechanism by which judges are appointed by democratically elected bodies (setting aside the debate around how different elected bodies are composed). As a result, we have some modicum of ideological diversity in the Courts; you have originalists, "living Constitutionalists", and everything in between. The balance experiences shifts every few decades, but by and large it's remained a balanced body.
If the Oversight Board really is a "Supreme Court", how can we trust that its composition will be made up of the right balance of perspectives? If the board members elect new board members, what happens if the board members become increasingly homogenous and create an endless negative feedback loop of self-selection[1]?
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...
That the US Supreme Court has a "balance of perspectives" is pure fantasy.
I'd encourage you to read my comment in full: over the long run, the balance has swayed, but it's never remained ideologically homogenous in perpetuity. Until 2017, the majority of the Supreme Court was "living Constitutionalist". Now the majority happens to be "Originalist". The only reason we see this ebb and flow over a 200+ time horizon is because there's a system in place to elect judges by the other 2 branches of government.
In contrast, the Oversight Board appears to function like a hypothetical Supreme Court in which the sitting members appoint new members. Imagine, if the 2021 US Supreme Court did that, do you think that its ideological balance would ever shift? Imagine if the 1999 US Supreme Court (majority of the opposite ideology to today's) appointed new members. Do you think its ideological balance would look like the one it has today?
If anything is "pure fantasy", it's the idea that the members of the Supreme Court are partisan ideologues as opposed to jurists that have truly fundamentally different ideas of how the judiciary ought to function, in good faith. It's exactly that kind of diversity of opinions that has resulted in the Supreme Court enjoying the highest approval rating of any institution in the Federal government: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-h...
In contrast, the Oversight Board appears to function like a hypothetical Supreme Court in which the sitting members appoint new members. Imagine, if the 2021 US Supreme Court did that, do you think that its ideological balance would ever shift? Imagine if the 1999 US Supreme Court (majority of the opposite ideology to today's) appointed new members. Do you think its ideological balance would look like the one it has today?
If anything is "pure fantasy", it's the idea that the members of the Supreme Court are partisan ideologues as opposed to jurists that have truly fundamentally different ideas of how the judiciary ought to function, in good faith. It's exactly that kind of diversity of opinions that has resulted in the Supreme Court enjoying the highest approval rating of any institution in the Federal government: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-h...
Thanks for responding to my cynic take. Maybe indeed they deserve some credit for the decision and the benefit of the doubt for now.
...picked by Facebook...
Ok but they've got the former Prime Minister of Denmark next to the Vice President of the CATO Institute.
Get a handle on the knee-jerk skepticism and cynicism and look into it yourself and make a principled argument for whether it's satisfactory or not. Just spitting out your first reaction isn't helpful.
Get a handle on the knee-jerk skepticism and cynicism and look into it yourself and make a principled argument for whether it's satisfactory or not. Just spitting out your first reaction isn't helpful.
Why on earth should Facebook get the benefit of the doubt here? They’ve assembled some gaudy resumes, ok. Is there any historical track record for a board like this providing a meaningful check on a monopoly? On a company majority controlled by one person? Give me a break. This is Zuckerberg making a show at self regulation to try and forestall real regulators coming after him. Happy to be proven wrong, but Facebook has not earned trust here.
It's not about anyone getting the benefit of the doubt. It's about whether there's substantive discussion here or just cynical riffs and dismissals.
Are you implying that having a politician on their board lends them credibility?
The whole point is that you can't just stick with a knee-jerk reaction like "OoH, a PoLiTiCiAn!" Use your actual brain.
This particular politician was the prime minister of Denmark until 2015, and in 2015, Denmark was ranked third out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. Another politician is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the assassination of reporter Jamal Khashoggi.
I do think Helle Thorning-Schmidt lends them some credibility, and not because she's "a politician."
This particular politician was the prime minister of Denmark until 2015, and in 2015, Denmark was ranked third out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. Another politician is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the assassination of reporter Jamal Khashoggi.
I do think Helle Thorning-Schmidt lends them some credibility, and not because she's "a politician."
Yes Facebook has done good work in reputation purchasing for their board.
I’m sure they all mean well. But I’m going to assume the board is for show until they do determine something Zuckerberg doesn’t like, and it gets upheld.
I’m sure they all mean well. But I’m going to assume the board is for show until they do determine something Zuckerberg doesn’t like, and it gets upheld.
To be fair, reputation purchasing describes plenty of boards of publicly traded companies.
Just googled top two people on that page ( + trump ) .
https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353
first person on that list seem to think trump is actually insane
https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656
Yeah this ppl thought really hard and objectively about his decision to uphold the ban /s
I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased.
Silly dog and pony show by facebook.
https://twitter.com/jamalgreene/status/1055797078868324353
first person on that list seem to think trump is actually insane
https://twitter.com/cboteromarino/status/896156640986054656
Yeah this ppl thought really hard and objectively about his decision to uphold the ban /s
I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased.
Silly dog and pony show by facebook.
> I assume rest of the people on that committee are ideologically biased.
but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel.
For there to be a range of thought, there needs to exist people who's world outlook is different and or abhorrent to yours. thats how we represent diversity of thought.
but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel.
For there to be a range of thought, there needs to exist people who's world outlook is different and or abhorrent to yours. thats how we represent diversity of thought.
> but you haven't actually checked have you? There is _actually_ a reasonable diversity of thought on that panel.
Sounds like you have. Curious, Do you have an example?
Sounds like you have. Curious, Do you have an example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell is a constitutionalist. vaguely republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 is a human rights judge.
there is of course the ex editor of the guardian as well, who wouldn't be my first choice to have on board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_Saj%C3%B3 is a human rights judge.
there is of course the ex editor of the guardian as well, who wouldn't be my first choice to have on board.
Sounds like you've done the research, and I'd genuinely love to learn more about the board. Do you have some specific examples of board members whose ideologies could be reasonably construed to be sympathetic to Trump (or at the very least, sympathetic to free speech absolutism)?
> free speech absolutism
In what way do you mean this? The classically conservative/libertarian/1a absolutist "people should be able to say whatever they want and the government cannot meddle", or the current republican "the government should regulate companies do to prevent them from criticizing the president" free speech absolutism?
In what way do you mean this? The classically conservative/libertarian/1a absolutist "people should be able to say whatever they want and the government cannot meddle", or the current republican "the government should regulate companies do to prevent them from criticizing the president" free speech absolutism?
That's an odd dichotomy, because the overlap between those two groups is much larger than you might think.
There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise. The debate at hand is about the principle of free speech. That is to say, the so called "current republican" argues that the same ideals that justify guaranteeing the freedom to express oneself in public, free from government persecution, ought to be applied with private companies that host the "public square". The First Amendment isn't relevant here, because obviously there's no law that prohibits a private company from censoring. The issue at hand is an ought question; i.e. should a purportedly open platform provided by a private company censor political speech? In theory, the same arguments one would make in defense of maintaining the First Amendment (in its current form) in our Constitution also applies in defense of advocating that a private company hosting a "public square" platform ought not to censor political speech.
So circling back to the original question: we now have this Oversight Board which ostensibly has a diverse array of "experts" who we expect to weigh in on complex cases (a "Supreme Court" of sorts). The question is, how diverse is this board? Does it include anyone that might advocate what I laid out above? A couple other commenters provided examples (thanks!), but it's an important question that bears repeating. I'm also not sure how the system ensures that the pool of experts remains sufficiently diverse over time as members retire.
There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise. The debate at hand is about the principle of free speech. That is to say, the so called "current republican" argues that the same ideals that justify guaranteeing the freedom to express oneself in public, free from government persecution, ought to be applied with private companies that host the "public square". The First Amendment isn't relevant here, because obviously there's no law that prohibits a private company from censoring. The issue at hand is an ought question; i.e. should a purportedly open platform provided by a private company censor political speech? In theory, the same arguments one would make in defense of maintaining the First Amendment (in its current form) in our Constitution also applies in defense of advocating that a private company hosting a "public square" platform ought not to censor political speech.
So circling back to the original question: we now have this Oversight Board which ostensibly has a diverse array of "experts" who we expect to weigh in on complex cases (a "Supreme Court" of sorts). The question is, how diverse is this board? Does it include anyone that might advocate what I laid out above? A couple other commenters provided examples (thanks!), but it's an important question that bears repeating. I'm also not sure how the system ensures that the pool of experts remains sufficiently diverse over time as members retire.
You're making a mistake. The boards charter isn't to set facebooks policies, but to ensure that Facebook is enforcing them consistently. Facebooks policies aren't free speech absolutist in the second sense, so it doesn't much matter. Advocating for what you did above isn't on the charter because the board accepts that Facebook has moderation policies as a premise of ensuring that it follows those policies.
To use a legal metaphor, fb policies are a constitution and the board is a supreme court. Facebook can amend it's constitution however it likes, and so there is no such thing as am unconstitutional law.
To use a legal metaphor, fb policies are a constitution and the board is a supreme court. Facebook can amend it's constitution however it likes, and so there is no such thing as am unconstitutional law.
> The boards charter isn't to set facebooks policies, but to ensure that Facebook is enforcing them consistently.
Sure, and in theory the Supreme Court's function isn't to set new laws, it's to ensure that the government is enforcing them consistently and accurately. In practice, however, it's become the epicenter of a debate around whether it should actually be responsible for setting new standards and laws via interpretation, especially when the Legislature doesn't do what some people might want.
That's the issue at hand: what's to prevent the Oversight Board from making ideologically influenced rulings which contend that more heavy-handed suspensions are actually consistent enforcements of the existing policy, thereby adding new de jure restrictions on speech via precedent? That's the fundamental question.
So while you're correct that Facebook's moderation policies aren't by default "absolutist", you still want sufficient representation of gadflies on the Oversight Board to ensure that more restrictions aren't added via precedent. Perhaps that gadfly is an "absolutist", or perhaps they're something else. My question is: how do we make sure that contingent continues to exist as new members are appointed? There exists a complex system of checks and balances that go into appointing SCOTUS justices, which is how we've gotten to the point that the SCOTUS continues to be seen as a referee rather than a rule-making body (and as a result, enjoys its high approval rating). What's the equivalent analog for the Oversight Board?
Sure, and in theory the Supreme Court's function isn't to set new laws, it's to ensure that the government is enforcing them consistently and accurately. In practice, however, it's become the epicenter of a debate around whether it should actually be responsible for setting new standards and laws via interpretation, especially when the Legislature doesn't do what some people might want.
That's the issue at hand: what's to prevent the Oversight Board from making ideologically influenced rulings which contend that more heavy-handed suspensions are actually consistent enforcements of the existing policy, thereby adding new de jure restrictions on speech via precedent? That's the fundamental question.
So while you're correct that Facebook's moderation policies aren't by default "absolutist", you still want sufficient representation of gadflies on the Oversight Board to ensure that more restrictions aren't added via precedent. Perhaps that gadfly is an "absolutist", or perhaps they're something else. My question is: how do we make sure that contingent continues to exist as new members are appointed? There exists a complex system of checks and balances that go into appointing SCOTUS justices, which is how we've gotten to the point that the SCOTUS continues to be seen as a referee rather than a rule-making body (and as a result, enjoys its high approval rating). What's the equivalent analog for the Oversight Board?
> In practice, however, it's become the epicenter of a debate around whether it should actually be responsible for setting new standards and laws via interpretation, especially when the Legislature doesn't do what some people might want.
Yes, and this is the mistake you're making in reasoning: we do this because it is exceedingly difficult to modify the US constitution. Facebook has no such limitation. If the oversight board, for example, tried to interpret the existing policies in a speech absolutist way to force Facebook's hand, Facebook could simply change the text of the policies, equivalent to a constitutional amendment.
The value of judicial activism is far lower when the constitution is effortlessly fungible. When facebook modifies its policies, that is equivalent to an amendment to the constitution. If a gadfly tries to interpret that change in a way that Facebook dislikes, they can just clarify the constitution the next day.
You can see how this impacts the Board's rulings, they're almost always formed as requirements that Facebook clarify its policies further.
> Perhaps that gadfly is an "absolutist", or perhaps they're something else. My question is: how do we make sure that contingent continues to exist as new members are appointed?
But this has nothing to do with whether someone believes that Facebook should be able to moderate people's speech. An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.
Also I do want to take a moment to mention that
> There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise.
Is easily found to be untrue, there are a number of sitting senators and house members, as well as tons of state representatives who are pushing for (trivially) unconstitutional laws that regulate tech companies in violation of the first amendment. The most recent example I saw was the Florida law that exempts companies that operate amusement parks.
Yes, and this is the mistake you're making in reasoning: we do this because it is exceedingly difficult to modify the US constitution. Facebook has no such limitation. If the oversight board, for example, tried to interpret the existing policies in a speech absolutist way to force Facebook's hand, Facebook could simply change the text of the policies, equivalent to a constitutional amendment.
The value of judicial activism is far lower when the constitution is effortlessly fungible. When facebook modifies its policies, that is equivalent to an amendment to the constitution. If a gadfly tries to interpret that change in a way that Facebook dislikes, they can just clarify the constitution the next day.
You can see how this impacts the Board's rulings, they're almost always formed as requirements that Facebook clarify its policies further.
> Perhaps that gadfly is an "absolutist", or perhaps they're something else. My question is: how do we make sure that contingent continues to exist as new members are appointed?
But this has nothing to do with whether someone believes that Facebook should be able to moderate people's speech. An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.
Also I do want to take a moment to mention that
> There's a common trope thrown around that "the first amendment only applies to the government"...which is obviously true and nobody credible actually believes otherwise.
Is easily found to be untrue, there are a number of sitting senators and house members, as well as tons of state representatives who are pushing for (trivially) unconstitutional laws that regulate tech companies in violation of the first amendment. The most recent example I saw was the Florida law that exempts companies that operate amusement parks.
> You can see how this impacts the Board's rulings, they're almost always formed as requirements that Facebook clarify its policies further.
If that's the case, then the Oversight Board doesn't actually serve the purpose that the Supreme Court does, and your analogy there is inaccurate. In fact, if Facebook can simply unilaterally "change its constitution" when the Board issues an undesirable ruling, then it is much closer to the GGP's characterization of "One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department". In fact, if one might attempt to find an accurate analog in real world governance, another commenter pointed out that it's more akin to Iran: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27050948
"In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader."
> An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.
I respectfully disagree. As long as the unflinching absolutist doesn't have the final say as a single individual, the unflinching absolutist serves the purpose of pulling the board in the direction of permissiveness (i.e. the principle of free speech). This is not all that different from the purpose that activists serve in society writ large, as you pointed out when you mentioned judicial activism.
If that's the case, then the Oversight Board doesn't actually serve the purpose that the Supreme Court does, and your analogy there is inaccurate. In fact, if Facebook can simply unilaterally "change its constitution" when the Board issues an undesirable ruling, then it is much closer to the GGP's characterization of "One department of the megacorp confirms a decision made by the other department". In fact, if one might attempt to find an accurate analog in real world governance, another commenter pointed out that it's more akin to Iran: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27050948
"In theory, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. However, all candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the Majlis (parliament)) must have their candidacy approved by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are half appointed unilaterally by the Supreme Leader and half subject to confirmation by the Majlis after being appointed by the head of the Iranian judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader."
> An unflinching free speech absolutist who believes that no entity should be capable of moderating speech would be wholly incompatible with the oversight board, as they'd need to concede things about moderation to even accept the oversight board's validity as an arbiter of moderation decisions.
I respectfully disagree. As long as the unflinching absolutist doesn't have the final say as a single individual, the unflinching absolutist serves the purpose of pulling the board in the direction of permissiveness (i.e. the principle of free speech). This is not all that different from the purpose that activists serve in society writ large, as you pointed out when you mentioned judicial activism.
> If that's the case, then the Oversight Board doesn't actually serve the purpose that the Supreme Court does
Yes and no. Ensuring that Facebook is transparent with their policies is valuable. The OB prevents Facebook from lying to users about what its policies are in practice, so there is oversight that ensures that the de facto and de jure policies don't veer apart. That's still very much what the supreme court does, and very much not what the Iranian Assembly of Experts does.
It is the case that the OB is relatively less powerful than the Supreme court because the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of Facebook are one and the same, and so relatively far more powerful. But it still provides a semblance of an independent judiciary.
A lot of its power comes in keeping facebook honest and accountable to users. A facebook that cannot lie about its policies is easier to hold accountable.
> As long as the unflinching absolutist doesn't have the final say as a single individual
I think this is akin to saying that a Supreme Court justice who believes that the law should be that the first amendment should apply to Facebook would be an asset to the court. That's true only if that's the outcome you prefer. Its terrible for the legitimacy of the court if someone's values are antithetical to the policies they're purportedly interpreting.
Yes and no. Ensuring that Facebook is transparent with their policies is valuable. The OB prevents Facebook from lying to users about what its policies are in practice, so there is oversight that ensures that the de facto and de jure policies don't veer apart. That's still very much what the supreme court does, and very much not what the Iranian Assembly of Experts does.
It is the case that the OB is relatively less powerful than the Supreme court because the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of Facebook are one and the same, and so relatively far more powerful. But it still provides a semblance of an independent judiciary.
A lot of its power comes in keeping facebook honest and accountable to users. A facebook that cannot lie about its policies is easier to hold accountable.
> As long as the unflinching absolutist doesn't have the final say as a single individual
I think this is akin to saying that a Supreme Court justice who believes that the law should be that the first amendment should apply to Facebook would be an asset to the court. That's true only if that's the outcome you prefer. Its terrible for the legitimacy of the court if someone's values are antithetical to the policies they're purportedly interpreting.
drcongo(1)
Fwiw, the "insane" tweet is something quoted by the tweeter, which is usually not an endorsement; people quote tweets of things they disagree with all the time. The actual text of the tweet reads "And while Trump uses Venezuela to distract attention from the "Russian plot," Maduro uses Trump to increase repression." That's a far cry from thinking him insane.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies.
The oversight board is supposed to be independent, and we know how that goes. It was assumed it would do what's best for FB financially, which is let Trump back on.
The oversight board is supposed to be independent, and we know how that goes. It was assumed it would do what's best for FB financially, which is let Trump back on.
" I'm completely surprised actually. The bigger news is that they didn't let him back on because he's worth so much money to the social media companies."
Facebook doesn't need Trump. They're going to be making billions regardless.
They also have to deal with the current US government, where Trump and his supporters' fortunes are on the wane, and a lot of powerful people (of whom Trump has made enemies) are questioning Facebook and other social media platforms for giving Trump a megaphone.
Of course, there are also Trump supporters who want the opposite, but politically they just don't matter as much right now.
In the current political climate, the surprise would have been their letting him back on.
Facebook doesn't need Trump. They're going to be making billions regardless.
They also have to deal with the current US government, where Trump and his supporters' fortunes are on the wane, and a lot of powerful people (of whom Trump has made enemies) are questioning Facebook and other social media platforms for giving Trump a megaphone.
Of course, there are also Trump supporters who want the opposite, but politically they just don't matter as much right now.
In the current political climate, the surprise would have been their letting him back on.
The board is made up of outside experts. They're independent of fartbook.
Yeah I'm sure Facebook picked a bunch of people who didn't align with their ideals.
Pretty stacked deck of certain types. Having experts independent of facebook only works if you provide a fair diversity. If everyone drinks the same cool-aid the process for selecting these experts becomes the overriding issue.
How were these people selected? Do we have a matrix on their ideology? Is that an acceptable balance?
https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/
How were these people selected? Do we have a matrix on their ideology? Is that an acceptable balance?
https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/
[deleted]
Who pays them, directly and indirectly?
From what I understand, the foundation is funded by Facebook directly, but it's unclear what kind of obligations are legally/contractually required by that funding. Of course FB can always pull funding completely, but that would be a bit blatant.
> Of course FB can always pull funding completely...
They can't, though. It's an irrevocable trust; the Oversight Board would have to agree to terminate it.
They can't, though. It's an irrevocable trust; the Oversight Board would have to agree to terminate it.
What sources did you use to inform this view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)#Gov... has details on the funding. $130m, expected to last 50 years.
> $130m, expected to last 50 years.
I read:
> Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade
Half a decade is 5 years, not 50.
I read:
> Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade
Half a decade is 5 years, not 50.
A WSJ article I read, but the wiki page is almost certainly a better source.
That's just totally false, the Oversight Board was created, funded and structured by Facebook and therefore does not meet the definition of independent. It's about as "independent" as DoubleClick is of Google.
21st Century Fox was created, funded, and structured by News Corp. Are they still controlled by News Corp now and forever as a result?
A $130M irrevocable trust to ensure their operations seems like a decent stab at ensuring they're not beholden to Facebook.
A $130M irrevocable trust to ensure their operations seems like a decent stab at ensuring they're not beholden to Facebook.
Facebook appointed every member of the board and directly funded it.
Would you trust the BP Oversight Board, staffed 100% by people selected by BP, to police BP's emissions?
Independent means independent.
Would you trust the BP Oversight Board, staffed 100% by people selected by BP, to police BP's emissions?
Independent means independent.
> "It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored," it said in a statement.
I'm glad to see this. Twitter and Facebook both use terms like "permanent suspension" in a silly attempt to avoid the term "ban". They should be honest about the penalty.
I'm glad to see this. Twitter and Facebook both use terms like "permanent suspension" in a silly attempt to avoid the term "ban". They should be honest about the penalty.
Network vs nation-state update: the network is a charade, as the messages passing over it are filtered and 'boosted', distorting information beyond any humanly recognizable form.
It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power.
If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?
It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power.
If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?
I worry about the power companies like FB wield, but I find this a tad exaggerated. FB and Twitter =\= the network. I don’t see how kicking someone off FB and Twitter means they’re effectively “memory-holed”. Almost all past presidents had no access to them and did ok.
Facebook is the defacto public square of the US, at least during a pandemic where social media is the only socializing many are going to do. This is an extremely pernicious situation for American freedoms, if it's this easy to prevent a politician from speaking, especially someone so prominent then what hope do western freedoms have against rising oppressive forces like China?
They are hardly sending him down the memory hole (there are plenty of records of his statements and assertions etc).
Newspapers have chosen to report, or not report on issues since time immemorial.
There is no shortage of reasons to criticize FB and to consider network effects such as you raise.
But I am specifically disagreeing with the “memory hole” point, and in particular of a public figure.
Newspapers have chosen to report, or not report on issues since time immemorial.
There is no shortage of reasons to criticize FB and to consider network effects such as you raise.
But I am specifically disagreeing with the “memory hole” point, and in particular of a public figure.
"If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?"
With the possible exception of 9/11, the Trump administration is probably the most significant political event of the 21st Century so-far. Nobody and nothing can memory-hole that, no matter how much power they have.
Trump is at no risk of being forgotten.
With the possible exception of 9/11, the Trump administration is probably the most significant political event of the 21st Century so-far. Nobody and nothing can memory-hole that, no matter how much power they have.
Trump is at no risk of being forgotten.
And you can just charge a fee to make a thriving business and let others do the same, whether political or other manipulation you're looking to do.
> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States, is there anyone on earth that you cannot completely dominate, in whatever channel or manner you chose to manipulate?
Exactly. The power to make someone invisible to others feels like something out of Black Mirror. Everyone claiming that Presidents (or others) did just fine before the Internet and social media is missing the point. Relevance, visibility, and existence are all concepts that are only meaningful in a relative sense. In a world where the vast majority of information seen by humans comes from large digital platforms, being banned in cyberspace but visible in meatspace effectively means you are blocked from society, since attention is largely given only to information on these giant tech platforms.
This is why large tech platforms are public accommodations, as SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently described in his recent opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf). For those short on time, summaries of his arguments can be found at various news sites (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technolog... or Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-co...).
Glenn Greenwald also had a great write-up on the incredible power these platforms wield, which is far greater than most governments even (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the...). In this article, under subsection #2, Glenn reviews the various world leaders who responded publicly to American social media banning Trump as an unacceptable and ominous event.
Exactly. The power to make someone invisible to others feels like something out of Black Mirror. Everyone claiming that Presidents (or others) did just fine before the Internet and social media is missing the point. Relevance, visibility, and existence are all concepts that are only meaningful in a relative sense. In a world where the vast majority of information seen by humans comes from large digital platforms, being banned in cyberspace but visible in meatspace effectively means you are blocked from society, since attention is largely given only to information on these giant tech platforms.
This is why large tech platforms are public accommodations, as SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas eloquently described in his recent opinion (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf). For those short on time, summaries of his arguments can be found at various news sites (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/technolog... or Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-hints-that-co...).
Glenn Greenwald also had a great write-up on the incredible power these platforms wield, which is far greater than most governments even (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the...). In this article, under subsection #2, Glenn reviews the various world leaders who responded publicly to American social media banning Trump as an unacceptable and ominous event.
Trump hasn't been "memory-hole"d. You can post on Facebook about Trump as much as you want.
Maybe on Facebook but Twitter will suspend your account if you post verbatim statements from Trump as they consider it circumventing their ban: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-website-faceb...
> A Twitter spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement Tuesday that sharing content from Trump's new site — "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" — generally "is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise violate the Twitter Rules."
> But, the spokesperson said, sharing posts from the site will break Twitter's rules against ban evasions if users try to imitate Trump's account and their "sole intent is to replace a suspended account."
So they're effectively saying you can only link to it if you disagree with it.
> A Twitter spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement Tuesday that sharing content from Trump's new site — "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump" — generally "is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise violate the Twitter Rules."
> But, the spokesperson said, sharing posts from the site will break Twitter's rules against ban evasions if users try to imitate Trump's account and their "sole intent is to replace a suspended account."
So they're effectively saying you can only link to it if you disagree with it.
I think they are only moderating against bots that solely retweet everything posted to the site. A real user can post the statements and pundit in whatever direction they want.
> If you can memory-hole a president of the United States
So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored in here.
That aside, A network provider needs to enforce its own terms of services equally. In practice nobody does this, but Twitter and facebooks inaction for clear violations of their terms of service undermines their points operating fairly.
Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. That is a clear violation of its community guidelines. It turns out that there are secret rules for politicians (basically they can do what they like.) This is wrong
Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea.
Had the ToS been applied equally, lots of politicians and pundits would have been kicked off years ago.
The issue is fairness. We accept the law, because on the face of it, its applied equally. As soon as that facade drops, people begin to reject it.
> It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power.
Yes, and this is nothing new. Just look at the power that news barons had. before that pamphleteers. In reality freedom of speech in the broadcast sense only applies to the rich, or the friends of the rich.
So whilst I understand your point of view, I think there is wider context that needs to be factored in here.
That aside, A network provider needs to enforce its own terms of services equally. In practice nobody does this, but Twitter and facebooks inaction for clear violations of their terms of service undermines their points operating fairly.
Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting. That is a clear violation of its community guidelines. It turns out that there are secret rules for politicians (basically they can do what they like.) This is wrong
Twitter failed to uphold it's ToS when allowing trump to issue threats to use nuclear weapons on north korea.
Had the ToS been applied equally, lots of politicians and pundits would have been kicked off years ago.
The issue is fairness. We accept the law, because on the face of it, its applied equally. As soon as that facade drops, people begin to reject it.
> It turns out that the people who moderate the network wield unimaginable power.
Yes, and this is nothing new. Just look at the power that news barons had. before that pamphleteers. In reality freedom of speech in the broadcast sense only applies to the rich, or the friends of the rich.
Democrats challenged presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic...
They also challenged a House seat in this 2020 cycle: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec...
Trump has also won two-thirds of the election cases that were actually heard, rather than dismissed on some technicality: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown...
My point being that I don't think it is invalid to discuss election results or not believe in them. We have a legal process to hear these complaints for a reason.
They also challenged a House seat in this 2020 cycle: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-rita-hart-ends-elec...
Trump has also won two-thirds of the election cases that were actually heard, rather than dismissed on some technicality: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-breakdown...
My point being that I don't think it is invalid to discuss election results or not believe in them. We have a legal process to hear these complaints for a reason.
> Facebook failed to act when Trump and others (of all political styles) decided to lie about voting, the mechanics of voting, and validity of voting.
Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s
I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.
Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier, but they weren't given any warnings or badges or anything. I wonder if it has something to do with that company management is more closely aligned with that party. /s
I don't have a horse in this race, but the lack of objectivity in Trump haters is striking even from the other side of the ocean. Hatred can cloud reasoning, I guess.
> Just like members of another political party did 4 years earlier
What were those lies? There was a foreign influence campaign. There was a bipartisan confirmation of that fact in the Senate. There were suggestions of vote manipulation (based on foreign actors accessing voter roles), but I don't recall any accusations being leveled. Many people thought Trump was an illegitimate president. There was a peaceful change of power. Obama showed up and handed over the reins.
The recent elections went much further. "Stop the steal" is pretty strong language. Trump called out particular state elections as having short-counted votes for him. There was wild speculation about counting efforts and voting machine manipulation. People stormed a congressional meeting confirming the outcome. Trump continued to attack our election processes and refused to participate in the inauguration.
What were those lies? There was a foreign influence campaign. There was a bipartisan confirmation of that fact in the Senate. There were suggestions of vote manipulation (based on foreign actors accessing voter roles), but I don't recall any accusations being leveled. Many people thought Trump was an illegitimate president. There was a peaceful change of power. Obama showed up and handed over the reins.
The recent elections went much further. "Stop the steal" is pretty strong language. Trump called out particular state elections as having short-counted votes for him. There was wild speculation about counting efforts and voting machine manipulation. People stormed a congressional meeting confirming the outcome. Trump continued to attack our election processes and refused to participate in the inauguration.
> There was a foreign influence campaign.
Rofl. A few thousands dollars bought ads that influenced the election, oh wow! If it was the US citizens who voted, they are free to listen anyone they want. Or you think that US citizens are too stupid to be allowed to judge for themselves, and should be guarded from 'wrong' information? (Of course, we can trust Facebook to decide which info is right, and which not)
Rofl. A few thousands dollars bought ads that influenced the election, oh wow! If it was the US citizens who voted, they are free to listen anyone they want. Or you think that US citizens are too stupid to be allowed to judge for themselves, and should be guarded from 'wrong' information? (Of course, we can trust Facebook to decide which info is right, and which not)
People are not so immune to propaganda campaigns. Yes, I believe many are stupid. I also believe they should be allowed to judge for themselves. Not everything is worth considering or even being exposed to though. Part of knowing is being aware of who the messenger is.
In any case I'll ask again. What were these lies from Democrats? I'm aware of very few lies about voting, voting mechanics, and the validity of the 2016 vote.
Looking back in fact I see Trump at that time too claiming voter fraud before the election. He claimed to have won the popular vote after due to illegal voters. Yet he did very little in power to affect these issues then claimed so again.
In any case I'll ask again. What were these lies from Democrats? I'm aware of very few lies about voting, voting mechanics, and the validity of the 2016 vote.
Looking back in fact I see Trump at that time too claiming voter fraud before the election. He claimed to have won the popular vote after due to illegal voters. Yet he did very little in power to affect these issues then claimed so again.
> In any case I'll ask again. What were these lies from Democrats? I'm aware of very few lies about voting, voting mechanics, and the validity of the 2016 vote.
Start with a basic search and visit first few links:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2016+stolen+elections
Start with a basic search and visit first few links:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2016+stolen+elections
OK, I see the similarity in the word "steal". It mostly ends there though. Hillary points out a number of events that affected how the public perceived her with a belief that those perceptions were based on untrue things. This doesn't have much to do with our voting, voting mechanics, or the validity of the vote itself. She still conceded.
thats my point. Facebook allows politicians to opt out of the "community guidelines" which I dislike intensely. Even if I agree with a particular politician.
You're adopting a very dismissive tone for what seems like a reasonable position. If you believe Trump is uniquely dangerous (disclosure: I do), why couldn't you have a reasoned, objective belief that social media companies need the tools to keep him off their platform? If someone comes to me with an undisputable argument that suchandsuch principle means he has to be allowed on Facebook again, I consider that to be an argument against the principle, in much the same way as I'd reject a principle that proves we can't enforce laws or can't block spam.
Social media companies have every right to ban Trump just because they can. But they should be honest about it: he is their political enemy and they don't want him to spread his message.
Instead, they engage in an elaborate hypocrisy, inventing rules and procedures that are only applied to him and are only used to silence him. It is clear as a day that they don't apply the same standards to other politicians, especially their allies. And to me, few things are as disgusting as such hypocrisy. Shameless bias in reporting (to either side, while pretending to be 'objective') comes close, but not quite.
Instead, they engage in an elaborate hypocrisy, inventing rules and procedures that are only applied to him and are only used to silence him. It is clear as a day that they don't apply the same standards to other politicians, especially their allies. And to me, few things are as disgusting as such hypocrisy. Shameless bias in reporting (to either side, while pretending to be 'objective') comes close, but not quite.
But I don't think that actually is an honest statement of their motives. Many of Facebook's political enemies have active Facebook accounts, and use them to spread messages Facebook doesn't agree with.
But those other political enemies aren't in the same position of power as Trump. It could be argued that Facebook's motivations are to ensure the presidency and congress are under their political tribe's control while giving the maximal voice to the other side so that they do not lose all those customers who disagree with their political views. It gives them all the benefits of aggregating power for their political tribe while minimizing loss in income and corporate value.
I don't really know how to engage with a claim like this. You could argue a lot of things - but are they true? It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that Facebook would have banned a President Marco Rubio or President Ted Cruz.
Why do you believe Trump is dangerous? CNN did nothing but lie about him and give endless coverage to rampant speculation. Literally everywhere there was any doubt, they brought on "experts" to exploit doubt and never gave Trump the benefit of any of it.
The "emporer has no clothes" moment for me was when after a dozen or so appearances by Adam Schiff on CNN, MSNBC etc that he had seen proof that Trump was a russian asset, he presented zero evidence during the early 2020 impeachment trial. There are a lot of liars in politics and I wish more people would admit their side has their fair share of them.
The "emporer has no clothes" moment for me was when after a dozen or so appearances by Adam Schiff on CNN, MSNBC etc that he had seen proof that Trump was a russian asset, he presented zero evidence during the early 2020 impeachment trial. There are a lot of liars in politics and I wish more people would admit their side has their fair share of them.
The reason I believe Trump is dangerous is that, after he lost an election, he started making constant public demands for the results to be nullified, interspersed with occasional declarations that he had definitively won the election and intended to remain in power. I agree that many prior criticisms of him were speculative or untrue, but it seems clear that he was prepared to install himself for a second term by any means available.
Periodic reminder that deplatforming is like democracy the least bad option we currently have.
Weaponized speech (which is actually an unholy marriage of data driven sentiment management, which would not unreasonably be described as still incompletely successful stochastic mind control) represents a threat to our society culture and government not unlike asymmetrical nuclear or biological warfare. Against amoral bad actors, there is no plausible defense.
In such an environment we have no better tool currently than a zero-tolerance shut down of actors who have demonstrated bad faith and ill intent, with respect to the system itself.
We do have worse tools, but they are mostly much much worse.
Weaponized speech (which is actually an unholy marriage of data driven sentiment management, which would not unreasonably be described as still incompletely successful stochastic mind control) represents a threat to our society culture and government not unlike asymmetrical nuclear or biological warfare. Against amoral bad actors, there is no plausible defense.
In such an environment we have no better tool currently than a zero-tolerance shut down of actors who have demonstrated bad faith and ill intent, with respect to the system itself.
We do have worse tools, but they are mostly much much worse.
Can this ruling then be applied to others who meet the same criteria? Because there's a lot of them.
There are a lot of US Presidents on Facebook?
Maybe they were referring to the other politicians that have actually made calls to violence, like Maxine Waters, and have not experienced any consequences for their actions.
Facebook's Oversight Board rule that Facebook did nothing wrong - imagine my surprise. Even if they always honestly judge each case, we can never fully trust they act independently. The fact that Facebook themselves have recognized the need for such an entity surely points towards the requirement for government oversight.
> But it is the "indefinite" part of the ban that it took issue with because that is not within its own rules.
I think the wording is careful here - they have a problem with indefinite banning, not because of moral concerns but simply because of an inconsistency with their current rules. Expect a TOS update soon to amend that... Bare in mind also that technically 99 years wouldn't be indefinite, but can clearly be considered a lifetime ban.
Personally I think it's crazy that indefinite bans are allowed. Even murderers and pedophiles eventually are allowed to re-enter society, and yet, apparently a message on Facebook can carry a life sentence.
> But it is the "indefinite" part of the ban that it took issue with because that is not within its own rules.
I think the wording is careful here - they have a problem with indefinite banning, not because of moral concerns but simply because of an inconsistency with their current rules. Expect a TOS update soon to amend that... Bare in mind also that technically 99 years wouldn't be indefinite, but can clearly be considered a lifetime ban.
Personally I think it's crazy that indefinite bans are allowed. Even murderers and pedophiles eventually are allowed to re-enter society, and yet, apparently a message on Facebook can carry a life sentence.
To give counterexamples, you can be banned for life from owning a gun if you commit a felony. Likewise you can be banned from voting, banned from living near a school or church, and there are tons of other lifetime bans more serious than a ban from Facebook.
All of those are extremely contentious. Disenfranchisement upon conviction combined with selective enforcement allows government to, at scale, affect voter demographics in a specific way. It also directly impedes criminal justice reform because the people who experience the consequences of a broken system are all systematically prohibited from voting to reform it.
Firearms are so contentious that I'm not even going to describe the argument to avoid this being derailed into a flame war.
Schools are in substantially every residential neighborhood, because that's where they keep the students. So people prohibited from living "near a school" are prohibited from living pretty much everywhere.
But the most important distinction between this and those things is that they only come after a criminal conviction proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a government subject to the constitutional constraints in the Bill of Rights.
Firearms are so contentious that I'm not even going to describe the argument to avoid this being derailed into a flame war.
Schools are in substantially every residential neighborhood, because that's where they keep the students. So people prohibited from living "near a school" are prohibited from living pretty much everywhere.
But the most important distinction between this and those things is that they only come after a criminal conviction proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a government subject to the constitutional constraints in the Bill of Rights.
I think the main issue here--getting banned from Facebook--is contentious, so it's not surprising that the points of comparison are contentious. The points of comparison aren't very good anyway--this is new territory. Facebook operates in some new regime which is quasi-public and quasi-private. Maybe the closest comparison is public-access television.
You seem to be attempting to normalize this by comparing it to the US legal system, which strikes me as odd given the huge difference between the two. The US government couldn't give Trump a parking ticket without affording him the opportunity to challenge the citation before an independent judiciary (or, if he were to press the issue, before a jury of his peers). But Mark Zuckerburg can ban him from (the modern day equivalent of) the public square with a snap of his fingers!
There is nothing normal about it.
There is nothing normal about it.
To clarify, I'm not attempting to normalize it.
This is a social media site. The fact that it seems to be an indispensable service that deprivation of such causes irreparable harm is more of a cause for concern than their ability to discriminate.
Even despot, tyrannically insane people have rights. Those rights are provided by the Constitution of the USA. That said, free speech is not an absolute right, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the....
Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it.
Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
In the case of our previous president (45th that is) that tends to exaggerate his wealth, why doesn't he just buy enough stock in Facebook to control it and change it's rules?
Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it.
Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
In the case of our previous president (45th that is) that tends to exaggerate his wealth, why doesn't he just buy enough stock in Facebook to control it and change it's rules?
The shouting fire being illegal is a myth.
The court case was about the Espionage Act of 1917, and was extremely unconstitutional. It was about speaking about against the draft.
Holmes justified his ruling with the fire statement at the end of the case, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law, it was an emotional statement.
The court case itself was unconstitutional, and that statement everyone repeats has no legal binding whatsoever as it had no bearing on anything. I doubt you agree with the outcome of that case (socialists being imprisoned for speaking out against the draft) so why would you use an emotional statement used to justify it?
Private companies are not free to do whatever they want, there are regulations. When companies get too large they should be regulated. You can argue these companies have possibly outgrown their Section 230 immunities as they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. They are editorializing their content, acting as a publisher. The social media giants are entrenched with government and businesses solely using them for support and communications, you cannot simply move off.
I guess you are very pro corporate and you feel like corporations should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want.
It being legally okay, does not make it morally okay and laws can change to meet the morals. Maybe we should apply the 1A to these platforms.
The court case was about the Espionage Act of 1917, and was extremely unconstitutional. It was about speaking about against the draft.
Holmes justified his ruling with the fire statement at the end of the case, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law, it was an emotional statement.
The court case itself was unconstitutional, and that statement everyone repeats has no legal binding whatsoever as it had no bearing on anything. I doubt you agree with the outcome of that case (socialists being imprisoned for speaking out against the draft) so why would you use an emotional statement used to justify it?
Private companies are not free to do whatever they want, there are regulations. When companies get too large they should be regulated. You can argue these companies have possibly outgrown their Section 230 immunities as they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. They are editorializing their content, acting as a publisher. The social media giants are entrenched with government and businesses solely using them for support and communications, you cannot simply move off.
I guess you are very pro corporate and you feel like corporations should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want.
It being legally okay, does not make it morally okay and laws can change to meet the morals. Maybe we should apply the 1A to these platforms.
Then you need to update the second amendment, or overturn Brandenburg with a supreme court who is more willing to regulate speech.
Your saying that the supreme court ruling is unconstitutional? Really? I guess I can guess you think the election was fixed too.
Considering that it was mostly overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS agreed that it was unconstitutional and overreaching.
They held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
But yes overall I say their first decision of imprisoning people for speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional, socialist or not.
They held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
But yes overall I say their first decision of imprisoning people for speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional, socialist or not.
If that is so, why don't you yell 'fire' on a plane and see if you havw that right.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case was mostly overturned 50 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
> Private companies are free to run their business any way they want.
On that aspect, is there a point where they're no longer acting as themselves but as an extension of the government?
- If the government has requested particular action?
- If they're under contract by the government?
- If they've been ordered by the government via a judicial preceding?
- If they've been ordered by the government via law or even just Executive action?
We're well into a time where governments are hiring corporations to do what they themselves are legally barred from doing.
If there are no boundaries, there are few (no?) rules.
> Private companies are free to run their business any way they want.
On that aspect, is there a point where they're no longer acting as themselves but as an extension of the government?
- If the government has requested particular action?
- If they're under contract by the government?
- If they've been ordered by the government via a judicial preceding?
- If they've been ordered by the government via law or even just Executive action?
We're well into a time where governments are hiring corporations to do what they themselves are legally barred from doing.
If there are no boundaries, there are few (no?) rules.
Furthermore, if Facebook or Twitter are so large that they function as the new public space, the answer isn't to prevent them from banning people, but to break them up. The issue isn't a private company determining who gets to be on their platform, but that their platform is effectively a monopoly and monopolies are bad.
except these people do go to other places and then people tell ISPs and the such to block those websites...see 8chan.
Look at the controversy over platforms like parler and gab as well.
This is why I think the ultimate solution is to have platforms that are fully encrypted, anonymized (TOR) and decentralized. This is the only way to ensure people can exercise their freedom of speech without harassment. Basic implementations have already been built, bitmessage, for example but that technology needs to be expanded into more of a reddit-like website. Make posters/comments/upvotes burn CPU cycles to participate and pay rewards to the people hosting/mining.
Look at the controversy over platforms like parler and gab as well.
This is why I think the ultimate solution is to have platforms that are fully encrypted, anonymized (TOR) and decentralized. This is the only way to ensure people can exercise their freedom of speech without harassment. Basic implementations have already been built, bitmessage, for example but that technology needs to be expanded into more of a reddit-like website. Make posters/comments/upvotes burn CPU cycles to participate and pay rewards to the people hosting/mining.
Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
What do you do when Facebook is the monopolist and you can't go anywhere else?
What do you do when Facebook is the monopolist and you can't go anywhere else?
They’re not though
In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch. OK, if you won't/can't use Google there's Bing or DDG, but, seriously, what's the alternative to Facebook?
>In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch.
This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist.
I mean, Donald Trump literally just started his own "social media platform," and his followers have been bouncing around right-wing "alternative" platforms for years. Not even the people primarily responsible for pushing the fear narrative around social media and it's "Orwellian" control of free speech really seem to be suffering under its hypothetical jackboot.
This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist.
I mean, Donald Trump literally just started his own "social media platform," and his followers have been bouncing around right-wing "alternative" platforms for years. Not even the people primarily responsible for pushing the fear narrative around social media and it's "Orwellian" control of free speech really seem to be suffering under its hypothetical jackboot.
This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist.
There's exactly one, maybe two of each for each type of media. Twitter for soundbits, Tiktok for video, Instagram for photo - in the past you had your choice of publishers. If one didn't like you you could go to another and at least get the message out. I'm seeing the concentration in the media market with great concern, it gives excessive power to shape opinion to a few magnates. The Trump ban is just a symptom.
There's exactly one, maybe two of each for each type of media. Twitter for soundbits, Tiktok for video, Instagram for photo - in the past you had your choice of publishers. If one didn't like you you could go to another and at least get the message out. I'm seeing the concentration in the media market with great concern, it gives excessive power to shape opinion to a few magnates. The Trump ban is just a symptom.
In the past, you had far less choice than you do now. There are literally hundreds of social media platforms on the web, not even counting the decentralized offerings like Mastodon and Diaspora. And Trump is proving that the tried and true model of just setting up your own site still works. Somehow, despite everyone claiming he's been memory-holed and erased like Stalin erased Trotsky, he seems to be doing just fine.
We seem to be living in different realities. Where you're seeing media concentrating, I'm seeing it fragmenting and diverge. The big social media silos are popular, but that popularity doesn't translate to control of the medium.
We seem to be living in different realities. Where you're seeing media concentrating, I'm seeing it fragmenting and diverge. The big social media silos are popular, but that popularity doesn't translate to control of the medium.
Network effects make Mastodon and Diaspora irrelevant. Facebook is political discussion with your contacts., Twitter is public political discussion.
You're overstating the strength of network effects, political discussion happens everywhere.
I don’t think you understand what network effects mean. Of course discussion happens elsewhere. It is less valuable because those other networks have fewer nodes.
It isn't less valuable at the scale at which most human networks operate. People don't exclusively limit their online communications to one account on one platform, and most people aren't networking with millions of people at a time. If it were really impossible for effective political speech to exist outside of Facebook then Gab and Parler would never have been politically relevant for Trump supporters or the alt-right, when they demonstrably were.
People do limit their communications to valuable platforms. People do chose networks with significant populations. I’m not sure why you’d say otherwise but I suspect this isn’t going to be a valuable conversation so let’s end it here.
> Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Sometimes those rules are illegal. For both Facebook and HN.
But sure, let's just pretend money means you don't live under any state jurisdiction.
Sometimes those rules are illegal. For both Facebook and HN.
But sure, let's just pretend money means you don't live under any state jurisdiction.
"Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it."
Big pharma can charge whatever they want right? They are private companies. If you don't want that insulin injection or epi-pen then just don't buy one.
Big pharma can charge whatever they want right? They are private companies. If you don't want that insulin injection or epi-pen then just don't buy one.
"Oversight" Board created by Facebook approves of Facebook's actions. In other news, water is wet. More at 11.
Will the board also review the suspension of the NY Post account?
Probably not. That newspaper LITERALLY makes things up. See this recent story: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/550599-reporter-who-wrote...
It's one thing to get something wrong in a story, it's another to actively make things up and present them as news. NY Post is not worth wiping your shoes on, let alone reading.
It's one thing to get something wrong in a story, it's another to actively make things up and present them as news. NY Post is not worth wiping your shoes on, let alone reading.
As do the NY Times & Washingon Post - see The Hill video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81GaWYA5cJw&t=366s
Same with Russiagate.
Same with Russiagate.
[deleted]
But they were suspended for what seems to be accurate reporting on the existence of a laptop that used to be owned by Hunter Biden, and which contains a lot of information that could have been interesting to voters in the 2020 election cycle.
Was I downvoted because (a) the laptop doesn't exist, (b) the laptop wasn't Hunter Biden's, or (c) it didn't contain any information that might be interesting to a voter in 2020?
Seems like (b). I can't really find any evidence with proof a laptop owned by Hunter Biden actually existed and was somehow found in a pawn shop, given to Rudy Giuliani, then to the FBI, found to be filled with "evidence", then totally suppressed. It's all such a ludicrous story with no real proof that people (like you) who talk about it tend to get dismissed. I'm generally for dismissal of the conversation like this (downvoting and hiding it) because generally it tends to turn towards more stories with little or no evidence and doesn't really bring anything new to the table.
That being said, I find it funny that people want an exciting story about a forgotten laptop when it's generally well accepted that Hunter Biden accepted a job he wasn't qualified for in a foreign country. For me that's pretty clearly nepotism at best and harming the interests of your own country at worst, and displays a clear lack of judgement. But Americans like a conspiracy theory...
That being said, I find it funny that people want an exciting story about a forgotten laptop when it's generally well accepted that Hunter Biden accepted a job he wasn't qualified for in a foreign country. For me that's pretty clearly nepotism at best and harming the interests of your own country at worst, and displays a clear lack of judgement. But Americans like a conspiracy theory...
The NY Post posted to Facebook 11 minutes ago.
https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/posts/10167094101195206
To Twitter a minute ago:
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1389947126059356166
I can't find any indication either account was suspended.
https://www.facebook.com/NYPost/posts/10167094101195206
To Twitter a minute ago:
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1389947126059356166
I can't find any indication either account was suspended.
The suspension happened right in the middle of an election. Comparing that valuable reporting time to now is ridiculous.
Again, what suspension?
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-limits-spread-of-the-...
They suspended the story, not the account I guess.
They suspended the story, not the account I guess.
"consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform"
Does this make sense though? We don't much care about some drunk fool in a bar spouting racist hate. otoh a cult leader with millions of followers, we do care about that.
Does this make sense though? We don't much care about some drunk fool in a bar spouting racist hate. otoh a cult leader with millions of followers, we do care about that.
It would be far better if Facebook just said: “he tried to undermine democracy in the home country of our employees, so we banned him because we don’t want that”. This charade just leaves them open to people calling them hypocrites in the future.
> hypocrites in the future
Hate to break it to you, but most people call them that now. Zuck funded democratic positions for the election, removed relevant content to the election (hunter Biden laptop, senate intelligence report, etc), then banned the then sitting president.
Hate to break it to you, but most people call them that now. Zuck funded democratic positions for the election, removed relevant content to the election (hunter Biden laptop, senate intelligence report, etc), then banned the then sitting president.
Ah, the old "don't undermine democracy" rule!
> otoh a cult leader with millions of followers, we do care about that.
Who was the cult leader spouting racist hate?
Who was the cult leader spouting racist hate?
What is the Facebook Oversight Board?
How is it constituted?
Who is on it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)
How is it constituted?
Who is on it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)
Radiolab did an episode on it:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/faceb...
Why should anyone outside of FB care who they try to use as a plausible deniability shield?
If you think the Oversight Board is a sham, it's interesting to examine the individuals who choose to accept an invitation to serve on it.
What drives these individuals? Would they agree it's a sham - a "plausible deniability shield", or might they believe it is something more virtuously independent and efficacious?
What does each individual gain or stand to achieve from their participation?
What do the answers to these questions tell us about Facebook's power?
What do the answers tell us about how society works?
What drives these individuals? Would they agree it's a sham - a "plausible deniability shield", or might they believe it is something more virtuously independent and efficacious?
What does each individual gain or stand to achieve from their participation?
What do the answers to these questions tell us about Facebook's power?
What do the answers tell us about how society works?
Interestingly they haven't just banned Trump, but they've also banned users posting any content containing Trump so even an interview of Trump is not longer allowed on Facebook:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/31/facebook-donal...
It's hard to know what the limits of this action would be. Presumably the mainstream media can still post clips of Trump and this isn't being applied fairly, but does that make it any better?
IMO this censorship of content is more worrying than banning Trump himself. Limiting what people can even post and say about a past US president on the largest online communications platform on Earth is obviously a problem regardless of how you feel about Trump. No company should have power like this.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/31/facebook-donal...
It's hard to know what the limits of this action would be. Presumably the mainstream media can still post clips of Trump and this isn't being applied fairly, but does that make it any better?
IMO this censorship of content is more worrying than banning Trump himself. Limiting what people can even post and say about a past US president on the largest online communications platform on Earth is obviously a problem regardless of how you feel about Trump. No company should have power like this.
Are we able to see public video (or transcripts) of the discussion that lead to this decision, or are we only given the decision? Not that I would expect any actual transparency from Facebook...
Why would Facebook, as a private entity, be required to provide such? Airlines aren’t required to provide similar when they ban a customer from flying, nor corporations when they ban a patron from their stores (for whatever reason).
Counterpoint: the board is supposedly “independent” from Facebook so Facebook’s feelings on transparency are, theoretically, irrelevant and the board is, theoretically, free to disclose minutes, discussion, etc.
Of course, over here in reality, the word “independent” is quite a bit of a stretch. I give it about as much weight as Facebook’s claims they “value user privacy”.
Of course, over here in reality, the word “independent” is quite a bit of a stretch. I give it about as much weight as Facebook’s claims they “value user privacy”.
I think the argument that corporate rights are unassailable when it comes to censoring people from monopoly or near-monopoly platforms is a little disingenuous.
I don’t mean that you can’t make the argument, I’m just not sure it’s a thing that anyone but the staunchest free-marketeers actually believes.
I don’t mean that you can’t make the argument, I’m just not sure it’s a thing that anyone but the staunchest free-marketeers actually believes.
I’m actually very left leaning and pro regulation and making this argument. Without any law or regulatory requirement, platforms will not do this willingly.
It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't pass a law requiring transparency (and providing some legal recourse) in decisions to deny access to public products/services by dominant companies
I suspect you meant to just point out that until such a law is passed, we are unlikely to see transparency.
I suspect you meant to just point out that until such a law is passed, we are unlikely to see transparency.
Correct.
> Why would Facebook, as a private entity, be required to provide such?
OP didn't say that Facebook is required to do that. Note that Facebook is also not required to have an oversight board or anything similar.
OP didn't say that Facebook is required to do that. Note that Facebook is also not required to have an oversight board or anything similar.
I never said they were.
It seemed like you were looking for transparency that they aren’t obligated or required by law or regulation to provide, hence my comparisons.
Why does the law matter in this discussion? They just wondered whether there were any public transcripts, didn't bring up any laws at all.
Do companies make their discussions or adjudications public without the law requiring them to? I have never heard of this, even with Bridgewater (who records everything internally). Trying to understand where someone’s expectation comes from.
This decision wasn't made by a company, it was made by an "independent" oversight board. You could expect such an organization to be more transparent to show that they truly are independent.
It's great to have an 'Oversight Board' that does not have to follow any rules and does make decisions arbitrarily.
Definitely in the global trend.
Definitely in the global trend.
Maybe they should just shorten "oversight board" to "overlord".
"We've investigated ourselves, and found there to be no wrongdoing."
> It was established by Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg but operates as an independent entity, although its wages and other costs are covered by Facebook. It is made up of journalists, human rights activists, lawyers and academics.
So professions that are (literally) 90%+ Democrat? Not even just Democrat—the kind of Democrats that thought Biden was old news and covered him as an afterthought until rank and file Democrat voters shattered their illusions. These are people that make up a vastly disproportionate share of Very Online Progressive Twitter that even regular Democrats often have to distance themselves from.
I’m sure this will go over swimmingly in Peoria.
So professions that are (literally) 90%+ Democrat? Not even just Democrat—the kind of Democrats that thought Biden was old news and covered him as an afterthought until rank and file Democrat voters shattered their illusions. These are people that make up a vastly disproportionate share of Very Online Progressive Twitter that even regular Democrats often have to distance themselves from.
I’m sure this will go over swimmingly in Peoria.
The problem I have with FB (and other) moderation policies is platforms who pretend they operate on the basis of rules when they don't. Their rules are a dynamic pretext for a discretion they don't want to own. I would even bet that dyed in the wool Trump supporters wouldn't have a problem with him being banned if it were by people who showed a track record of acting on the basis of a consistent higher order principle other than political expedience and a will to power.
I would argue that neither Zuckerberg nor Dorsey will come out and say GFY to Trump or anyone else because they are too meek and are not personally equipped to be leaders in the things they've created anymore. Appeals to higher principles like safety or whatever are only meaningful from people who actually demonstrate actuation by principle.
They have become mere prime-bureaucrats operating an infrastructure on behalf of their political regulators. "It's complicated," they will say, and worry about the optics of making a judgment call, or their responsibilities to investors and "stakeholders," but really, when their companies ceased to be based on a person doing a thing for someone else at scale, it was not a product anymore, it's just an extractive casino with a governance framework.
The success of HN I think comes down to some simple rules, with a very clear acknowledgement that it is moderator discretion that makes the decisions.
I would argue that neither Zuckerberg nor Dorsey will come out and say GFY to Trump or anyone else because they are too meek and are not personally equipped to be leaders in the things they've created anymore. Appeals to higher principles like safety or whatever are only meaningful from people who actually demonstrate actuation by principle.
They have become mere prime-bureaucrats operating an infrastructure on behalf of their political regulators. "It's complicated," they will say, and worry about the optics of making a judgment call, or their responsibilities to investors and "stakeholders," but really, when their companies ceased to be based on a person doing a thing for someone else at scale, it was not a product anymore, it's just an extractive casino with a governance framework.
The success of HN I think comes down to some simple rules, with a very clear acknowledgement that it is moderator discretion that makes the decisions.
[deleted]
I know people here are (rightly) worried about censorship by Facebook and other social media companies.
The problem is that Trump and other fascists, don't give a shit about being fair or moderate or playing by the rules. Trump and his supporters care about power and control. They will use and abuse the rules in their favor to get as much power as possible.
This is page ONE of the fascist playbook, manipulate the rules to gain an advantage. Trump does not deserve to be treated like an honest part of the political landscape, he deserves to be banished from public office and thrown in jail for his many crimes.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you let people outright lie about things that are clearly the opposite. There is almost zero evidence of election fraud, yet Trump continues to lie about it every chance he gets. Trump wanted to steal the election and then tried to stage a coup when it didn't happen.
His citizenship should be revoked.
The problem is that Trump and other fascists, don't give a shit about being fair or moderate or playing by the rules. Trump and his supporters care about power and control. They will use and abuse the rules in their favor to get as much power as possible.
This is page ONE of the fascist playbook, manipulate the rules to gain an advantage. Trump does not deserve to be treated like an honest part of the political landscape, he deserves to be banished from public office and thrown in jail for his many crimes.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you let people outright lie about things that are clearly the opposite. There is almost zero evidence of election fraud, yet Trump continues to lie about it every chance he gets. Trump wanted to steal the election and then tried to stage a coup when it didn't happen.
His citizenship should be revoked.
Makes sense... levying war against Congress wasn't a good look.
So the ball is in Zuckerberg's court now and he will wait until the 2022 elections to bring his buddy back on. I am sure the Rs are going to win the house and senate and so Zuck we be emboldened again.
Shocker
Trump started his own website yesterday. Its basically a blog where you can share the post onto other platforms like facebook and twitter.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk
interestingly the site runs on nucleous which in turn sits on aws
So is aws going to be pressured to ban him now? I think aws banned parlor before. So this is not really going to be much of barrier to deplatform Trump again. Assuming he will be running for office again.
Yes and they will. Big tech and the DNC are tightly coupled. If he doesn't like it he can build his own data centers, but they can still refuse to serve him at the DDOS protection tools, the DNS servers and even the browser. Edge, Chrome and Firefox are all run by DNC cohorts. If they really wanted to unperson him nothing would stop it.
> So this is not really going to be much of barrier to deplatform Trump again. Assuming he will be running for office again.
The millisecond that he officially announces that he will be running again, GoDaddy will strip the domain, AWS will terminate his account and the banks will find and block any accounts used to fund his campaign.
At that point, they will appreciate using free software, cryptocurrencies, decentralised finance (DeFi) and self-hosting your own services.
The millisecond that he officially announces that he will be running again, GoDaddy will strip the domain, AWS will terminate his account and the banks will find and block any accounts used to fund his campaign.
At that point, they will appreciate using free software, cryptocurrencies, decentralised finance (DeFi) and self-hosting your own services.
> Its basically a blog where you can share the post onto other platforms like facebook and twitter.
They'll start blocking it straight away since he's part of the lost and banned. Even worse, the career activists will probably contact and pressurise GoDaddy to suspend the domain because Trump, and that's that.
Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are essentially the problem in the first place. Giving oxygen to mutants on the platform, amplifying their message to enrage, radicalise and manipulate others in these echo chambers to become somewhat emotionally unstable and believe anything they see on the internet.
With them here, it's become even easier to do this and an endless game of whack-a-mole moderation that no one wants to deal with.
Trump isn't the last to be thrown into the lost and banned, but I won't be surprised to see a higher profile official to have the same treatment.
Then I'll see how everyone reacts to it.
They'll start blocking it straight away since he's part of the lost and banned. Even worse, the career activists will probably contact and pressurise GoDaddy to suspend the domain because Trump, and that's that.
Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are essentially the problem in the first place. Giving oxygen to mutants on the platform, amplifying their message to enrage, radicalise and manipulate others in these echo chambers to become somewhat emotionally unstable and believe anything they see on the internet.
With them here, it's become even easier to do this and an endless game of whack-a-mole moderation that no one wants to deal with.
Trump isn't the last to be thrown into the lost and banned, but I won't be surprised to see a higher profile official to have the same treatment.
Then I'll see how everyone reacts to it.
"higher profile official"...? Higher profile than Trump was when he was banned? I don't think that's possible...
rblion(1)
Tycho(1)
king_magic(1)
wonder how this is going to play out if Trump decides to run again and more states adopt Florida style regulations against banning political candidates
Such regulations are flagrantly violating First Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom from compelled speech.
The white elephant in the room here is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If that was to be repealed things like the possibility of being liable for defamation on the site would level the playing field.
The way it currently is, there is not a check and balance in the system and it has allowed one side to gain a lot more power which is a bad thing. While those on that side feel they are on the "right" side, that power imbalance has corrupted that side like any form of absolute power tends to do.
The way it currently is, there is not a check and balance in the system and it has allowed one side to gain a lot more power which is a bad thing. While those on that side feel they are on the "right" side, that power imbalance has corrupted that side like any form of absolute power tends to do.
> If that was to be repealed things like the possibility of being liable for defamation on the site would level the playing field.
Giving the platforms still more reasons to ban people they deem liabilities? Not sure what your argument is.
Giving the platforms still more reasons to ban people they deem liabilities? Not sure what your argument is.
Is it unconstitutional for the government to tell tobacco companies they can't advertise to children?
There are laws that the phone company can't discriminate who can use their service. Is that unconstitutional too?
People have had very broad interpretations for what constitutes corporate first amendment protections recently.
There are laws that the phone company can't discriminate who can use their service. Is that unconstitutional too?
People have had very broad interpretations for what constitutes corporate first amendment protections recently.
I agree that they are unconstitutional, but public accommodation laws are theoretically unconstitutional in the same way, by the same amendment, and provide precedent. So their flagrancy is no guarantee that they will be overruled.
Here's a current Supreme Court justice making that argument:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_32...
“Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation. Although definitions between jurisdictions vary, a company ordinarily is a place of public accommodation if it provides ‘lodging, food, entertainment, or other services to the public … in general ... Twitter and other digital platforms bear resemblance to that definition.” -- Clarence Thomas
Here's a current Supreme Court justice making that argument:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_32...
“Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation. Although definitions between jurisdictions vary, a company ordinarily is a place of public accommodation if it provides ‘lodging, food, entertainment, or other services to the public … in general ... Twitter and other digital platforms bear resemblance to that definition.” -- Clarence Thomas
And Clarence Thomas also believes that the doctrine of incorporation is incorrect, so the Bill of Rights doesn't actually encumber state or local governments in any way. The other 8 justices on the Supreme Court and pretty much the rest of the legal profession disagrees. Note that no other justice signed onto Thomas's opinion here.
Even if you were to agree with his opinion in full, you'd still find these state laws to be in violation, since they would be preempted by §230 in federal law, and the Constitution affirms that federal law supersedes state law wherever the two conflict.
Even if you were to agree with his opinion in full, you'd still find these state laws to be in violation, since they would be preempted by §230 in federal law, and the Constitution affirms that federal law supersedes state law wherever the two conflict.
Depends if you see organizations as persons with rights or not. I'd hardly say that anyone's rights were trampled on if an "association" with almost 3 billion people sharing content like Facebook is regulated a bit.
as far as I know these regulations have not been legally contested
I expect those regulations to be found unconstitutional.
Florida doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in court.
They will let Trump back on and breathe a big sigh of relief because now it's out of their hands.
or pay the fines to make political statement. Going to get interesting
I wonder if I am getting downvoted by the FB oversight board :)
I'll bite, I down voted because you seem excited about the inevitable clash between laws that are almost certainly unconstitutional/ill conceived/partisan, and social media companies.
It seems like a gigantic waste of time, at best, to try and enact and enforce those laws. Also, it's going to open a gnarly can of worms when someone weaponizes them by running for office to get themselves unbanned from a platform.
It seems like a gigantic waste of time, at best, to try and enact and enforce those laws. Also, it's going to open a gnarly can of worms when someone weaponizes them by running for office to get themselves unbanned from a platform.
One could argue that the spirit of the first amendment is being violated given a) digital speech is the most(only) form of speech that matters today, and b) digital speech is monopolized. However, to me personally, the most interesting aspect of this whole thing is what will happen next
It is instructive to remember that the first five words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law"
IMHO, the first five words make no sense without rest of the sentence. It is like Knuth quote about "root of all evil".
"The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
"The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The full text is:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that "abridging the freedom of speech" is preceded by "or", so consequently, "Congress shall make no law" also must apply to "abridging the freedom of speech" or else the sentence makes no grammatical sense. To interpret it as you do would be to violate one of the canons of construction.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that "abridging the freedom of speech" is preceded by "or", so consequently, "Congress shall make no law" also must apply to "abridging the freedom of speech" or else the sentence makes no grammatical sense. To interpret it as you do would be to violate one of the canons of construction.
I pasted it from the US Congress site. Anyway, no matter how you cut it, it does not say Congress shall outsource all freedom of speech decisions to a private monopoly and its highly partisan oversight board.
[deleted]
Has anyone bothered to ask Trump if he wants to get back on Facebook?
Twitter has been doing well since its Trump ban. Facebook probably benefits as well.
Theory: it is more profitable to increase engagement of average users, who want nothing to do with the decline of the working class and the Republican party, than it is to amplify a bunch of extremists (still profitable) who turn others off from the platform.
Theory: it is more profitable to increase engagement of average users, who want nothing to do with the decline of the working class and the Republican party, than it is to amplify a bunch of extremists (still profitable) who turn others off from the platform.
> Twitter has been doing well since its Trump ban.
Really? Not everyone agrees... (might not have anything to do with Trump though)
Twitter stock plunges on user miss and low guidance PUBLISHED THU, APR 29 2021 4:05 PM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/twitter-twtr-earnings-q1-202...
Really? Not everyone agrees... (might not have anything to do with Trump though)
Twitter stock plunges on user miss and low guidance PUBLISHED THU, APR 29 2021 4:05 PM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/twitter-twtr-earnings-q1-202...
> It has ordered Facebook to review the decision and "justify a proportionate response" that is applied to everyone, including ordinary users.
Are they serious? "Ordinary users" cannot mobilize thousands to storm the capital or spread mask propaganda at a massive scale.
The sheer amount of people that can be afected by Trump, the scale of it- warrants extraordinary measures to prevent him.
Are they serious? "Ordinary users" cannot mobilize thousands to storm the capital or spread mask propaganda at a massive scale.
The sheer amount of people that can be afected by Trump, the scale of it- warrants extraordinary measures to prevent him.
> "Ordinary users" cannot mobilize thousands to storm the capital
But he didn't do that. His speech on January 6th explicitly instructs attendees to peacefully march, which you can see in the transcript (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-sav...). Twitter's original blog post announcing their ban did not point at any strong evidence that Trump incited anything either, and instead pointed at vague justifications like his decision not to attend Biden's inauguration (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...).
But he didn't do that. His speech on January 6th explicitly instructs attendees to peacefully march, which you can see in the transcript (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-sav...). Twitter's original blog post announcing their ban did not point at any strong evidence that Trump incited anything either, and instead pointed at vague justifications like his decision not to attend Biden's inauguration (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...).
The only thing I'm really intrigued to know (and so far, we haven't done this yet), is what would we do with say, a new Adolf Hitler? Would FB/Twitter just go "nah - I'm out", how would the "oversight board" handle an edge case of an individual like him? Would he be allowed back on the platform again? Would he have a right to appeal?
I feel it's easy to draw arbitrary lines but Trump was the first such individual to really challenge platforms with his messages (and the consequences thereof).
I feel in our lifetimes we'll see these lines blurred more and more depending on who it is and what the consequences of their words are (such as those that lead to a war/mass deaths).
I feel it's easy to draw arbitrary lines but Trump was the first such individual to really challenge platforms with his messages (and the consequences thereof).
I feel in our lifetimes we'll see these lines blurred more and more depending on who it is and what the consequences of their words are (such as those that lead to a war/mass deaths).
Huh. I didn't even know that Trump was on Facebook, I should get out more.
Looking at this, I don't know what the justification for banning is but like most political decisions I guess you don't want to watch the sausage getting made.
https://m.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/?ref=page_internal&...
Future historians will look back at the brilliance of building near-monopoly platforms by inviting one and all for free, ignoring copyright, doing a build-out at a loss, selling personal information, winner-take-all network effects, and then applying a POV to the whole works. Personally, I'm attracted to this view of the Facebooks of the world:
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/big-tech-has-no-power-at-a...
Looking at this, I don't know what the justification for banning is but like most political decisions I guess you don't want to watch the sausage getting made.
https://m.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/?ref=page_internal&...
Future historians will look back at the brilliance of building near-monopoly platforms by inviting one and all for free, ignoring copyright, doing a build-out at a loss, selling personal information, winner-take-all network effects, and then applying a POV to the whole works. Personally, I'm attracted to this view of the Facebooks of the world:
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/big-tech-has-no-power-at-a...
We should all be terrified and our government should do something. If it’s not too late already.
Zuck funded democratic positions for the election, removed relevant content to the election (hunter Biden laptop, senate intelligence report, etc), then banned the then sitting president.
You can call his statements “incitement” but the context of the statements matter. It’s actually protected 1st amendment speech and he didn’t call for outright violence (to me it appeared to be trying to diffuse the crowd - because he said “remember this day, but go home in peace” - but again not relevant).
we also need to call the riots the summer before burning part of the White House propriety an “insurrection”. Or when the cavanaugh hearing was broken into, etc.
I’m not condoning any of it, the root concern and the point I’m trying to make, is that the government should be defining it, not some committee hand selected by a clearly bias person monitoring and controlling all our thoughts and communication channels.
Zuck funded democratic positions for the election, removed relevant content to the election (hunter Biden laptop, senate intelligence report, etc), then banned the then sitting president.
You can call his statements “incitement” but the context of the statements matter. It’s actually protected 1st amendment speech and he didn’t call for outright violence (to me it appeared to be trying to diffuse the crowd - because he said “remember this day, but go home in peace” - but again not relevant).
we also need to call the riots the summer before burning part of the White House propriety an “insurrection”. Or when the cavanaugh hearing was broken into, etc.
I’m not condoning any of it, the root concern and the point I’m trying to make, is that the government should be defining it, not some committee hand selected by a clearly bias person monitoring and controlling all our thoughts and communication channels.
>We should all be terrified and our government should do something. If it’s not too late already.
Before the hivemind greys you out of existence...
I'd agree that it's a real issue, the more pernicious problem being not censorship but the deep understanding of voters and the ability to (for instance) nudge an election in a desired way, but there's really not much new about this.
Imagine the power that newspaper barons used to have 100 years ago. Practically the only information available to the public, hugely influential in their reach, filled with political bias, the Hearsts of the world could start or stop a war.
People build such incredibly strong internal models, often tribal, atop a mere candyfloss of direct knowledge of a matter that someone will always take advantage of that attack vector. It's as if humans were designed to either be flagellants or part of a conquering army.
Before the hivemind greys you out of existence...
I'd agree that it's a real issue, the more pernicious problem being not censorship but the deep understanding of voters and the ability to (for instance) nudge an election in a desired way, but there's really not much new about this.
Imagine the power that newspaper barons used to have 100 years ago. Practically the only information available to the public, hugely influential in their reach, filled with political bias, the Hearsts of the world could start or stop a war.
People build such incredibly strong internal models, often tribal, atop a mere candyfloss of direct knowledge of a matter that someone will always take advantage of that attack vector. It's as if humans were designed to either be flagellants or part of a conquering army.
This is a bigger charade than a North Korean election.
> "operates as an independent entity, although its wages and other costs are covered by Facebook. It is made up of journalists, human rights activists, lawyers and academics"
Not sure how one can be independent and yet get a salary. They're basically no different from regular employees.
Not sure how one can be independent and yet get a salary. They're basically no different from regular employees.
Depending on how it is set up, I could see them being considered independent. If Facebook set aside the money and legally sheltered it from their own influence via a trust or something, then that could be considered fairly independent.
"Facebook established an irrevocable trust with $130 million in initial funding, expected to cover operational costs for over half a decade." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversight_Board_(Facebook)
The way I read that is that they have to please Facebook if they don't want to get fired in 5 years.
Given that the board is made up of people that much better jobs than being on the FB oversight board, I don't think that losing this side gig is a particular incentive for them to deciate from theor standard ethics.
Or seek alternate funding.
"This Facebook Oversight Board decision is sponsored by Parler."
"This Facebook Oversight Board decision is sponsored by Parler."
While I get what you're saying, it's also a pretty cynical view of things especially if they're quasi-independent. People can make ethical judgements independent of (especially) a non-full-time paycheck.
Of course, despite being employed by a giant corp myself, i'd like to think that i'm not completely amoral :)
But I have become very cynical of any sort of corporate gymnastics done in order to justify their actions.
A future where corporations are self governing is not something we should support IMO.
But I have become very cynical of any sort of corporate gymnastics done in order to justify their actions.
A future where corporations are self governing is not something we should support IMO.
Regular employees can be fired selectively.
The group's recommendation that Facebook add even more rules than it already has to its moderation flowchart is a waste of time because — again — there is no such thing as objectively fair moderation.
FB should hire people who share its values and goals and entrust them to moderate as they see fit.
As I see it, there are only three good explanations for banning users or removing content: (1) "we think this is illegal" (2) "we just don't like seeing this kind of thing on our servers", or (3) "we just think the kind of users we want to attract don't like seeing this on our servers."
You can't argue with those explanations because they're honest. If an online forum wants to remove a photo of a turd, they shouldn't have to do philosophical soul-searching to explain what they don't like about turd photos, or spell out an exact heuristic they will use to identify a turd.