slug.com slug.com

14 12

Thought:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism if you speak something dumb.

jnaatjes 7 Apr 13
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Absolutely! However, if you are pointing out the failures of a 16 year old girl, please package your criticism wisely so it doesnโ€™t make YOU look like the creepy stalker!

Freedom of speech also means exposure to ideas that may appear shocking! Snowflakes who want the right to be heard must understand that BOTH SIDES must enjoy that freedom, not just one! Otherwise, it ainโ€™t free!

1

In fact, it's meant to facilitate that criticism.
Free and open expression is how we air out bad ideas. They should actually be encouraged so they can be examined and dispelled, rather than allowing them to gestate unchallenged and metastasize through underground channels in silence.
The 1st Amendment only protects you from persecution by the government, not from ridicule by your fellow citizens. ๐Ÿ˜€

2

I agree and specific businesses/institutions should be allowed to regulate if they choose, but the government cannot. For example, we are not allowed to swear on television. There is no consistent way to regulate speech based on offense taken, when fines and prison sentences are the governmentโ€™s means of regulation.

1

That is a crucial part of freedom of speech.

3

Freedom of speech flows in both directions. Criticism is an important part of exchange of ideas.

0

The bottom line folks is you have a deep state group that decided they were threatened by this outsider Donald J Trump.couldnt buy him and keepers he really cared of what was happening to his beloved country.lo and behold he wants to end wars by strength,that will never do the lobbyists have to leave town.so media starts a hate campaign against anything Trump.

0

What surprises me Clinton comes to Toronto university to feed the crowd of idgits their lies their left wing philosophy and get paid 100,000 dollars.same people won't allow Ann soul Ted to speak truth.ann coulter.

0

What surprises me Clinton comes to Toronto university to feed the crowd of idgits their lies their left wing philosophy and get paid 100,000 dollars.same people won't allow Ann soul Ted to speak truth.

2

I want to be criticized amiably if I say something dumb.

Better to fight with the words than with the knives.

5

I post to put an argument out there specifically to be criticized. Intelligent criticism refines our arguments. Thatโ€™s a good thing. Freedom from criticism just means Iโ€™m in an echo chamber and wonโ€™t learn anything.

@Sarge45 Easy - I walk away. It's not a debate if both sides aren't participating.

Absolutely! I crave feedback from both my peers and my antagonists. I need data from both sides - not just my bros who might be tempted to be nice to me when Iโ€™m swerving off the road!

1

Ues of course thats true. But critiscism dies not and cannot include the censoring if the other persons speech. Nor dies it include drowning the other person out. Because your right to free speech assums that i also have a right to hear it.

1

The problem is defining what's 'dumb'. Seems like most of the time, it's someone's personal opinion which is taken as fact and immutable truth.

I think allowing ideas to be open to criticism helps us determine which ideas are dumb and which are useful.

3

Like our first and only female Aussie prime minister, Julia Gillard, who decided that any criticism directed at her had its origins in sexism. Anything but face up to or respond to the criticism itself.

Hopefully she gets the punt in your next election she just comes across as to much of leftie apologist to me

1

Fair. I've wondered about that. Wheres the line when criticism becomes an attempt to shut you down? Or, maybe we just need to be braver?

@MADcHATTER, a vote for people being braver? Is there no such thing then as being shut down?

There is a point when I'll stop talking because I hate conflict. It's like the other person buying the pot in poker. The threat is they'll make it awful if you don't shut up.

@MADcHATTER, wow, that sounds rough. I'm sorry you had to grow up in an environment that was volatile and probably unpredictable.

Here's the thing, though, once you agree to that contract of hostility, you've lost any hope of connecting. The violence is obvious, so I'm not really talking about that. But, we become locked into this negative interaction with no hope of resolution. If you don't get your full-on war with your entire arsenal, you get one person pursuing and one withdrawing. Each case leads to division--not connection. At that less interpersonal social level that just means the sides will stop hearing each other and they'll dehumanize each other eventually, and well--that's where we are in America. It's a place where the only option available is violence, and everyone's sort of just waiting for the sign THAT'S next. What's going to spark it? I guess it's at that point we decide whether we're going to add to the problem, try to do something about it, or withdraw.

@MADcHATTER, wow--dire. I've never had to fight for my own life. Such a privilege. I've been at the shooting range shooting wood. I've killed wood. I have no idea how I'd be in an actual combat situation. I hope I never do. I go on trying to save the family by getting people to recognize the place we're in with each other, but half of the country doesn't want to stop being angry. It feeds them. It's like they want the war, without knowing the cost. Odd time.

@MADcHATTER, thank you for giving that to me. There are a lot of meaningful reflections in there. First, a question, does anger ever give you connection to another human being? Now, an observation. Anger is often a secondary emotion for something deeper--a reaction to something that's hurt you--fight, flight, or freeze--that's the fight part. It makes sense with the level of stuff you had to go through that you'd choose to quickly arm yourself for a battle. It's what you learned and what you know, first arrow out of the quiver. Nobody should have to go through that bullshit, and I'm sorry you did. It's not okay. It sounds like you've definitely seen the worst of the world.

Man, I think you're absolutely right about living well. When you live well, you defeat all of the other garbage. You win the game. AND, nobody can take that away from you--nobody. Great observation!

@MADcHATTER, I don't disagree with you about violence--unfortunate.

Two people may have anger in common, and that may bridge the natural distance, but I'm not so sure you connected with anger. It's likely understanding some of each other's experience created a certain safety between you--well, after the fight. You defined the space, drew your boundaries, established the rules for your relationship in the fight. Each of you made it clear violence was on the table. Chose peace in the end. There was a scene like this in The Outlaw Josie Wales. That John Wayne flick too--The Quiet Man. I don't think violence is always bad, but something has really changed in our world that makes two guys elbowing for space UNSAFE. There was a place for a 'safe' fight. Now, somebody's likely to pull a gun or knife and try to kill you. Things have changed. Man, there's probably something really profound in this conversation, and I can't quite put my finger on it...

@MADcHATTER, laughing at that last line. Funny.

Great discussion, guys. It made for an insightful read.

As to your initial question, there's two different angles by which we can approach this issue, and I think conflating the two often leads to communication breakdowns when discussing free speech. The first discussion involves what should be legal, the second involves determining standards we ought to hold ourselves to if we want to maintain a functioning society.

So first question... what should be legal (or illegal)? I think we have to remember that no right extends to the point of violating someone else's rights. So you do not have a legal right to keep your job if you're hurting your company's image, you don't have a legal right to use a private company's online platform, and you don't have a legal right to not be harshly and publically criticized for your opinions. None of these things violate the first amendment. Indeed, if we claimed they did, we'd be violating the rights of the other party... companies have a right to make hiring and firing decisions as they see fit, social media sites have a right to decide what is on their platform, and individuals have a right to use their speech to criticize yours.

You do, however, have a right to not be harassed... so criticism cannot legally be allowed to enter into areas of harassment or explicit calls for violence.

As for what actually violates your first amendment rights... the only thing that should count is if the government silences voices through legilation or some other executive action (like using law enforcement). Anything short of this, in my view, does not violate the first amendment.

But that brings us to the second question... what standards ought we to hold ourselves to if we want to maintain a functioning society? Or, we might ask, what maintains the spirit of free speech and open debate?

That's a hard question to answer because there's lots of nuance in every situation. But I'll give a few examples to hopefully illustrate my view...

Twitter should, again, be allowed to do what they want, but I think it's a bad idea to censor anyone unless they are a) purposefully and relentlessly harassing someone, or b) directly threatening a person's physical safety. Everything else should be fair game.

The NFL, or Google, can do what they want, but it's a bad idea to fire someone unless they feel he or she is hurting their business.

And when we personally engage in conversation with each other, we can be as stupid, hostile, and uncivil as we want (again, without harassing or threatening), but doing so is a poor use of our freedom of speech. We're allowed to shut people down, but we shouldn't. We have to take personal responsibility to foster genuine discussion between opposing views so we can properly work through the complex problems that face society.

@jnaatjes, good contribution.

A question I have is about how to administer a site like this. Most agree Twitter and Facebook do a pretty terrible job. The wild west does NOT foster free and open discussion better than moderation. Pros and cons each way. I've done it. My experience is it's virtually impossible. So, what do we do? I've simultaneously argued for kindness and resilience in that position. I think we can make things better by being kinder and having thicker skins (slower to anger). But, in practice it's never really worked.

Per Facebook and Twitter, which are clearly progressive/far left, there just is no competition. Conservatives have no way to vote with their patronage--except to opt out entirely and be forced out of a product half of the country values immensely. Not until every conservative leaves will Facebook and twitter pay attention--maybe not even then. But, that would leave the door open for some company to serve both sides in a reasonable way, since you can't 'keep up with family and friends' on a platform you don't frequent.

We want Facebook and Twitter to be socially responsible. But, they have no obligation to care, and they've shown they don't care. The problem isn't as easy to solve as the disgruntled make it sound, and I've seen no viable ideas on ways to fix the problems.

@chuckpo It's a difficult problem.

It reminds of the idea that democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the rest.

If I were running Facebook, my solution would be to leave the discussions as free from censorship as possible while still protecting people's physical safety.

If I were a legislator, I would leave social media alone to determine their own future.

This would not make things perfect, but I don't think that's possible. Freedom is always messy, and it's a decidedly non-utopian stance to take. It's an acknowledgement that things will not go perfect and bad things will happen, but we're far more likely to make things worse by intervening. And if left free, society will slowly trend toward something good. The free market, I think, will eventually replace Facebook and Twitter, as long as the Governmnet doesn't step in and make them too powerful to fail.

@jnaatjes @chuckpo @madchatter

Some people argue for social media sites to monitor and remove certain speech, but social media has no authority or responsibility to do so ... even if it were actual crime (inciting violence, conspiracy to commit ____, etc). We literally have an entire branch of government for that.

The problem is: once social mediabegins to try and control what is allowed on their platform, they cease to be a provider (providing a service like a phone company), and they become a publisher, responsible for all content on their platform (and liable for it, too). <this concept shamelessly stolen from Ben Shapiro>

Facebook, et al., want it both ways - they want to control what's on their platform, yet not be liable for what's on their platform. And when they allow some people to use their platform to discuss politics, gender issues, etc, while banning other people for doing so ... they literally are infringing on people's freedom of speech. Mark Zuckerberg recently asked for government to control internet content: [bbc.com]

I wholeheartedly believe in the free market, and it seems IDW is trying to fill the existing gap of being a place where people can discuss any side of an issue without being censored. But I shudder to think of a day when American government begins regulating free speech online, like the U.K. is already doing.

@chuckpo said "Wheres the line when criticism becomes an attempt to shut you down?"

There is a difference between criticizing, and attempting to shut down. Namely, criticism is protected as free speech, while attempting to shut down somebody else's free speech is a violation of constitutional rights.

@jneedler I actually think social media platforms do have the right to do so because the platform is their property. I don't think there's a first amendment issue there.

The issue though, as you point out, is them opening themselves up to liability for copywrite violations and libel.

That's one of the reasons why I think they're making a mistake, and I do think they should consequently be held to that standard of a publisher.

So again, I think where I differ from your opinion is I don't think it's a first amendment violation, there's just other legal complications involved.

There are different facets to the conversation. One is the legal implications for sure. But, there are other important considerations. IF this site, for example, allowed extreme right, extreme left, extreme religious, extreme atheism (drilling down), What would happen to the site. My contention is it would die first by discouraging visitors from joining a crapshow. The, with refreshing the pool extinguished, and the crapshow crescendos, regulars start dropping off. The life is choked out. I haven't seen a bloodsport site prosper--some sports sites can get pretty aggressive, but a broad political site? I mean, this site started for a reason--the void in the marketplace for such sites.

Anyway, just throwing another log on the fire.

@jnaatjes The "private property" issue certainly is an important one, and I absolutely don't want to see property rights trampled (I think property rights are perhaps even more important than, say, right to free speech).

(I'm going to paint in some very broad strokes here. Take it all as one big generalization)

However, I don't know that property rights are applicable here:

  • They offer a free service, open to anyone who meets their signup criteria.
  • They allow us to post on their platform.
  • They allow others to post political ideologies they agree with on the platform.
  • They don't allow us to post political ideologies they disagree with.

Honestly, I don't want to force companies, even social media, to do anything - I'm a huge believer in free markets. But why is it so hard to have some places (social media) that we can get together and discuss ideas without being shouted down by the left?

@chuckpo That's a valid point, and partly why I'm so concerned about IDW getting it right. I don't want to see the Left exercise a heckler's veto, as they are attempting to do on so many campuses right now, and shut down what is currently our best avenue for serious discussions of ideologies.

@jneedler, man I'm with you in spirit. Though, I had an exchange with the far right here today that felt pretty much like those encounters with the left. Just called me different names--original. Anyway, I've been thinking about exactly this. What do you think?

What if the problem wasn't facebook (whichever platform) as much as it was us trying to make facebook serve us when it was never intended to? We want those features. But, those features come with a leftist twist. THAT'S the product. We say, no. We want you to include us--open up your policies to include us or we'll be mad and sue and stuff. Facebook is culpable because they didn't know who they were and they tried to accommodate us. They're creating this product on the fly. But, what is the product, and how much can we demand they make the product the way we want it? It's not facebook's fault nobody set out to compete with them, only targeting conservatives. I saw some little site try, but haven't heard a word about it. BUT, what good is it if you can't connect with half of your family or friends or whatever? Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting direction to think about it in terms of being our fault instead of facebook. They don't owe us their product. That's a leftist idea, right?

@chuckpo Totally agree that they don't owe us their product. But here's the thing: they aren't trying to prevent us from using the product (the platform) ... they just want to control how we use it.

We aren't asking them to modify anything, or make any changes, or even produce more product. All we ask is that they quit censoring our use, based on their political ideology.

They are the ones trying to control us, not the other way around.

It'd be much simpler if they outright denied service. Part of the signup process could be a list of questions:

  • Did you vote for Trump?
  • Do you believe males and females have differences?
  • Etc

If they just flat out denied service, that would be much clearer. What they're trying to do is much sneakier, and much more Orwellian ... they're trying to control public opinion by dictating which ideas are acceptable. Do we want thoughtcrime? Because this is how we get thoughtcrime.

@chuckpo great points. I too have had multiple arguments with people on the "far right" on this site (holocost deniers, white nationalists, and such). And I agree... they're just as annoying and just as boring as the far left.

Your post reminded me of something I've been mulling over... Facebook is a good example of what the left has that the right doesn't... Facebook is much more than a platform to discuss serious ideas (in fact, that's probably its worst use). It's also a place full of funny cat videos, pictures of your friends' kids, etc... it's entertainment. It's not just politics. The left basically has a monopoly on entertainment, which means they influence the culture in ways the right never will as long as we remain so culturally inept.

In the past, this has been hard to overcome because most conservatives, by nature, are not very creative. But as the left becomes increasingly authoritarian and robotic, hopefully it will drive a lot of more classic liberals to join the "right."

Or maybe conservatives can loosen up a bit and pull the pole outta their butts. Tim Allen and Ron Swanson can't be the lone, outspoken conservatives who are actually funny and likable (especially since one of them is fictional). If people like Rush Limbaugh are all we have to offer, we'll continue to influence politics, but will have an uphill battle because we'll be losing the culture war. And culture is upstream of politics.

@jnaatjes, great post. And, I wonder if somewhere there are a group of conservatives thinking about this issue. Is there no conservative out there with the ability to recreate facebook and twitter? Then, maybe down the line, there could be some kind of crossover to weld the sites where they can be welded--maybe another level of sophistication.

Do conservatives lack innovation/ creativity?

@chuckpo @jnaatjes I don't think conservatives lack creativity, or even humor. I think that conservatives have different priorities than progressives, and generally choose different occupations - just like males and females statistically choose different occupations. I believe his accounts for the big discrepancy we see in political ideology among both entertainers, and educators .... and yes, it has a disproportionate impact on our culture and our youth.

I don't think a "conservative Facebook" would be successful, since conservatives, liberals, and centrists each comprise roughly 33% of the market share. The next big social media needs to have some function that makes it competitive with Facebook across all ideologies. The big question, will its creators also choose to censor conservative view points?

I also have a pet theory that progressives tend to be more vocal and outspoken than conservatives, but that's probably best left for another thread.

@jneedler, I agree the left is much louder--at least the activist left. But, honestly, I haven't run into many moderately left these days. I really search. I sort of need the moderate left to exist, and I'm not sure they do in number anymore. I could go on forever about my experiences with the left--formerly good, reasonable people who sincerely believe their feelings are all that's needed to justify their bigotry. I listened to one sweet gal tell me how she knew Kavanaugh was everything bad they said about him because she just felt it in her heart. I told her how I felt in my heart this was all a political assassination, and she was dumbfounded--literally. First, she never considered I could be different from her. She knew me as a good person who cares and assumed that meant I must be in her group--safe. That's the lens from which those people view the world. She had to balance what she felt with who she knows me to be. I could see the discomfort as she tried to put the two together. She never considered the possibility she could be wrong. This sweet person would have lit the fire to burn Kavanaugh ONLY because of what she felt in her heart--yikes. Interestingly, one of us is clearly wrong about Kavanaugh. I think it's her, hahaha. I actually felt like Blasey-Ford was a political operative and nothing like that happened to her. Our side is just too afraid to say that, so we go with the 'clearly something happened to her, but it wasn't Kavanaugh' psychobabble. Just cowardice, in my opinion.

Anyway, I think that comment addresses your last statement.

On the other, the biggest question I walk away with is can a platform serve all? I'm not convinced it can. A few people want to completely open it--kkk and antifa and all of it. A few people strongly want to NOT open it to all. Which side is right? Must a Muslim site serve Southern Baptists? Should a car site serve tennis lovers (that pun was intended)?

I'm not convinced this site can survive the bloodsport and legitimize marginalization, because those things bring other negatives with them. Let's be honest, the people on the edges bring hostility and a strongly combative discussion style. It seems like the further you go out on the continuum at either end, the angrier and more personal the conversation gets. It's too combustible, and a lot of the 'reasonable' people more in the middle will leave. Eventually, you have polarization with the two groups just beating the crap out of each other--like facebook. I mean, no site that has ever tried to do this has succeeded. Facebook lops off one side's extreme and moderates a chunk of what's left, and it's still a shitshow. I think it's made it this long because of the cat picture/funniest home videos content--stuff that isn't political AND the access it provides to distant family and friends. Take that part of facebook away and what happens?

Why do conservatives feel the need to force their way into facebook when it's obvious they're not wanted? We want to force our way in and demand they make it like we want it. There's nowhere else to go. If you want donuts, but the people at donut-store-A are assholes, you go to donut-store-B. Our choice with facebook and twitter is to participate shackled or quit.

What you describe is why we're all better together--socially and politically. The trick is finding a way to coexist. It's not easy, and the other side has the option of not wanting you around. That seems to be the case. From my perspective, it looks like the reasonable right mostly panders to the left with puppy-dog-eyes. And, the left mostly just wants a divorce. They don't want anything to do with us. Period. When that's the case with couples--when it's gotten to that level, it usually results in divorce.

@chuckpo Some interesting points.

You said again that "We [conservatives] want to ... demand they make it [Facebook] like we want it." That is untrue. We don't want them to change it, we just want the freedom to say what we think, the same as freedom Facebook gives to users they agree with ideologically.

Facebook is a communication platform, and can be used to communicate anything: from cat videos to political and philosophical concepts. Facebook allows political and philosophical ideals .... just not ones they disagree with.

It would be different if it were a forum for a specific topic(s). A car site has every right to exclude ALL other conversation, tennis included. But would it be right for them to allow people to advocate for clay tennis courts, while denying people the ability to advocate for grass tennis courts? Because that's what Facebook is doing: they permit people to discuss a subject .... as long as they find your views 'acceptable.' That's the part where they are denying freedom of speech.

@jneedler

You said again that "We [conservatives] want to ... demand they make it [Facebook] like we want it." That is untrue. We don't want them to change it, we just want the freedom to say what we think, the same as freedom Facebook gives to users they agree with ideologically.

Would you agree that you currently don't have the freedom to say what you think? If so, how is you don't want them to change it? You're not asking the DNC to change their platform to include us. Why?

Facebook is a communication platform, and can be used to communicate anything: from cat videos to political and philosophical concepts. Facebook allows political and philosophical ideals .... just not ones they disagree with.

Agreed.

It would be different if it were a forum for a specific topic(s). A car site has every right to exclude ALL other conversation, tennis included. But would it be right for them to allow people to advocate for clay tennis courts, while denying people the ability to advocate for grass tennis courts? Because that's what Facebook is doing: they permit people to discuss a subject .... as long as they find your views 'acceptable.' That's the part where they are denying freedom of speech.

But, that's the product. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. That's the way the free market works. I think if we want something different, we have to argue that Facebook is something more than a product--something that becomes so intrinsic to all of social life that we have the right to influence directly what it looks like. We only have a say if it's more than a product in the market. Product, we have no rights. Something more than a product, maybe we have rights? I mean, I don't know how we'd argue that. It's worth thinking about. But, that may be what's being played out. Facebook got so big and so interwoven into who we are, it's no longer a product that can be treated like any other product.

Really a fascinating conversation. I'm eager to read your response to this idea.

@chuckpo said "You're not asking the DNC to change their platform to include us. Why?"

Because the DNC is an organization with belief system. Facebook is a communication tool, not an organization.


Again, you asked if "we have the right to influence directly what it looks like" - but that's not what we're trying to do. So, again: we're not asking Facebook to create new widgets, or design new code, etc. We're just asking Facebook to quit deleting our words based on the grounds that Facebook execs disagree with them. We just want the freedom to use the tool without being censored, and we paid the same price that everyone else paid to use the tool.


Chuckpo: "But, that's the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it."

The product is literally a tool for communication, the same as a bullhorn. Do the makers of a bullhorn get to decide what you're allowed to say once you purchase the bullhorn? Can automobile makers, using OnStar technology, turn your car off if you ask for directions to the nearest Chik-Fil-A, just because they don't agree with Chik-Fil-A?

What if Microsoft said: "Democrats can use our software, but we're going to delete some files created by Republicans, even though they are authorized to use our software." Would that be acceptable? Because that's a pretty close analogy to what Facebook is doing.


And yes, I'm thoroughly enjoying the ideas and questions brought forth in this discussion.

@jneedler, okay, I think I see where we're missing in the discussion. What is the product? We have different ideas on what the product is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think or I think. Facebook gets to decide what they are and who they market to. Facebook has implicitly made it obvious that a particular ideology IS part of their product. I don't see how to get around that. Facebook doesn't reach into our lives and turn off our voices. They simply dictate what their product is. You don't have a right to post on facebook. You don't have a right to use their product. When you buy a car, the seller hands over all rights and responsibilities to you. You own the car. We don't own facebook--ever. We have no ownership in it. We're granted use. That's it. Facebook continues to own every part of facebook.

Let's not forget along the way, you and I feel exactly the same way about facebook and twitter, as people with other-than-leftist-views. I feel restricted and 'marginalized' by their policies. I just think in some ways 'our side' looks at it wrong BECAUSE we don't like it that we have no alternatives or we're the ones who are on the down side of the policy. But, we may be the ones thinking wrongly about this. There are many millions of people who are completely satisfied with that product. I'm not. Is that a statement about me or the product?

@chuckpo Hmm, interesting point. Wouldn't you agree that by accepting us as users, Facebook gave us permission to use the platform? I don't remember any part of the EULA stating "you may post political views, so long as they agree with Mark Zuckerberg's leftist views."

And honestly, I rarely look to "what other people think" when trying to determine what is right. Far too many people have participated in, or stood by and watched evil and wrongdoing be inflicted on innocent victims. Public opinion doesn't make something morally right; morality makes something right.

I appreciate that you and I have some common beliefs, and I especially appreciate that you and I can have a civil discussion even when we clearly disagree.

I'd like to ask you two questions:

  1. You asked "What is the product?" I'm curious: what do you think is the product?
  2. Look back at my Microsoft analogy. How is it different from what Facebook is doing?

@jneedler, 1) I think the product is exactly what it is. It's the features and the policies--however they set them up. Just like here. This site may ultimately allow any kind of speech, and I prefer a little decorum. The site is the site. The site doesn't owe me anything because they agreed to take me. 2) I actually think you set the Microsoft analogy a little differently. Geez, I haven't read the EULA. Do you actually read those things? Hahaha...They're altering the features based on group membership. I have to think more about this being analogous to what facebook does. They're really different, since Microsoft doesn't have that ideological element to it.

And, yes--this is like the perfect discussion to me. Tease out the differences--and hopefully learn something together. I don't have all of the answers. I'm working on it.

@chuckpo I think we might be getting close to finding the heart of our disagreement here, which is usually where things get more difficult. (We also might be in the running for the longest comment thread on this site! ๐Ÿ˜‰ )

You have said a few times that we (meaning: conservatives who want to be able to post ideas that Facebook doesn't approve of) want Facebook to "change". Can you specify what we want them to change? Because I don't see it as wanting them to "change" their product at all. I do expect a rapist to 'change' their behavior, but I'm pretty confident that I'm morally right on that one. How is expecting a group to 'change' their violation of my constitutional right to free speech any different?

Also, I think your question of "what is the product?" is probably relevant here. My view is that WE are the product Facebook is selling. They make money from two main streams: selling ads (so, selling access to users), and selling data about their users. The rest of it is just "overhead" they have to maintain in order to attract users, who they can then profit from: the website, the app, Messenger, the widgets, etc. You said "the product is the features and the policies," which seems to me to be patently wrong. If the things they sell (ads, and user data) aren't the product, please share why you believe that.

I think the Microsoft analogy is pretty accurate. I'm open to the possibility that it is an inaccurate analogy, but somebody is going to have to make a case for that because I'm not seeing it.

You claim it's different because "Microsoft doesn't have that ideological element to it." Do Facebook's incorporation papers include an 'ideological element'? My guess is no. I suspect that the ideological censorship that Facebook engages in is not specified in any of their legal, or official procedures ... its just discrimination that they've been allowed to get away with. And since shareholders technically "own" Facebook, should a handful of executives be pushing ideological censorship when it stems from personal viewpoints, rather than official Facebook policy?

Until Facebook makes it official company policy to promote progressive ideology so that users and shareholders alike know what they are signing on for, then their discriminatory censorship of speech is unconstitutional. If the DNC (or the RNC) developed a communication tool to promote their ideology, they can ban whatever they like. But Facebook claims to be apolitical ... while consistently banning only one side of a conversation.

P.S. - we keep specifying Facebook, but I feel the exact same way about Twitter, or any communication platform that denies people's free speech because the company disagrees ideologically with what is being communicated. My impression is that Twitter is actually way worse than Facebook ... but I'm not on Twitter. Full disclosure: I've never been banned from Facebook.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:30508
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.