Facebook & Instagram ban extremist accounts

[BigRedBuster]

4 hours ago, sho said:

 

No one is taking away their right to say things, they can still say these things.  They are just taking away a platform.  Taking that platform away isn't a violation.

I know that. I’m not saying their lawsuit would be valid. 

[Landlord]

20 hours ago, knapplc said:

I disagree. Every opinion doesn't have a right to be heard

 

Okay what would you say if a big tech company made an incredible device implant that let you speak in other languages and such, but they were not under government oversight. They grew to the point of inflection that 90% of citizens had them implanted.  But they had it in their terms of service that they could turn your voice off at any point in time if you said hate speech. A private organization has monopolized free speech through voluntary signup yet broke no laws in doing so and has rendered the Constitution useless.

 

 

20 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I understand, and I think you're right to be cautious. But there are many places where these people can still disseminate their information, places that won't kick them out. They're free to pick one and get the word out to their audience.

 

I mean besides the argument of how powerful these platforms are, there's also an argument that when you kick "them" off, it causes them to go onto alternative platforms, become even more isolated and even more radicalized. 

 

 

20 hours ago, funhusker said:

This is nothing more than the bar asking the drunk butthead to leave.  

 

This is something way more than that. 

 

 

 

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

Okay what would you say if a big tech company made an incredible device implant that let you speak in other languages and such, but they were not under government oversight. They grew to the point of inflection that 90% of citizens had them implanted.  But they had it in their terms of service that they could turn your voice off at any point in time if you said hate speech. A private organization has monopolized free speech through voluntary signup yet broke no laws in doing so and has rendered the Constitution useless.

 

That, again, every opinion does not have a right to be heard. Those opinions can still be expressed, but that tech company is under no obligation to provide that person with a platform for their hate speech. 

 

All speech is not created equal, and should not have equal rights. Speech that is dangerous should not be afforded the same protection as gardening advice or random shower thoughts.

 

By forcing this imaginary implant tech company to foster such speech, you're forcing their users to exist in a scenario where they may be exposed, further spreading radicalization.  If the trade off of banning such speech is that some otherwise innocent person is not radicalized, I'm 100% fine with that.

 

There is no fair scenario here. Something unfair will have to happen in this situation. When we err, we should err on the side of removing things from those who would do others harm.

 

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That, again, every opinion does not have a right to be heard. Those opinions can still be expressed, but that tech company is under no obligation to provide that person with a platform for their hate speech. 

 

All speech is not created equal, and should not have equal rights. Speech that is dangerous should not be afforded the same protection as gardening advice or random shower thoughts.

 

By forcing this imaginary implant tech company to foster such speech, you're forcing their users to exist in a scenario where they may be exposed, further spreading radicalization.  If the trade off of banning such speech is that some otherwise innocent person is not radicalized, I'm 100% fine with that.

 

There is no fair scenario here. Something unfair will have to happen in this situation. When we err, we should err on the side of removing things from those who would do others harm.

 

Here's a problem with your argument: who determines what is "dangerous" or "harmful" speech? You're making an assumption of honest actors controlling those definitions, but history shows us repeatedly that those definitions will certainly be stretched and redefined to suit those in power. Just look at the Supreme Court's decisions around money in politics to see modern examples of stretching "person" to include corporations.

 

You're also assuming that not exposing people to certain speech will result in some not becoming radicalized and there being no other side effects or consequences. There's also the problem that there will be no voices against such speech because there will be no debate, no analysis, and no alternative ideas.

 

My view matches that of a judge in a recent ruling in a federal court against anti-BDS laws:

 

Quote

At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.

Quote

The statute threatens ‘to suppress unpopular ideas’ and ‘manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.’ This the First Amendment does not allow.

 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Here's a problem with your argument: who determines what is "dangerous" or "harmful" speech? You're making an assumption of honest actors controlling those definitions, but history shows us repeatedly that those definitions will certainly be stretched and redefined to suit those in power. Just look at the Supreme Court's decisions around money in politics to see modern examples of stretching "person" to include corporations. 

 

You're also assuming that not exposing people to certain speech will result in some not becoming radicalized and there being no other side effects or consequences. There's also the problem that there will be no voices against such speech because there will be no debate, no analysis, and no alternative ideas.

 

My view matches that of a judge in a recent ruling in a federal court against anti-BDS laws:

 

 

 

So, you have a bad actor spewing hate speech. This is, objectively, a bad thing that can lead to people being hurt or killed.

 

What's your solution? No impingement on that speech, at all? And that's fair to the victims of people radicalized by that hate speech that you could have, but did not, curb?

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

38 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Here's a problem with your argument: who determines what is "dangerous" or "harmful" speech? You're making an assumption of honest actors controlling those definitions, but history shows us repeatedly that those definitions will certainly be stretched and redefined to suit those in power. Just look at the Supreme Court's decisions around money in politics to see modern examples of stretching "person" to include corporations.

 

You're also assuming that not exposing people to certain speech will result in some not becoming radicalized and there being no other side effects or consequences. There's also the problem that there will be no voices against such speech because there will be no debate, no analysis, and no alternative ideas.

 

My view matches that of a judge in a recent ruling in a federal court against anti-BDS laws:

 

 

 

 

OK....should anyone be allowed to come on Huskerboard and spew whatever crap they want without getting banned or kicked off?

[Landlord]

If you tried to curb it somebody else would get radicalized by the act of you trying to suppress those thoughts. Especially if you ever overstep at all in zealousness. But on the other hand, there are plenty of examples of people being de-radicalized by NOT being booted from platforms where they could have been. Megan Phelps-Roper is a great example. People engaging with her and her hateful bigoted rhetoric on social media was one of the fundamental factors that got her and others out of the Westboro Baptist Church. Under current and upcoming policies by facebook/youtube and others she wouldn't ever have a chance to see any of that.

 

"That, again, every opinion does not have a right to be heard. Those opinions can still be expressed"

 

idk if you believe this as an absolute rule true in all circumstances, but personally i fail to believe in this idea when Evil Corporation X controls all access to info but I can still technically go out into the woods and yell out my thoughts on abortion and gay marriage to nobody. The expression of an opinion is worthless on a deserted island or in a cave of banishment.

[BigRedBuster]

Should it be unconstitutional for the Mods to ban certain posters to this board?

[BigRedBuster]

I never ever EVER have expressed a political opinion on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.

 

Do you think I don't have the ability and place to express my opinions without them?

[FrankWheeler]

What if a billionaire bought up facebook and shut it down and killed public discourse for-EVER!

 

[Landlord]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Should it be unconstitutional for the Mods to ban certain posters to this board?

 

 

Huskerboard is miles and miles away from Facebook in terms of practicality. Huskerboard doesn't have the power or platform or ability to ruin people's careers, to foster or facilitate harassment campaigns, to deny people who it determines are bad actors access to some possibly very integral elements of living life in a social space. Huskerboard also doesn't have foreign investors. 

 

It's just a totally different conversation when you're talking about something that makes billions of dollars and effects billions of people. Facebook's existence is one of the fundamental reasons Donald Trump is now President. That's a massive amount of power that needs proportionate responsibility. There's nothing about unelected people making private decisions about how we consume content with no idea of their motives or reason or method that screams responsibility imo.

 

I know people who have personally been 'cancelled' and doxxed or had their lives inextricably altered by the power of social media platforms. This s#!t is wildly serious and handing them the keys to determine what are or aren't right opinions in culture is something we should be hesitant to do.

[knapplc]

Just now, FrankWheeler said:

What if a billionaire bought up facebook and shut it down and killed public discourse for-EVER!

 

 

OMG we would never be able to talk again. We'd all just sit around staring at the other eleventy-billion social media platforms, unable to communicate.

 

Please dear baby lord zuckerberg never sell the Facebook!

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Huskerboard is miles and miles away from Facebook in terms of practicality. Huskerboard doesn't have the power or platform or ability to ruin people's careers, to foster or facilitate harassment campaigns, to deny people who it determines are bad actors access to some possibly very integral elements of living life in a social space. Huskerboard also doesn't have foreign investors. 

 

It's just a totally different conversation when you're talking about something that makes billions of dollars and effects billions of people. Facebook's existence is one of the fundamental reasons Donald Trump is now President. That's a massive amount of power that needs proportionate responsibility. There's nothing about unelected people making private decisions about how we consume content with no idea of their motives or reason or method that screams responsibility imo.

 

I know people who have personally been 'cancelled' and doxxed or had their lives inextricably altered by the power of social media platforms. This s#!t is wildly serious and handing them the keys to determine what are or aren't right opinions in culture is something we should be hesitant to do.

 

Size of a platform has nothing to do with being unconstitutional.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Huskerboard is miles and miles away from Facebook in terms of practicality. Huskerboard doesn't have the power or platform or ability to ruin people's careers, to foster or facilitate harassment campaigns, to deny people who it determines are bad actors access to some possibly very integral elements of living life in a social space. Huskerboard also doesn't have foreign investors. 

 

It's just a totally different conversation when you're talking about something that makes billions of dollars and effects billions of people. Facebook's existence is one of the fundamental reasons Donald Trump is now President. That's a massive amount of power that needs proportionate responsibility. There's nothing about unelected people making private decisions about how we consume content with no idea of their motives or reason or method that screams responsibility imo.

 

Facebook curbing hate speech leading to a world where Donald Trump was not elected seems like a pretty good idea to me.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Size of a platform has nothing to do with being unconstitutional.

 

Yes. AND, this conversation has nothing to do with the constitution, at least as it pertains to First Amendment rights.

[knapplc]

Just an observation - I thought we were all this liberal group-think hive mind board. What are we doing disagreeing on a topic?