Is it hypocritical for free speech advocates to moderate comments on their own site?

[anon34697667]

[anon34697667]

[OtherMichael]

@Skeptic

massive custom infrastructure required to make FB work on the scale it does.

FB started out on a dorm-room desktop computer.

The next FB will be on Heroku or AWS or summat.

[Skeptic]

@OtherMichael

FB started out on a dorm-room desktop computer.

And humans evolved from single celled organisms, doesn’t mean you’ll be able to evolve your own human equivalent. FB’s growth, capitalization and infrastructure are literally exceptional. And it takes more than having an AWS account to make FB happen.

[Melizmatic]

A flounce/side-eye combo; nice.

[anon50565130]

@gatto

it’s also interesting in that users are already “protected” on facebook in a way that doesn’t seem to require invasive moderation.

Lawyer Suing Facebook Scoffs at Purportedly Fruitful Anti-Incitement Meeting...

I totally agree with the fifth paragraph from the end.

[LearnedCoward]

I think these are appropriate:

Holy Christ is this wankstorm still going on?!?

[bibliophile20]

@LearnedCoward

Holy Christ is this wankstorm still going on?!?

Nah, @umm got a two week timeout for increasing the moderation load. So I’m sure the thread will trail off and then be rezzed in two weeks when they’re back.

[Melizmatic]

@bibliophile20

@LearnedCoward

Holy Christ is this wankstorm still going on?!?

I’m sure the thread will trail off and then be rezzed in two weeks

s/

[gatto]

@ianamal

Lawyer Suing Facebook Scoffs at Purportedly Fruitful Anti-Incitement Meeting Between Israeli Ministers, Social Media Execs

that’s an interesting take on the question of free speech and what companies should or should not do.

when something isn’t strictly hate speech, but still could be considered incitement, or the spreading of propaganda: what should be done? ( fwiw, the republican candidate makes statements which could be considered incitement: do we want to censor or ban groups which support him? )

the free speech perspective tends to be that the cure is more speech. there does seem a perspective growing since 2001 that curtailing speech is best.

i’m sure i’m not expert enough to know which is right when, and what the exact lines are.

i know i like to believe in the former rather than the latter. and, i know i’d be worried if big-data algorithms were made responsible for censorship as the article suggests. ( re: things like “weapons of math destruction.” )

[krackatinny]

First off, no private individual can censor you! Only the Govenrment can censor you. If private individuals, companies, or groups, don’t want to repeat your statement, its not censorship. It personal opinion.

[Umm]

@krackatinny

First off, no private individual can censor you! Only the Govenrment can censor you. If private individuals, companies, or groups, don’t want to repeat your statement, its not censorship. It personal opinion.

Of course you can be censored by non governmental institutions. Where on earth did you hear only the government can censor you?

This is from wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

I’m officially through with this debate. It’s basically been a long string of illogical, angry, nonfactual arguments against the obvious and unpleasant truth that it’s ironic for this site to censor people. We love to examine Facebook’s policies, but it’s ok to shut people up here for saying something unpopular. It’s censorship, Boingboing editors are free speech advocates, and that’s all there is to it.

[Snowlark]

Glad we could reinforce your foregone conclusion.