Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Can Block Content Without Explanation, Says US Court (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A U.S. court has ruled that Facebook can block any content posted to its site without explanation, after a Sikh group legally challenged the company for taking its page offline. U.S. Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination is illegal under the Communications Decency Act, which protects 'interactive computer services' providers by preventing courts from treating them as the publishers of the speech created by their users.
Can they block the entire Facebook.com while they're at it?
I'm not a fan of their business model, nor do I have an account of any kind on their system. However, I side with them on arguing that they should be able to block any content they want. I don't see them as being any different from a newspaper editorial page, which has the freedom to publish anything it wants. Furthermore having your content rejected from facebook does not in any way prevent you from taking it elsewhere, so your speech is really not being oppressed.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Speech includes the right not to say something, and that's literally pretty much the end of it. If their TOS had some kind of guarantee that, as long as you don't violate some set of subjects, they might have a case.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I couldn't figure out what was going on from this ridiculous summary. Here's what the article says about what's going on:
I also note that Koh is the one who ruled for Apple against Samsung on those ridiculous design patents.
...the owners of the presses. Still.
If Facebook dominates eyeballs and Facebook gets to moderate content - so, for example, a nipple is verboten, while racist "Britain First" gets to spam its crap ad inf. - then Facebook effectively sets the agenda. It doesn't matter that someone can set up a competing service in theory, because unless people use those competing services in practice, they might as well not exist. And to know that competing services are worthwhile, you have to be aware of what you're missing. And you're not aware of what you're missing if Facebook removes the first sign of it.
tl;dr Over-simplified guarantees of freedom of speech, as the First Amendment provides in practice, usually end up providing the same breadth of message as in a centrally censored environment: those with control of the publication media continue to set the agenda. Political breadth is, perhaps counterintuitively, wider in countries with fewer negative rights but greater limits on corporate power.
Given their flagrant disregard for my privacy, I can't say I'm surprised.
It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.
FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"
Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.
... which is why I believe that Pannun was arguing this on moral grounds. Saying something "should have" been offered isn't the same as saying "there is a law compelling you to offer" it. That it was guaranteed against government censorship under the 1st Amendment means Facebook had no obligation to remove it, thus this was an arbitrary decision, thus there must have been a reason, ergo that reason could have been offered.
Though I know it's trendy to assume other people are complete morons who don't understand basic things, and never to consider that perhaps you may have failed to understand where they're coming from or what they actually meant. It's very rare that there is one and only one single way to interpret written words. Slashdotters tend to choose whichever one makes the writer look more stupid and themselves more clever, never considering other options. It's childish.
That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.
If you need people to use real names, offer the option of paying a $1 credit card fee on signup. That gives you real names, without the huge privacy invasion called Facebook, which is worth far more than $1. (estimates are over $17 per female user, and $13 per male user. Source: http://adage.com/article/digit... )
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
You can leave and not use it.
Problem solved!
Never using Facebook for any purpose and blocking all of their tracking buttons has always worked well for me. I can't say I've ever missed them.
I hope eventually people will figure out that Facebook is but one way to communicate, in a vast global network with a great many ways to communicate, owned by a marketing company that does not (and arguably cannot) have their best interests at heart.
Basically isn't that the core of it? Regardless of one's feelings about it, doesn't FB have the right to dictate what content they allow?
First Amendment issues might be different is this was a gov't run/controlled site, right? Oh wait... um, hmmm...
Sure, but by exercising editorial control, they now bear an increased responsibility for the content they do allow to be posted. You can't have it both ways: either you are a disinterested common carrier that provides a medium of transmission, or you are an active curator who is liable for what your users post.
It means even less in India where this occurred. I am not sure if they have a "freedom of speech", and I am guessing that it works a little differently over there as compared to the US.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Facebook has never been a common carrier. Like all websites, they can (and do) remove content when it infringes copyright. Unlike your ISP or phone which they don't monitor the content (and don't have the capabilities to monitor it all in real time -- supposedly).
The freedom to say or post what you want is protected. The freedom to do so on Facebook (a website owned by a company that isn't you) is not protected.
Depends, many cases have gone the sexual harassment route and won. But it has to be overtly harassing, and not a one time off handed remark. If someone is being completely vile and screaming anti-LGBT stuff at you, cases have been won.
You obviously never happened to notice how they deal with nudity of any kind. That's a bit more editorial control than mere copyright watch.
Dude, please, take your pills. I know you think your doctor wants you to so he can implant those chips into you that are contained inside those pills, but trust me, you'll feel so much better after taking them...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Facebook sucks. You can post any old shit on Slashdot, and it always had a Dislike button (we call it Mod -1 Troll, but it is the same thing).
Here you have freedom to let your inner Troll run free! Many here think I am a complete asshole, but Slashdot keeps giving me mod points for my "contributions". It's so empowering!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
It depends on the public setting. If everyone is invited in for free and your local city, state, federal gov has a 2.0 site with public comments allowed? :)
Then some freedom of expression and record keeping that might just fully cover public comments made
A government selecting to use part of a social media and web 2.0 product cannot then fall back on the private sector to remove freedoms before during or after speech if the gov set up a fancy web 2.0 site and invited people in to comment.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The company I know about who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in addition maligned the couple on the net, and organized harassment. That can be worth suing over, and that's what the bakery was sued for.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.
Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable the reviews. Once my site is finished I'll be removing the FB for good same with Google+ Not sure what they did but the page I keep up to date synched with FB posts no longer shows on searches but a new one I didn't create is showing with no page updates.
Seriously social media is useless for small business. I'd get better results standing on a corner of a busy street giving out flyer.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Awww... I thought *I* had APKs attention. Seems you're his new favorite. *pouts*
Seriously social media is useless for small business.
You say that as if it is new information. FB has always sucked, and always will.
Until I encounter some more plausible explanation, I'm going to consider that an intentional error. It reads that the Sikh's are doing the discriminating, but the rest of the article reads that they are the ones being discriminated against. So to single that sentence out for republication is at best misleading, and reasonably considered malicious.
Now there may be some evidence not mentioned that would justify that statement, but as it wasn't mentioned, I don't feel it's reasonable to include in the summary. And, in fact, consider that malice is as likely as carelessness.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I wouldn't mind if it was just in public messages they blocked stuff. But since they censor private messages I don't even see it useful as a internet messenger.
You can't have it both ways surely? If they want to censor content then they have to accept that allowing other content is condoning it's message.
something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.
Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable the reviews. Once my site is finished I'll be removing the FB for good same with Google+ Not sure what they did but the page I keep up to date synched with FB posts no longer shows on searches but a new one I didn't create is showing with no page updates.
Seriously social media is useless for small business. I'd get better results standing on a corner of a busy street giving out flyer.
Dude, weed sells itself. Stop working so hard.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I'm pretty sure grandpost is right that being terminated for sexual identity or orientation isn't illegal across the countr. While your statement on harassment is probably true, it's a separate matter.
Facebook is a private service, not a public square. Stop depending on it thus.
I do my best. It is funny to go through and minimize his posts every morning to see if I got any replies.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?