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.
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.
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.