Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Now Deletes Posts That Financially Endanger, Trick People (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: It's not just inciting violence, threats and hate speech that will get Facebook to remove posts by you or your least favorite troll. Endangering someone financially, not just physically, or tricking them to earn a profit are now also strictly prohibited. Facebook today spelled out its policy with more clarity in hopes of establishing a transparent set of rules it can point to when it enforces its policy in the future. "We do not, for example, allow content that could physically or financially endanger people, that intimidates people through hateful language, or that aims to profit by tricking people using Facebook," its VP of policy Richard Allen published today. Web searches show this is the first time Facebook has used that language regarding financial attacks.
"We do not, for example, allow content that [...] aims to profit by tricking people using Facebook,"
That's our job, dammit!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's their platform, and you are not directly paying to access it. They are free to censor or filter content as they wish, and you are free to walk away from it at any time, just like any other online platform that has existed since usenet.
Why do people still treat it like they are entitled to do as they wish with zero consequence? Would you walk into a police station with an NWA "Fuck the police" shit on and expect to be left alone? Of course you wouldn't. If you choose to pull bullshit in someone else's house, expect to be called out. If you do not want to be called out, keep walking.
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
And yet at the same time facebook sends out hundreds of thousands of emails a day to people to get them to join facebook (which itself financially endangers and tricks people).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I think it is worth considering the other side of the coin here, though.
The 'net isn't what it was back in the days when we read usenet with tin. It has become massively centralized, and controlled by a very small number of corporations. To a great many people, the 'net IS Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google.
As a result, for all intents and purposes, they are the public square. It may be a privately owned public square, but it is the public square. It's not like protesting with a sign in a private mall; there literally is no other place on the Internet where one can have a reasonable expectation of being heard than the "primary set" of platforms.
So, while yes, these are privately owned platforms, they have also been allowed an unprecedented amount of power over information, thought, and speech. I think that we need to be very careful about giving them carte blanche to silence voices and thoughts that those who control these entities do not agree with.
Check your premises.
I never thought I'd see the day when the Left likes a huge corporation buying up all the lawns in town and then banning lawn signs.
"Hey, it's private property after all!"
... or people could just use other parts of the Internet.
I don't respond to AC's.
> But in both those cases, "Censorship" was dressed up in other civil liberty arguments.
The baker was being forced to create content. Facebook (or Slashdot) is only required to merely tolerate what you post. It's a VAST difference that you're just casually glossing over.
The baker is also is just one guy, much more like you than a global corporation controlling a platform used by BILLIONS with a large enough share of the market to be subject to the Sherman Act.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... or people could just use other parts of the Internet.
"Why do you need to be in the public square when there's this back alley available to you?"
Check your premises.
Is this going to result in removal of posts by televangelists asking for donations to help God save the donors?
Not only is the God they are peddling an illusion, but televangelists usually spend the money on their own pleasure and comfort instead of any missionary activities of their religion.
They are both useless to the donor and actively fraudulent in their own universe.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
After recent headlines I fail to see why anyone with a brain would be using facebook?
Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean and hospitable
I think Zuckerbergs testimony on Capital Hill is relevant particularly with Cruz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, Facebook has an interest in keeping its site clean but they cannot be both a platform (neutral public forum) and a publisher at the same time. They are either responsible for all the content on their site or not. They are either expressing their political speech or they are enabling others to speak. Facebook wants it both ways and the censorship culture and normalization has enabled Facebook and other social media sites to abuse the rights of others and use their position to negatively impact the political discourse.
What is even more worrying is that the culture of censorship is growing. There must be some irony that the left is defending giant international companies to trample over the rights of individuals because of some misguided attempt to sanitize the internet.
Because the web has caused the privatization of public discourse
No. That was clearly done by TV before the web. That was clearly done by radio before TV. That was clearly done by newspapers before radio. That was clearly done by monarchs before free press. Shall I continue? Each iteration has allowed the creation of platforms to become easier, but let's not kid ourselves here, the big ones that everyone notices are organized because unorganized ones don't tend to become massively big things since they just reduce down to pretty much background noise. With that organization comes rules and policies and so forth that inherently censor some groups. What Facebook et al are doing isn't unique, only its medium is. Does that make censorship in general right or wrong? That's a point that's debatable for the ages, but what social media groups are "currently" doing is inline with what has come before and we have seen progress from kings of yore to Internet with that system. So I'd argue that while it would be great to have completely open everything in theory, the actual implementation of that would be horrible, and that the current implementation is balanced enough to get us to whatever the next point on the tech tree of the universe is.
I need you and everyone to understand that this whole topic is arguing a topic that's been brought up since the Classical and Hellenistic Period. How does one allow the free exchange of ideas without the entire thing devolving into madness? Guess what, thirty-six centuries later, we still haven't figured it out. And it's starting to seem like the answer is to the "where does it stop?!" question you are asking is, "somewhere, people need to keep their heads up, but ultimately it stops somewhere." Blanket openness is clearly not an answer, because that's just saying "society as a whole is just lazy and if we don't have complete openness, then we're just a slippery slope away from having all our rights taken away."
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll change your tune once it's taken over and turned against you, though
That is the entire point. It stops at some point because as much as we on Slashdot like to diss the general public, they do ultimately seem to understand when basic rights are being trampled unjustly, Who determines that? Well we all sort of do, there's not a hard and fast rule to that and I get it, that makes some of the hard liner type folks a little uneasy. Society doesn't have clear distinct lines for every single thing. So there's two things a person can do about that.
One, accept that society doesn't have clearly defined boundaries and that you'll have to do your part if and when the time comes.
Two, don't accept that and get all upset that humanity seemingly just can't get its crap together and live your entire life in frustration.
If you are intent on hanging your hat on the latter, well there's not much anyone can do to help you. We're basically always going to be having this discussion until the end of time. Advocacy for human rights isn't a spectator sport. But if you're willing to consider the first point, then you'll have to first start working on the whole, "am I ready to die on this hill or not?" thing. Once you've got a good grasp on that, you'll need to ditch the "slippy slope" argument every time something you don't agree with comes up and work on the whole "persuasive argument" thing. And trust me, there is tons of room in this debate for a rational argument, like the seemingly inequitable application of those policies, and so on. But you are going to fall far and fast if what you lead with is, "They'll be coming for you soon too! Just you watch!"