Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Ex Security Boss: Asking Big Tech To Police Hate Speech is 'a Dangerous Path' (technologyreview.com)
Like many people, Alex Stamos, former Facebook chief security officer, thinks tech platforms like Facebook and Google have too much power. But he doesn't agree with the calls to break them up. And he argues that the very people who say Facebook and Google are too powerful are giving them more power by insisting they do more to control hate speech and propaganda. From a report: "That's a dangerous path," he warns. If democratic countries make tech firms impose limits on free speech, so will autocratic ones. Before long, the technology will enable "machine-speed, real-time moderation of everything we say online." In attempting to rein in Big Tech, we risk creating Big Brother. So what's the solution? I spoke to Stamos at his Stanford office to find out.
Technology Review: So is the disinformation/propaganda problem mostly solved?
Stamos: In a free society, you will never eliminate that problem. I think the most important thing [in the US] is the advertising transparency. With or without any foreign interference, the parties, the campaigns, the PACs [political action committees] here in the US are divvying up the electorate into tiny little buckets, and that is a bad thing. Transparency is a good start. The next step we need is federal legislation to put a limit on ad targeting. There are thousands of companies in the internet advertising ecosystem. Facebook, Google, and Twitter are the only ones that have done anything, because they have gotten the most press coverage and the most pressure from politicians. So without legislation we're just going to push all of the attackers into the long tail of advertising, to companies that don't have dedicated teams looking for Russian disinformation groups.
Technology Review: Facebook has been criticized over Russian political interference both in the US and in other countries, the genocide in Myanmar, and a lot of other things. Do you feel Facebook has fully grasped the extent of its influence and its responsibility?
Stamos: I think the company certainly understands its impact. The hard part is solving it. Ninety percent of Facebook users live outside the United States. Well over half live in either non-free countries or democracies without protection for speech. One of the problems is coming up with solutions in these countries that don't immediately go to a very dark place [i.e., censorship]. Another is figuring out what issues to put engineering resources behind. No matter how big a company is, there are only a certain number of problems you [can tackle]. One of the problems that companies have had is that they're in a firefighting mode where they jump from emergency to emergency. So as they staff up that gets better, but we also need a more informed external discussion about the things we want the companies to focus on -- what are the problems that absolutely have to be solved, and what aren't. You mentioned a bunch of a problems that are actually very different, but people blur them all together.
Technology Review: How do you regulate in a world in which tech is advancing so fast while regulation moves so slowly? How should a society set sensible limits on what tech companies do?
Stamos: But right now, society is not asking for limits on what they do. It's asking that tech companies do more. And I think that's a dangerous path. In all of the problems you mentioned -- Russian disinformation, Myanmar -- what you're telling these companies is, "We want you to have more power to control what other people say and do." That's very dangerous, especially with the rise of machine learning. Five or ten years from now, there could be machine-learning systems that understand human languages as well as humans. We could end up with machine-speed, real-time moderation of everything we say online. So the powers we grant the tech companies right now are the powers those machines are going to have in five years.
Technology Review: So is the disinformation/propaganda problem mostly solved?
Stamos: In a free society, you will never eliminate that problem. I think the most important thing [in the US] is the advertising transparency. With or without any foreign interference, the parties, the campaigns, the PACs [political action committees] here in the US are divvying up the electorate into tiny little buckets, and that is a bad thing. Transparency is a good start. The next step we need is federal legislation to put a limit on ad targeting. There are thousands of companies in the internet advertising ecosystem. Facebook, Google, and Twitter are the only ones that have done anything, because they have gotten the most press coverage and the most pressure from politicians. So without legislation we're just going to push all of the attackers into the long tail of advertising, to companies that don't have dedicated teams looking for Russian disinformation groups.
Technology Review: Facebook has been criticized over Russian political interference both in the US and in other countries, the genocide in Myanmar, and a lot of other things. Do you feel Facebook has fully grasped the extent of its influence and its responsibility?
Stamos: I think the company certainly understands its impact. The hard part is solving it. Ninety percent of Facebook users live outside the United States. Well over half live in either non-free countries or democracies without protection for speech. One of the problems is coming up with solutions in these countries that don't immediately go to a very dark place [i.e., censorship]. Another is figuring out what issues to put engineering resources behind. No matter how big a company is, there are only a certain number of problems you [can tackle]. One of the problems that companies have had is that they're in a firefighting mode where they jump from emergency to emergency. So as they staff up that gets better, but we also need a more informed external discussion about the things we want the companies to focus on -- what are the problems that absolutely have to be solved, and what aren't. You mentioned a bunch of a problems that are actually very different, but people blur them all together.
Technology Review: How do you regulate in a world in which tech is advancing so fast while regulation moves so slowly? How should a society set sensible limits on what tech companies do?
Stamos: But right now, society is not asking for limits on what they do. It's asking that tech companies do more. And I think that's a dangerous path. In all of the problems you mentioned -- Russian disinformation, Myanmar -- what you're telling these companies is, "We want you to have more power to control what other people say and do." That's very dangerous, especially with the rise of machine learning. Five or ten years from now, there could be machine-learning systems that understand human languages as well as humans. We could end up with machine-speed, real-time moderation of everything we say online. So the powers we grant the tech companies right now are the powers those machines are going to have in five years.
Isn't this a path we have already been going down for a while anyway? I know tech companies were outraged over that too, but I find this 'sure we are already doing this to protect money, but protecting PEOPLE is going too far! think about what shadowy non-us governments might do with this!' a little disingenuous.
Look, they already do it in Germany, it's required.
They make money in Germany, too.
They just don't make as much.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
the technology will enable "machine-speed, real-time moderation of everything we say online."
XKCD #2015
Like the internet you have to accept the bad stuff with the good if you want freedom. Yes, personal attacks should be addressed but only if the attacked request it. I don't think we need social networks policing for us because this makes a group of people in charge of deciding what should and should not be published. The Alex Jones example is paramount in silencing people just because we do not like their message. Also many examples of others being given a pass while a Jones gets systematically erased. If your going to create a social podium for people, you have to allow to good and bad to come out. It should be expected and the users should decide whether it has any value, or simply ignore it as noise.
Robotic Mass-Spam is not freedom of speech even if it is down with a photo that has text over it accompanied by a link and a share button
If FaceBook has hate speech on it, then why not raid the offices where the servers are hosted? Kinda how almost everything else gets dealt with. I see no difference between FaceBook hosting data and, say, Kim Dotcom.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
banning The Daily Stormer is bad as they are political group. They are extreme but starting there is a nice way to make the 1st amendment go away
and after the 1st is gone the 2st will be as well.
F this guy.
These type proclaim their love for freedom, then go about removing ours.
Too many young people have shown themselves to be fascism-friendly when exposed to hate on the Internet.
We wouldn't have a compromised President, who thinks of himself as President of only the worst of us, if not for online hate-speech and propaganda.
...someone wanting to have it both ways. 1) We just can't regulate what's posted on our platform because "censorship". 2) If you post about n*ggers, kikes, etc. (like too many comments here on /.) you'll be banned. C'mon, guys - you can't have it both ways. FTR, I come down on the side of any commercial company being able to have their own standards of acceptable speech. Don't like it? TFB. Either adhere to the rules going in or use a different platform for stuff you know will get you kicked off.
Those complaining about "censorship" and having their "free speech" suppressed always seem to be conservatives. They claim that only "libtards" and "SJW" are doing this, and that they themselves are so morally superior, would never do such an evil thing and would gladly welcome all viewpoints.
And yet, in a recent survey, 43% of republicans said they would be in favor of giving the POTUS power to close down any news outlet, arbitrarily, for any reason whatsoever, supposedly to combat this elusive "fake news" problem which, according to them, is only a problem with liberal media, of course. Nevermind the fact that Breitbart or Fox News have been lying for years (yes, lying. Fox News have even gone to court to defend their right to lie). And when Trump claims that the media are the "ennemies of the people", he only means liberal media, of course.
So it seems like conservatives are only in favor of free press and the first amendement when conservative media and news outlets are involved, and they would have no problem doing to liberal media what they're continuously accusing liberal media of doing to them. In fact, conservatives would have no problem living in a totalitarian regime, as long as it was a conservative totalitarian regime.
The conservatives' disgustingness is only rivaled by their hypocrisy.
..."kill all ni**ers" on a Proud Boys site clearly is irony and not hate speech.
Fuck these spinless, morally-vapid, libertarian, don't-run-my-equity-event techies.
When you start saying shit like "you have to take hate speech if you want freedom", you obviously have never been on the other side of a mob incited to rage by a deft speaker (especially a mob with the blessing of the police, military, or government). Which is most of tech: safe, comfy and well-off.
You know weâ(TM)ll have to eventually. Might as well get it over with. Itâ(TM)s not like theyâ(TM)re improving with age.
We shouldn't break them up no matter how big they get, but we shouldn't ask they do anything about misinformation that spreads through their vast information distribution monopolies.
Well, I can think of a way of fixing this: make them charge subscription fees.
Facebook has just over 2 billion users; it's important to realize users are not customers, they're the product being sold to advertisers. The net operating profit generated by selling those users is just under 16 billion. So conservatively, each subscribers is worth about $8/year in profit.
Suppose we say that social media companies have to charge users $1/month. Then each user is worth 50% more as a customer than he is as a product. Then, if you're not happy with the job Facebook does about keeping fake news down, even fake news delivered to your conspiracy nut uncle or SJW sister-in-law, you can vote with your pocketbook. This would require Facebook to figure out a way of managing information that was broadly acceptable to the majority of its users. No government monitoring of content would be required.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem is not that these sites should be policing hate speech. The problem is that they're a mass media platform where the people who use the platform are not the customers. As long as social media focuses on this business model, it will be a conduit for the worst people in society, because the only measure of success is clicks and eyeballs. Nobody is accountable for what is said. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility or consequences.
You can fix this a couple of ways: First, you could actually charge the users of the platform instead of the advertisers. Second, you could require a real identity to participate. You'd be surprised how people all of a sudden start behaving like human beings when they know other people will be able to recognize them doing so. Finally, you could absolutely ban bots. All bots. You want to participate in this social media platform? Then prove you're human. This isn't because bots are responsible for hate speech, but because they amplify it, to the gratification of the person (or group) who originally posted.
You are welcome on my lawn.
this one.
I don't think anyone is asking for the government to step in and police hate speech. Certainly nobody who has any pull. But for the same reason you don't see Alex Jones on Fox News you're not seeing him on Twitter and Facebook anymore: Advertisers.
Heck, guys doing silly videos about big chested anime girls are getting banned on Youtube left and right (eh hem... or so I've heard) because they're not advertiser friendly. Bloody Call of Duty streamers are having a tough time. A guy like Alex Jones isn't going to last. Especially with the veiled threats of violence (anyone remember the Pizza Gate shooter?).
If you want a free and open platform for video discourse there's an easy solution: National Public Access. Make a national Youtube. You'll have to pay for it though, and that means taxes. Otherwise the price you pay is your watered down, advertiser friendly content.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No such thing as 'hate speech'. Is this Earth, BTW?
Yet another leftist using homosexuality as a slur. You are SOOOO progressive it hurts
If Facebook/Twitter should/must not filter hate speech (and such), then who supposed to do it?
Another company from outside?
Government(s)?
Even if anybody else tried to do it, Facebook/Twitter would try to fight against it TO DEATH!!!
That much is very clear (at least to me)!!!
IMHO, this "article/post" is clearly a public manipulation attempt to lower/stop the public pressure against Facebook/Twitter!!!
We really need to ban that phrase altogether
You have no right to prepare an assault on other people.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
OH NO! Someone said something hateful.
Get over it.
Problem solved.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
This.
Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth.
No, the immutable truth is that the ends do not justify the means.
If you are a "political group" that promotes genocide,
Last I knew, having an unpopular opinion was not quite as bad as someone killing a person who has an unpopular opinion. Maybe you live in a different universe than those of us in the US do.
IMHO, Facebook started as a useful tool but later it turned into a giant global social parasite (and it seems keep getting worse)!!!
Lolwut? Not all nazis promote genocide, what about the moderate nazis?
Do you not get it?
Sure, when they come for your enemies, you cheer. Or just sit still and let them crush your enemies,
And then they come for you. Because they come for everyone, sooner or later.
No, no, no, in the US at least we do not want the government to either decide what is hate speech and shut down those who they claim spew it, nor do we want the government to charge corporations with the responsibility and authority to do so. We're stuck with corporations deciding what they will or will not publish or permit, but if they exercise that control they are, perhaps, taking responsibility, and we can expect them to be responsible. Perhaps.
Ads are not the issue. Content, speech is the issue. Whatever the Daily Stormer is, or Infowars, or the others, they are being censored. If that's OK with you, do let us know which of your favorite sources would similarly be no great loss to you if it were silenced. Sooner or later, one will, if you will not defend the right.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The fact is there are political movements on both sides the liberal / conservative aisle in American that actively target, and encourage low information voters.
Few things make me as angry as hearing people say how important it is to exercise your right to vote! No! that is not important and it might not even be desirable. Voter turnout for its own sake is stupid. That you have the right to vote is important; your exercise of it is only important if its important to you.
If an issue is on that ballot that affects you or people you care about; yes you should go vote. If you are interested in the political topics that are likely to be decided in part by a candidate in the next term of office enough to take the time to get facts from multiple sources with different perspectives or policy agenda and develop a considered opinion - by all means your input is valuable go vote.
Don't however vote because Dady allways said go vote for all the $PARTY candidates or because some teacher said blah blah are evil! or whatever. You don't have to vote in every election on a ballot either! Seriously if you are so uninformed that seeing a friggin MEME drives your opinion do us all and probably yourself in the long run a favor and stay home!
The problem is not that some foreigners run ads its that so many Americans put less thought into casting their ballot than they do in their breakfast order. Sorry not voting does not make you a good citizen; informed voting might.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
Pope's right incidentally. You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I beat up an antifa thug once. Not so brave anymore when he was cut from his stone-throwing mob. He was crying and cowering all the time. I stopped hitting him after he stopped moving, then moved to the next one. One on one, antifa clowns aren't nothing to fear. As a mob they're like any other mob and they can be taken on as such.
democracies without protection for speech
What would those be? I can't think of a single one, even the democratic constitutional kingdoms included. How well that protection is working in practice is another matter.
Not the big tech responsibility to police hate speech. More easy to flag it and display the address/phone numbers of haters, or better yet, just delete facebook source code. Last one probably the best / most humane option.
First, Joe, Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Not even in the most remote, tangential way. Nothing at all.
The SCOTUS has previously ruled that First Amendment protections apply to company property if access to that company property is needed to reach people. Company towns can't block access to people with a religious or political message to distribute.
Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth.
The Communists killed 20x as many people as the Nazis. Objectively, Stalin was roughly 8 times as bad as the Nazis.
Also, there's something wrong with saying "We can do anything to $GROUP because nothing can be as bad as $GROUP". After all, that's exactly what Hitler said about the Jews.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis
Are you sure - Stalinist Russia was at one point trying to stop the Nazi's those in power in that era did some pretty; dare I say equally awful things to groups like Roma, homosexuals, various Protestant sects, Polish people...
No I think its very possible to be anti-Nazi and no better than a Nazi..
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Autocratic regimes have been shaping conversation on the internet according to their whims for years. This guy can't argue that there's some sort of slippery slope here to slide down. The bad actors are already at the bottom. A better argument would be that we simply don't want to go there ourselves.
I'm a firm believer that there's a solution here. We can design something that allows individual free speech but shuts down the nation-state-sponsored tech-based misinformation campaigns eg Russia. Myanmar-type stuff could be shut down pretty selectively too, sovereign governments using Facebook to orchestrate mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Facebook knows about all this stuff. No doubt in my mind. I'm pretty sure that violates something in the TOS, meaning they can shut it down any minute they like. Their executives are sitting there, watching it happen in almost real time. They just don't want to deal with it. Bad for business doing anything that depresses revenue.
The problem is that the federal government is the only entity that can solve this. Business doesn't police itself. Companies don't make decisions based on morality. The only actor with the authority to reign this in is the government through policy, laws, rules and regulation. But nowadays most people have been convinced that any government regulation is the first step to a dystopia. Instead, we allow Facebook to pull a few extra percent of profits catering to places like Myanmar and Russia. Oh, well - at least my retirement account gets a slight boost.
specifically who is asking the US Government to regulate speech on Facebook?
/. poster who is asking the government to regulate speech on Facebook.
Now, there are Senators who want to regulate Disclosure, but that's not speech. If the Russians want to run pro-Trump adverts let them. But they need to register as foreign agents.
So by all means, show me somebody more credible than a
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oy vey! Its anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
Promoting genocide is a little more than an "unpopular opinion".
Society gets to defend itself from monsters. We have experience with this, you know. Ask your parents.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not if there are other alternatives. I cannot force Breitbart to publish my 4,000 word essay praising Fidel Castro.
Let me type this slowly for you, lgw: Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing - at all - to do with the First Amendment
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sometimes, you have to take on your monsters one at a time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
The statement made was not that "people advocating bans are never worse than nazis", it was "Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth." "Never" and "immutable" are very strong words.
That is a statement that the ends justify the means. Pope's "Bear Jew" trying to kill someone who thinks Jews are bad is an example of exactly the opposite. Those means are not justified by the ends; to claim otherwise is to create a civilization of lynch mobs and murder, as we each justify our killing of our neighbor based on his personal beliefs.
These organizations already censor, directly and indirectly, political speech. That, in itself, should be enough to make them liable for contributing to the hate crimes that they tacitly allow. Either censor all or censor nothing. Censoring your political opponents but not hate speech is an untenable position.
Promoting genocide is a little more than an "unpopular opinion".
Being a nazi doesn't mean you take actions to do illegal things. It means you have a political belief system that is unpopular in today's world, in most places. "Stopping nazis" doesn't limit itself to stopping illegal actions, it talks about that political belief system.
Society gets to defend itself from monsters.
Not by having "Bear Jew" go out and kill anyone he doesn't like.
Ask your parents.
I understand why you might want to use that ad hominem at this point, since you probably do ask your parents about all kinds of things. It is, after all, as simple for you as yelling up the stairs. Some of us, however, are grown ups and know how what limits society are supposed to have. And some of have lost our parents already, so see the patent insult in your attitude.
for your opinion, Alex.
Nice search engine for slavery Google!
Fuck this Facebook Nazi.
Not if there are other alternatives.
Indeed, but Breitbart has a far smaller reach than Facebook. I'm not sure Facebook has a de-facto monopoly over its space, with Snapchat being popular with the kids these days, but it's pretty big. At some point, it becomes quite a bit like a company town. I'd say YouTube is already there for random people sharing videos. Anyway, I think you see my point: it's not entirely isolated from the First Amendment.
The people living in that company town did leave from time to time, after all, but the dominant way you'd reach them is through the company's property. That meant the company couldn't block protected speech, and had to allow use of it's property for speech it didn't agree with (in this case, it was a Jehova's Witness, so it was also speech that annoyed everyone exposed to it).
The government does get to regulate monopolies, after all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Progressives are after the 1st and the 2nd amendments. They are quite open about it, they do not hide it.
So Infromed Bill! NO WAY those private news organizations would lie and censor and promote idiocracy for the benefit of their owners.
Yer so fucking pwnd by the 1%.
The irony is you posted on a highly regulated network run by governments. Keep being woke bro!! MAGA by the pussy!!
I bet I know whoâ(TM)s gonna be first in the oven!
Everyone knows.
Youre not passing.
Better enlist and die in Syria!
True, but we had to take the worse one (Stalin) on second.
The GP is right but doesn't take it far enough, it is possible to be anti-Nazi and be _worse_ than a Nazi.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And your fantasies reveal your REPRESSED HOMOSEXUALITY.
Why should that matter? If your theory about commercial properties and the First Amendment are true, does it matter how big a "reach" the company has?
Ah, when you refer to Facebook's "space", you build a trap for yourself. What exactly is Facebook's space? Are there other alternatives for reaching this space? Of course there are. They might not all be as convenient, or as easy to use, but that's not Facebook's fault now, is it? If you want to put in sufficient effort, you can reach the same "space" Facebook serves using other means.
So, what if I want to reach specifically the MAGA chuds who only get their news from Breitbart? What alternatives do I have if I want them to read my 4,000 word essay on Trump's tiny mushroom dick?
Sorry, lgw. There's no way out of this one. And even your "company town" apocryphal story is way off-target. There are gated communities all over the United States, and if I demand access to be able to come and ring doorbells there so I can share the good news about how crystals can bring enlightenment, they're going to laugh in my face at the gate and point to the "No Solicitation" sign.
By the way, the case you're referring to, about company towns and free speech, is Marsh v Alabama, from 1946. It has been cited several times as precedent in subsequent First Amendment cases (some including online speech) and it's been laughed out of court every single time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Now wait a minute there. We had to take on the more immediate threat first. Stalin was bad, but he hadn't exactly embarked on an active program of world domination at the time of WWII. Stalin wasn't invading our allies in Western Europe. You've got to take them as they come, thus, Fascists first.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can get any results from a survey with the right questions. Show me somebody who matters that wants to regulate hate speech through the government. Preferably someone on the left.
Goal's right where it's always been. The burden's on you, not me. Give me names and sources for what they said.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Not even in the most remote, tangential way. Nothing at all.
Both are free speech issues. The first amendment legally protects you from the US government silencing you. (They can still silence you, but you can, in theory, sue them afterwards). The ideals of free speech are supposed to protect you from others silencing you. The ideals are a moral issue rather than a legal one, but the two are related.
people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis.
uuuuuhhhhh.... Stalin and Mao? Like... did you just pull a brain-fart on all history past operation barbossa when Hitler attacked Russia in June 1941?
Regardless of history, that sort of blind hatred and unwillingness to consider alternatives puts you in the running for bigotry. Please, look at the definition and then look at your stance on Nazis.
Your biggest worry should be that the Bear Jew is going to bring his 36" Hank Greenberg model Louisville slugger into sudden contact with your head and that you will fill your briefs with shit.
That sounds like a death-threat. But a silly one because you're assuming by Joe_Dragon is a Nazi. Come on dude, Inglorious Bastards is a good movie because the bad guys are promoting a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film. (the in-movie one with the sniper. The one Hitler is applauding when the bomb goes off.) And it casts negative moral judgement on them for that. They are bad guys doing bad things, and this is most certainly a bad thing. Now consider that Tarantino made a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film where a group go assassinate Hitler. ...Do you see the parallels? Is this too deep for you? I thought this was going to be a great movie for promoting introspection, but no, too many people failed to see the satire and bought into the film's face-value. I think it's like the Starship Troopers movie. A disturbing number of people don't realize it's satire.
Censorship comes in many, many forms and American sites are full of censorship already. I think it's disingenuous for Facebook to say they don't want to do censorship because it's dark - yet they're already doing it.
Bing, Google, et al, all filter boobies out of image searches. Thingiverse won't show model pictures if they show too much boob. The world needs more boob, not less.
God you're a pathetic lying cunt lol, kill yourself soon zero life lying faggot Bill.
>And he argues that the very people who say Facebook and Google are too powerful are giving them more power by insisting they do more to control hate speech and propaganda
Great! There's a simple solution:
Facebook can stop *selling their user data to hate and propaganda groups*, and "stop accepting ads* from hate speech and propaganda groups.
This way:
1. Facebook is being a vector for less bullshit
2. Facebook is *lessening* it's power
3. Hate groups and propagandists can still spread their vile bullshit through their own shitty websites. Their free speech rights are still secure.
Handled.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
The problem is when those "trying to stop the nazis" start calling everyone they disagree with "nazis" in order to justify silencing and shaming them.
The problem really isn't the less than 1% of the population that espouses some nazi ideals. The problem is those that want to silence people. The vast majority will see the self proclaimed nazis as lunatics and not allow any atrocities to take place. The problem is in accepting self righteous mobs that want to use bully tactics to control the narrative of main stream ideas. Accepting some bad ideas to linger is the price for ensuring everyone has freedom. Progress only happens when unpopular ideas with merit are allowed to percolate and gain traction.
Hate is newspeak for "right wing opinions," and when people call for censorship of 'hate' they basically want all right wing opinions to be censored. By labelling it 'hate' they can claim to be doing good, when in actual fact these pro-censorship individuals are the most dangerous and evil people in society.
Hate speech is anything that someone with pull doesn't want other people to think about.
It's not just right wing opinions, it's incorrect opinions of any kind or actual history.
Remember when Russia with Putin was going to be our besty ? When Hillary proclaimed the reset, and Obama told Medvedev he would have more room after the elections ?
Boom now it's back to Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
Facebook isn't concerned about the "danger". They'll do whatever their advertisers want. They're an advertising platform.
What they're worried about is having to employ actual humans to read all of the shit that gets dumped onto their network. They can only make money if the whole thing is relatively automated. To accurately and effectively police the platform, they're going to need a LOT of humans to do the work, since AI can't and won't be able to do it for a very long time, more than likely. Paying humans is significantly more expensive than just running some dumb "AI" algorithms".
They don't want to get involved because it'll break their business model.
I don't respond to AC's.
Justice Black explained it better than I do. The key reason the SCOTUS ruled that First Amendment protection extended to forcing a company to provide access (in Marsh v Alabama) was:
It is clear that, had the people of Chickasaw owned all the homes, and all the stores, and all the streets, and all the sidewalks, all those owners together could not have set up a municipal government with sufficient power to pass an ordinance completely barring the distribution of religious literature. Our question then narrows down to this: can those people who live in or come to Chickasaw be denied freedom of press and religion simply because a single company has legal title to all the town? For it is the State's contention that the mere fact that all the property interests in the town are held by a single company is enough to give that company power, enforceable by a state statute, to abridge these freedoms.
We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question. ...
Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. ... thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public, and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the one before us, we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce.
Do you see the point the Justice is making in his opinion? If your business profits from public use of your property, you lose some control of that property. There's tons of precedent for this.
Because Facebook makes its money through providing a platform for members of the public to communicate with one another, it's a very close analogy. That's different from e.g. Amazon, which primarily provides access to buy from Amazon (a shopping mall is not bound by this ruling, see Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, because of this distinction)
Breitbart is fundamentally different because it's a publisher not a platform, that is, it's not a venue by which members of the public reach other members of the public, to a meaningful degree (it does have a comments section, but that's obviously not the primary use of the site).
If you build a bridge on your land, but allow the public to use it (perhaps for a toll), you can't ban people form the bridge for constitutionally-protected reasons, even though it's your bridge on your land.
The justice concluded:
When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment "lies at the foundation of free government by free men," and we must in all cases "weigh the circumstances and . . . appraise the . . . reasons . . . in support of the regulation . . . of the rights."
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And now his post gets seen. As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This asshats are already censoring political speech they disagree with! What a joke.. they have become media companies and should be held to the same standards. They lost their right to claim they are just a utility a long time ago when they started banning people. Fuck em and their corrupt technocrat + government facism.
Germany banned all Nazi iconography because the Nazis were EVIL.
E V I L .
Actually, we have a President who sees himself as the President of all of us. It was the candidate that lost who thought half of us were deplorable and keeps saying how all the people who matter voted for her. It's the likes of Antifa on the far left who really are fascist-friendly and who espouse hate. It's the "Resistance" who keeps spreading hate.
Remove spending and endorsement laws and then allow people onto the ballot more easily (remove party affiliation rules and reducesignatures required). Finally, use concordet voting.
Problem would solve itself but NOOOOOO we have to continue the broken plurality system which is undemocratic.
Stand up for voting rights!
The nature of this debate misses the point.
Firstly, there is always going to be some level of censorship on social networks. Otherwise there are just too many trolls who would think it utterly hilarious to find pages for children's party entertainers and flood with with niche-fetish pornography, plus there are a few types of material which anger people so greatly that there is no option but to ban it - the exact list depending upon country, and usually enforced by law. So the debate is not about if censorship should be permitted, but about the extent and about who gets to decide.
Nor is all censorship equivalent. There are many parties, many ways and many reasons. In the case of social networks, commercial concerns are a big factor - they exist to make money, and some sorts of material are just not profitable. If your posts offend a group of people, insult a religion, contain too much profanity, contain anything relating to sex or advocate criminal acts then advertisers are not going to want their adverts appearing next to it, which means the network is going to want to discourage the production of this material. They may not ban it, but they have other means - they can rank it lower in searches, or demonetise as youtube does.
On the political side, there is what could be seen as a tidy symmetry - left and right both call for censorship, but of different material, and both then accuse the other of supporting censorship. The left might get horrified at hate speech, but they can't beat the right when it comes to sensitivity to 'indecency' - a category that goes far beyond just pornography.
Personally, if I were drafting legislation, I'd focus on accountability. Allow social network operators to censor as they see fit - but every time they decide to pull a post, make sure they have a duty to notify the poster specifying the reason for the action, and a reference number allowing them to review the audit records for the decision. If you have to have censorship, do it right.
America is based on the idea that you have the right to be stupid. People who have a problem with stupidity aren't welcome here. And by preserving the right to be stupid, we also preserve the right to be smart. OTOH if you infringe the right to be stupid, then you sometimes accidentally infringe the right to be smart. That's way worse than being stupid.
Would US big tech please return to US 1st Amendment freedoms and stop trying to curate the internet to conform with the internal politics of EU and Communist China.
Return to allowing the US freedom to have an open press able to report and publish.
For people to be able to comment and link.
Let people online comment on political news as part of using their own social media account.
They are posting links they found interesting. Adding comments, art, cartoons. Its their own creativity and content. Something social media invited users to do as an open platform to connect users and sell ads.
The freedom to assembly online and petition government policy.
The freedom to speak and not be banned after speech due to political comments.
Its the users who are doing the publishing, its their own words, thoughts and political content. Users who spent years posting their ideas, creative art and comments.
Their comments on politics, bad movie scripts, history, art, culture, news, international events. Something people in the USA have the freedom to do.
When social media becomes a full time "publisher" then it can set its own domestic party political and internal publishing standards for its own staff.
Your users are not your workers, they not your staff. They do not have to follow the bands set domestic party political agenda.
They have a right to comment, link, create, post, question, be political on any topic they want. Users got invited onto open social media for their content.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or maybe we denizens of the internet who are exposed to trolls constantly have grown thicker skin and so have little sympathy for crybabies.
You know what? I like to be able to curse and/or call someone complete garbage at something. Because that's just how we talk on the internet. So who do I want? Crybaby Clinton? No, no, and more no. Even Trump is better than an SJW takeover of government! (and that was the only other option) As a member of Anti-SJW, I am ready to fight against SJW takeover, even if that means reelecting Trump the Clown.
Democrats do themselves no favors by supporting SJWs. I don't care about healthcare or contraceptive care or any of that nonsense. My main and I do mean #1 sole and exclusive concern for voting is free speech. I suspect many feel the same way. Free speech rights are something I'd rather grab a gun and fight a war than lose. I hope most people feel the same way.
see here
/. wants to regulate hate speech on Facebook. The only one regulating speech online are the owners of the platforms, and they're doing it to keep the advertisers happy. The right wing are losing out here because their beliefs are too extreme for Americans and advertisers are afraid of being associated with those extreme beliefs.
The article you linked to for Kevin says it's about what data they can hold and how they hold it. Nothing about Hate speech.
You're the one moving the goal post, from "Regulating Hate Speech" to "Data retention and storage". You don't have a leg to stand on here.
Again, nobody outside of trolls on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's not. People on Facebook are not "the public" who are just happening through. Each of them has had to register for an account and agree to Terms of Service, and every time they visit they must log in with credentials. It's much more of a private club (albeit a large one) than a public square.
The argument you're making was also made in Cyber Promotions v. America Online where Cyber Promotions argued that by filtering out spam, AOL was violating the spammers First Amendment rights because AOL's email was a virtual "public square", and they cited Marsh v Alabama as precedent. The judges laughed that shit right out of there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's not. People on Facebook are not "the public" who are just happening through. Each of them has had to register for an account and agree to Terms of Service, and every time they visit they must log in with credentials. It's much more of a private club (albeit a large one) than a public square.
Nah, that doesn't fly at all. Facebook could not ban black people from using its service. It's open to any member of the public who cares to sign up, even though there are some rule, no different from the toll bridge example from the case. "Private club" is very narrowly construed when it comes to protecting constitutional rights, as it should be.
Spam is not (generally) political or religious speech, which is a relevant here.
A key point in Cyber Promotions v. America Online was that AOL wasn't any sort of monopoly. The opinion pointed this out several times: that AOL does not by itself have enough control of "internet access" to deny it's users the ability to communicate with Cyber Promotions. I think it's a different story if we're talking about a modern ISP with a local monopoly.
That's why I think it matters whether Facebook is effectively a monopoly (and BTW I think it's borderline and unclear whether it is.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
We're stuck with corporations deciding what they will or will not publish or permit, but if they exercise that control they are, perhaps, taking responsibility, and we can expect them to be responsible. Perhaps.
The big difference between government censorship and corporate censorship is that, in the latter case, you can switch to a different company to handle your communications needs. If you can't do that - say, if you have only one available ISP, and that ISP starts censoring your political speech - then it's just as bad as government censorship.
Project Choke Point is the model. We do need for government to stop talking like this, and then to start talking to corporations like they also need to stop being so evil.
The reality is that while governments are monopolies of their own making, more or less, and we can vote and vote and maybe get what we want, but corporations serve their profits, and can be even more entrenched. Competition is the answer, maybe.
It's best to keep government out of this though, as they will change the rules and own this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And neither could any private club. But a private club can require that everyone show ID and agree to a list of house rules. And, they can decide when you have violated their terms of service and kick you the fuck out.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Should ISP spam filters be banned?
/.). So far it's the major players policing their own networks, almost completely for the sake of keeping them advertiser friendly (with a side order of "We're afraid one of these guys is going to incite violence and we'll get sued").
If your complaint is government enforced censorship I don't know of anyone, left or right, advocating for that (maybe a few AC trolls on
I keep saying this, but if we want a free platform nobody can get banned from the solution is easy: National Public Access. Have the government build a site anyone can post video to. Then if somebody gets banned for anything besides a crime then it really will be a first amendment issue.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The big tech companies want to offer a place free of horrible stuff, while at the same time not developing a reputation for censorship.
I don't know if they can do both. Worse (and this is the problem with governmenr regulation) they have to try to avoid "regulation by raised eyebrow" where a regulator (driven by some in Congress) might look the other way, "too big corporation-wise", as long as they crush wild, nasty viewpoints.
This is a regular concern for radio and TV stations as they approach licensing renewals -- did they reign in some of their political shows?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The Communists killed 20x as many people as the Nazis. Objectively, Stalin was roughly 8 times as bad as the Nazis.
If you count just civilians executed or dead in custody, the Nazis hit about 11 million from the Holocaust. The Communists have about 2 million from Stalin's purges and the gulags, 6 million in China between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and another 2 million from the Khmer Rouge. Add in a few other purges by miscellaneous People's Republics, and the Communists collectively probably slightly exceed the death toll of the Nazis under this definition.
The numbers increase if you include, in particular, deaths from famine. The Holodomor killed something like 3-10 million, and the Great Leap Forward more like 30-55 million, making it the greatest famine in history. You run into tricky ground here - famines are not necessarily a matter of government intent - but there's a pretty clear link in the two above cases between government collectivisation policies, implemented a year or so beforehand, and the subsequent famine. (Contrast with, for example the 1 million dead in the Great Irish Famine, in which the triggering factor was the potato blight that wiped out the major food crop.) Regardless, the Nazis don't come close to matching these numbers.
In summary, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Communists killed 20x as many people as the Nazis: I would say the factor is more like 5x. And Stalin, in particular, is - if you count the Holodomor, which is reasonable - roughly equally bad to Hitler, not 8 times worse.
"Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis."
You're right they won't be as bad they'll be worse.
100% they are commie scum. they hate freedom and want to dictate everything you do right down to what breakfast cereal you eat, and what you name your children
We have limits on free speech: There are bare breasts and incitements to rape on social media sites. Guess which one gets punished? Bare breasts and prostitutes aren't allowed, threats and exhortations to rape, are.
If we need to ask or even consider asking tech companies to police hate speech then we are ALREADY on a dangerous path towards hate.
Facebook emphasizes speech that generates page views. By doing that it emphasizes hypes, hysteria, short term focus, all kinds of things that aren't necessarily left or right or whatever. That doesn't make Facebook neutral, by emphasizing some things it represses their opposites. That means Facebook has been policing speech all along and (if that's dangerous) has been dangerous all along. A platform that is neutral on free speech doesn't amplify anything, it lets its users decide for themselves what they find important.
The problem with hate speech on the internet is that it is mostly anonymous. That is why it has to be policed.
Either the "hate speech" by someone belongs to them, therefore these businesses have no right to the information, any more than i have a right to Mad Max Fury Road. Or they ARE in part responsible for it, so they either have to provide the genuine identity of the poster to be prosecuted by law OR be held responsible as the only contact point, in much the same way as a representative of the company is the proxy FOR that company when I have a complaint.
FB wants to publish without the responsiblities that either go with the right to copy someone else's work or being the one expressing it on the posters' behalf.
So therefore you are 100% FOR the policing of hate speech and expunging it off the internet when its something YOU don't like to hear.
Its not "I don't like someone", its "Kill the president! Bomb the infidels! Praise be Allah!". etc.
Since you don't know what hate speech IS, your opinions on it are informed by what you want to be true, and what you want to be true is you to be able to say kill the president, etc.
Of course not YOUR party's president, only those evil ones for the other party.
Because you're a massive hypocrite.
When they see Kathy hold up a fake trump decapitated head, you lose your shit. When someone says that the nazi rally had nazis in it, you lose your shit. When someone says that you offended them, you lose your shit.
And, no, your assertions are bollocks. Alex Jones got banned for being insane and exhorting others to violence. Just like the imams that the USA have had in prison. ALL they did was tell others that Allah would reward the people with paradise for killing infidels. Just their opinion,you can neither prove god DIDN'T talk to them, NOR that they didn't believe god did so.
Yet Abu Hamsa and Qutada are rotting in jail. For speech.
And if you want to "own" the entire physical internet that it runs on, please buy up all our hardware and lease the land it is on from us.
TIA, the world.
I don't think so.
Looks like 99-99.9% from outside bud.
It's all been filtered through hat you want to be there, not what IS there.
Clinton told those who worked in coal "your jobs ain't coming back", which is 180 degrees away from taking feels over reals, yet trump insisted it would come back stronger.
When trump is told he's a fucking idiot, he goes BALLISTIC on twitter. Show me Clinton doing it.
And neither could any private club.
I think we're talking about different things here. You seem to be talking about a nightclub, a "private club" as distinct from a "public house". That distinction isn't important in most states (I think there's a few where you can stills serve alcohol to 18-year-olds if it's a "private club".)
You can form a club that excludes any protected class you like. You can form a club open only to members of your own family, or just the 6 guys you went to high school with, or just your friends from church, or anything like that. That's the right of free association. But, as I said, it's construed very narrowly.
A private club can require that everyone show ID and agree to a list of house rules. And, they can decide when you have violated their terms of service and kick you the fuck out.
That applies to any club at all, not just a "private club". But, as the SCOTUS said, that right is not absolute. The more you're providing public access, the more your rights as an owner are trumped by the people's constitutional rights. If you want your house rules to include "no black people", you probably need to all know one another before forming the club. If you want your house rules to ban certain political speech, you can't be a common carrier.
There's a spectrum of "how public" vs "owner's rights", and the argument is about where the big social media companies fall on that spectrum. But you can't argue that "FB is private, so it can can have any rules it wants", as that's clearly false.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Claiming it might happen is not the same as advocating it.
I was following on from your logic, but yes: genocidal people are worse than people who try to stop genocidal people. I think that's a 100% reasonable statement to make. Perhaps not on Slashdot where we seem to be overridden by people who feel that Nazis get a bad rap, and anyway we shouldn't call Hitler a Nazi because don't you know that's why he became a Nazi because liberals and jews called him one checkmate, but in the real world, where real people live, yes, people who stop genocidal maniacs (and are defined as such) are better than people who are genocidal maniacs.
Pope's Bear Jew is a reference to a character in the Quentin Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds, a character who literally kills genocidal Nazis. Is he a bad person? Maybe, maybe not. But is he worse than than the people he kills, whom he kills while they actively take part, at some level or other, in propping up and enabling the slaughter of millions of Jews while promoting one of the worst wars in recorded history?
I'd say he's not worse than them, no.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, there are many unpopular opinions that are not Nazi. Nazi opinions are unpopular, but that's because, outside of Slashdot's usual gaggle of apologists, genocide and views that lead to genocide such as white supremacy are considered horrific.
You keep insisting this is about unpopular opinions and now you've extended the net to "anyone (we) don't like". Also maybe I missed something, but wasn't Pope simply saying the logical consequences of more Nazi shit was a violent response from those most likely to be hurt by Nazis?
Sometimes I forget your father died at Auschwitz, and this is a good reminder, to everyone, Pope, me, everyone, that we need to consider our words carefully. Sure, he was drunk that day, and fell out of his guard tower, so it was his fault, but...
Nope, both entirely wrong. Stop getting your "information" from righting echo chambers. Go look at the laws on what hate speech IS.
If that's the case why isn't Alex Jones suing? He'd have good standing to do so.
I'm not sure I disagree with the GP though. Nazis were so extreme that in order to oppose them effectively you're forced into accepting certain things, like the idea that Genocide is a bad thing.
Now, you can absolutely run anti-Nazi rhetoric and still act like a Nazi. But then you're not really opposing Nazis then, are you? You're just borrowing anti-Nazi rhetoric to hide your true intentions. Using words to disguise actions. Kinda like those "Communists" did when they seized power and then took all the money and land for themselves.
Sometimes a Scottsman isn't a Scottsman.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... and in the desktop version it does not even show up under "Most discussed".
And in the mobile version the whole discussion is invisible.
Looks like two major bugs in the webpage, or is just my account messed up?
It is clear that, had the people of Chickasaw owned all the homes, and all the stores, and all the streets, and all the sidewalks, all those owners together could not have set up a municipal government with sufficient power to pass an ordinance completely barring the distribution of religious literature.
If the owners of all the homes, stores, streets, and sidewalks were unanimous in their opposition to the distribution of religious literature, they could each ban the distribution of such literature on their own property, which the effect that such literature could not be distributed anywhere inside the town. Anyone who violated that rule would be trespassing on someone's private property. This talk of forming a government and passing ordinances is nothing but a distraction—a municipal government doesn't own all the property inside the city limits, and ordinances are not rules set by the property owner.
Our question then narrows down to this: can those people who live in or come to Chickasaw be denied freedom of press and religion simply because a single company has legal title to all the town?
But they are not being denied freedom of the press or religion. What is being denied is access to someone else's property. If they want to exercise their freedom of the press or religion they are welcome to do so on their own property. They knew about these rules and agreed to them as a condition of entering the town. Only their acceptance of the rules set by the property owner grants them the right to be there.
The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. ... thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm.
This is nothing more or less than the taking of private property for public use without compensation. If the government doesn't care for the restrictions a property owner sets for the use of their own private property the government can very well buy the property from them on behalf of the public at a fair market price acceptable to both parties.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I'm relieved to know that propaganda groups are so easily identified!
Captcha: violator
After all, if a crime is committed, you arent the police, so you should just inform the police that the crime took place, not shoot back.
If the owners of all the homes, stores, streets, and sidewalks were unanimous in their opposition to the distribution of religious literature, they could each ban the distribution of such literature on their own property, which the effect that such literature could not be distributed anywhere inside the town.
No: they couldn't ban it on the road (or sidewalk in most states), or public areas like in front of the post office. That's government land, in this example.
And that's the point: a street used just to get to your house, and your house alone, has different rules than a street used by the public, even if that "public" is just the neighborhood. You'll find quite a few laws treat the two differently.
If you build a road on your property, but it's open for people moving between two public roads (e.g., lots of toll roads), you're restricted just as if it were a government-owned road. You lose some of the ownership rights you might otherwise have had because you opened it to the public.
But they are not being denied freedom of the press or religion. What is being denied is access to someone else's property. If they want to exercise their freedom of the press or religion they are welcome to do so on their own property.
Well, it turns out that the protection for First Amendment rights trump ownership rights in some cases. Thank goodness. It is pretty narrow though: it doesn't apply to e.g. a shopping mall.
It's debatable where on this spectrum Facebook lies, but if you're arguing that the tradeoff between ownership rights and constitutionally-protected rights of the public doesn't exist, you're in fantasy land. You do have to serve black people in your privately-owned bar, and you do have to bake that gay wedding cake in the bakery that you own on your land, even though you may have other rules.
This is nothing more or less than the taking of private property for public use without compensation. If the government doesn't care for the restrictions a property owner sets for the use of their own private property the government can very well buy the property from them on behalf of the public at a fair market price acceptable to both parties.
Nice libertarian fantasy there, but it has little to do with the USA I live in.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.