6 ms·
I think “when they have started creating their own pseudo court system” is when we should start breaking these companies up. Yeesh. The bizarre opaqueness/pro
by blhack 6y ago
I think “when they have started creating their own pseudo court system” is when we should start breaking these companies up. Yeesh.
The bizarre opaqueness/projected importance of this is extremely off putting.
- arthurcolle 6y agoApparently it is independent ;)
- willxinc 6y agoThat's because it is, that's the entire point of it.
- pugworthy 6y agoBut... isn't banning an ex president for life important? Who SHOULD decide? And how?
- jbnorth 6y agoI would say that's an easy question. No, it's not important. Who should decide? Whoever at the company is given the authority to ban people from their website. How? Following whatever protocols they come up with? Want to have their own pseudo-court system? Go for it. Want to have a ban lottery so people may just randomly be banned for no reason? Go for it, it's your website do what you want with it.
- chrischattin 6y agoThis is a company that built itself under the premis that it was the public square and now it is arbitrating who can speak and who cannot? I'd say they've violated the original social contract, and that of the open source web, and are now subject to regulation – by entities they helped put in place in government. This whole thing is becoming a dystopian nightmare. Edit: Image if AT&T started shutting off Democrat's cell phones.
- jankyxenon 6y agoWhat does the “premise of a public square” mean? What social contract did they enter into? What legal obligation do they have to their users?
- Izkata 6y agoI think the right term for what they're referring to is "privatization of the public square".
- chrischattin 6y agoIt's in their ToS. That's a contract, right?
- jankyxenon 6y agoWhat’s in their TOS? That they’re a public square? That access to the platform and expressive freedom of the users trumps facebook’s moderation rights? I don’t think so.
- chrischattin 6y agoRead it, moron. They use that exact verbiage.
- jankyxenon 6y agoYou can call me a moron all you want. There’s no notion of Facebook as a public square in their terms of service. It’s a business, not a public service.
- dang 6y agoWe ban accounts that break the site guidelines like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- peteretep 6y ago> Who SHOULD decide? The only answer that can only be acceptable here — as flawed as it is — is a board originating from the UN
- generalizations 6y agoI don't think the UN has jurisdiction.
- peteretep 6y agoThey didn’t have jurisdiction over air travel either, until they did.
- jariel 6y agoDefinitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework. Ideally, there would be 'very simple and clear regulation' put forth by the government, and then it should be 'easy' for FB's 'independent panel' (doesn't need to be anyone special, but maybe some lawyers) to make the calls. Then it can be taken up in the courts if need be. We definitely need move this away from the control of the private sector of this there is no doubt. And also, I'm very wary of lifetime bans for things which are crossing the threshold into the public commons i.e. FB/G etc.. I suggest there might be a better way to do this.
- peteretep 6y ago> Definitely not, the UN has no legitimacy here, let alone the judicial framework. The UN has many, many specialised agencies with legitimacy, jurisdiction, and judicial frameworks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_o... I think we’ll see one for media networks
- jariel 6y agoThey have no legitimacy in this case, and just because an agency exists, doesn't really give it legitimacy either. The UN is a grab bag of patchwork things, some for the better, some for the worse. This is the last thing we want the UN involved in. If there were people truly suffering from this, then they'd be a great place to have an agency to give voice to the issue, but beyond that, no.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nitwit005 6y agoHacker news comments have this theme of demanding more human intervention, and also getting extremely upset at instances of human intervention. Any review process that's at least somewhat fair will tend to resemble a court. A rule was violated, evidence on both sides, etc.
- rebuilder 6y ago>Hacker news comments have this theme of demanding more human intervention, and also getting extremely upset at instances of human intervention. Thats because it's not just one person sockpuppeting all these accounts. There's me, and then there's Alice. She's almost always wrong.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tolbish 6y agoI don't think the people who want Facebook to be broken up are same people who complain about monopolies... perhaps you are referring to two different groups of commenters? Whether or not a review process is doing its job is a separate argument from the point that it's regrettable that a review process is needed in the first place.