6 ms·

The part of the EULA he violated was for objectionable and harmful content. The rules were laid out ahead of time in the EULA, sure, but the point that this can

The part of the EULA he violated was for objectionable and harmful content. The rules were laid out ahead of time in the EULA, sure, but the point that this can be considered censorship remains.

smoldesu 5y ago
If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content, and the radio station down the road is censoring your because they won't play your music. But you have a right to free speech, not a right to be heard. Censorship is a word that we use to describe the abuse of that limitation, and doing something that happens hundreds of times a day (banning users for violating the TOS) absolutely don't constitute as an abuse. Even using the most liberal possible definition of "censorship", it barely applies in this situation.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  > If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content. Yes, that's true. But for most platforms, like Hacker News, that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. > The radio station down the road is censoring you because they won't play your music. That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. (This limit on time also creates competition: Since one radio station can't play everything, there will always be many different radio stations, they same isn't true for social networks.)
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    > that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. Oh, so all of the sudden censorship is a matter of scale? I'd like to see a definition of censorship that involves scale in any way. > That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. They're limited in the content they can serve, with the difference being that they can scale infinitely. In any case, your liability as a user increases as your share of that content scales. All you've done so far is deflect, without actually making any case. There are hundreds of social networks. You can build your own social network in 5 minutes with Mastodon and a VPS. Failing that, there's hundreds of decentralized and perfectly un-censorable protocols that you can use too. Facebook is a business. They have every right to refuse you service if you break their rules. End of discussion.
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      > Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. This is a red herring. Facebook doesn't argue that they have to ban Trump to save bandwidth. > In any case, your liability as a user increases as your share of that content scales. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. > All you've done so far is deflect, without actually making any case. This is pretty rich. My first comment in this thread was: "Yeah, I don't have a facebook account either, yet I'm concerned about censorship on facebook, because facebook has enough users in my country to swing any election." All you've done is to deflect from my main point - the concern about facebooks power to swing elections - by playing wordgames with the word "censorship", making various claims about what isn't censorship without even offering a definition of your own. > You can build your own social network in 5 minutes with Mastodon and a VPS. Failing that, there's hundreds of decentralized and perfectly un-censorable protocols that you can use too. Needless to say, none of this engages with my main point either.

The part of the EULA he violated was for objectionable and harmful content. The rules were laid out ahead of time in the EULA, sure, but the point that this can be considered censorship remains.

smoldesu 5y ago

If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content, and the radio station down the road is censoring your because they won't play your music. But you have a right to free speech, not a right to be heard. Censorship is a word that we use to describe the abuse of that limitation, and doing something that happens hundreds of times a day (banning users for violating the TOS) absolutely don't constitute as an abuse. Even using the most liberal possible definition of "censorship", it barely applies in this situation.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
> If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content. Yes, that's true. But for most platforms, like Hacker News, that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. > The radio station down the road is censoring you because they won't play your music. That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. (This limit on time also creates competition: Since one radio station can't play everything, there will always be many different radio stations, they same isn't true for social networks.)
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > that's not a concern, because they don't have that many users. Oh, so all of the sudden censorship is a matter of scale? I'd like to see a definition of censorship that involves scale in any way. > That's not really what censorship means, because the radio station only has limited time, and they have to choose what music to play. Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. They're limited in the content they can serve, with the difference being that they can scale infinitely. In any case, your liability as a user increases as your share of that content scales. All you've done so far is deflect, without actually making any case. There are hundreds of social networks. You can build your own social network in 5 minutes with Mastodon and a VPS. Failing that, there's hundreds of decentralized and perfectly un-censorable protocols that you can use too. Facebook is a business. They have every right to refuse you service if you break their rules. End of discussion.
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    > Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. This is a red herring. Facebook doesn't argue that they have to ban Trump to save bandwidth. > In any case, your liability as a user increases as your share of that content scales. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. > All you've done so far is deflect, without actually making any case. This is pretty rich. My first comment in this thread was: "Yeah, I don't have a facebook account either, yet I'm concerned about censorship on facebook, because facebook has enough users in my country to swing any election." All you've done is to deflect from my main point - the concern about facebooks power to swing elections - by playing wordgames with the word "censorship", making various claims about what isn't censorship without even offering a definition of your own. > You can build your own social network in 5 minutes with Mastodon and a VPS. Failing that, there's hundreds of decentralized and perfectly un-censorable protocols that you can use too. Needless to say, none of this engages with my main point either.