Bad idea.

What's acceptable: "Your opinion is distasteful, and I am going to ignore you. I'm also going to tell everyone I know to ignore you."

What's not acceptable: "Your opinion is distasteful, and I am going to prevent you from speaking, keeping anyone else from hearing your opinion."

It's a privately owned third party, non-government company. If they find anyone is hurting the user experience on average, it's in their best economic interests to ban that account. This is how the profit motive is meant to work.

We can debate whether the profit motive is good or whether we should require companies to do more than look after their capitalist interests and not kill us, but as it stands, the model is working as intended.

That's why I really appreciate the SE mod system. Even when a comment or post gets downmodded to oblivion, it's still just a click away for anyone who actually wants to see it. It's a great balance between the individual's freedom to speak and the community's freedom to set and maintain its own standards of conduct.

I am absolutely 100% against censorship.

That said, Facebook is a private company and can run it any which way they please. Telling them they have to publish every individual's content is in itself a form of censorship.

I've read that FB is working to improve their AI programs, my guess is their automated system just did what it's programmed to do and no human ever set eyes on this. They will probably resolve the problem by reinstating the page on their website.

I would love to see them be more accomodating to users, I really don't get their censorship of artistic nudity, but I have spent enough time on 4chan to see what happens when websites work unregulated. They have their middle ground, and every system has its kinks.

Also, thanks for cluing me into that group's existence, I've been trying to find more info, both pro and con, on GMOs.

Basically, people who are annoyed by 'censorship' by Facebook should try to get their information from sources other than Facebook.

I am not annoyed, I am curious.

Facebook has the right to do as they like, however, the topic of when it's appropriate to shut down a conversation has come up here recently. While this can very well be an example of a technical glitch, I think it's worth pointing out there is a fault in the logic of having the default stance be to shut down a conversation if enough reports come in, and this does seem to demonstrate beautifully why that should not be the first instinct or option.

But I am open to the idea this is a good, or even the best way to handle something like this. As of current, I am not convinced. It seems to be an actual human being might be required. Of course, Facebook can do as they like, but I doubt they want to be known as Gestapo to the cry baby brigades of the internet.

Well if Facebook's primary objective is to foster open debate, free speech, and unfettered access to reliable information than this would be a valid point. But I think it's clear (or should be clear) that their priorities lie elsewhere, and their still dominant popularity as a social media forum means they can live with pockets of criticism from the 'cry baby brigades' or even credentialed social critics.

Facebook has no purpose beyond being a means for people to inter-communicate, and to take advantage of that via advertisement.

As I said, they can do what they like, but the question is still valid. Is it a smart idea to default to shutting down a conversation by popular demand?

Well really Facebook's purpose is to monetize people's intercommunication.

So beyond the ethics of shutting down conversations by popular demand, it might be a good idea- for them to do so. I imagine there's some automated algorithm that determines when they do this- just to avoid any appearance of human bias or judgement.

I am not sure it is a good idea for them to ever shut down communication given that criteria. The more people that visit said troubling conversation the more people might see advertisements that are paying Facebook's bills.

If it becomes obvious all it takes is enough people to shut someone or something down, that will have a serious cooling effect on Facebook's profit, let alone the question of how the media should or should not respect free speech positions.

Well you might be right, I'm just assuming the people who've made this calculus at FB have generally thought it through.
But I'd argue that these decisions really are irrelevant to the concept of free speech, since FB and other social media platforms are technically not public arenas. They don't guarantee free speech and aren't obligated to respect it. Sure you can argue all you want that it's in their better interest if they did, but until they hire you as an executive media consultant they'll just continue to do what works for them.

They do. They have Fox News and they vote for Donald Trump and they are a growing segment of the country.

Maybe Facebook has a responsibility towards the country that let it come into being and grow since it's acting as a media service.

Maybe America should start fostering its own citizens education and information instead of taking scientists from other countries and having businesses complain about a "talent gap"/"education gap".

Maybe that.

But I suppose if I want to live in a country that takes care of its citizens maybe o should move to a first world country.

Really mookie, if I didn't know better I'd think you were defending the concept of Facebook- basically a vast crowd-sourced rumor mill- as a legitimate source of news and information, at least as an alternative to sources of deliberate misinformation (like Fox News). But I know you're a lot smarter and better-informed than that, so I honestly have no idea what you're on about. Maybe we just need to fact the disquieting possibility that a portion of our fellow citizens simply don't want to be educated or well-informed.

Ignorance is bliss. Truly.

Well I'd argue that ignorance can be bliss, but above all ignorance is easy.

Mookie's downmod notwithstanding, I agree— with some reservations. As I mentioned above or below, FB has privatised and commercialised the free discourse between local and disparate groups (the agora). I know that in some countries, FB has replaced email as the medium of choice for intra-corporate communications. Which, quite frankly, is fucked. Telus, a major telecom company, has a large facility in the Philippines. They use FB as the main means of communications within departments. Nobody reads the terms of service anymore. FB claims the right to use any content sent over their service, in perpetuity, without credit or attribution. They can piss all over/profit from, the intellectual property rights/trade secrets shared through their service and it's unlikely that the maligned party can do anything about it. Sadly, the terms of service from your cellphone provider or Internet provider express exactly the same. At least the postal service doesn't claim any rights to the letters sent via their service.

Facebook has every legal right to delete anything they don't like on their site. And the public has every right to say, "That's fucking bullshit" and use a different service.

Except it's not a free market and there are barriers, so really there is no viable alternative service.

There's something to be said for family and child friendly, but options for consenting/interested adults should exist.

Because they have a responsibility to America as a media media.

Otherwise you get Fox News.

You had me at
"That said, Facebook is a private company and can run it any which way they please."

you lost me at
"Telling them they have to publish every individual's content is in itself a form of censorship."

FB has privatised the agora (the central marketplace/square in Athens where people would gather to exchange ideas) and they have, as a private entity, the absolute right to determine what is being said in their "square". But... when do the rights of society as a whole supersede the rights of a for-profit entity that provides benefits for a tiny minority? I'd argue that it's time that corporations be held accountable for the deleterious effects that they have on society. Hard.

Facebook is not meant to be a bastion of free speech and information. It is meant to be a place where you talk about your pets, share funny pictures, learn who in your family has racist opinions, and send party invites (but not to the conveniently self-labeling racists). People who talk about politics on Facebook a lot are just there to let you know you don't want to hang out with those people because they may be incapable of casual conversation and that's a bit of a drag.

It is also a place where you post drunken rants and then delete them and hope no one saw that.

Is everyone else just using Facebook wrong?

Right, that's really tangential to the issue at heart here, I think.

I am not asking if Facebook has the right to do or not do this, it clearly does. I am asking rather, is it a good idea to have a system where enough complaints removes something? When people figure out that this is the case, they will use it to shut down things they don't like.

Case and point, the link in the extended.

Yes. I think it is.

There are lots of places where there's unabated free speech. When it comes to something that's meant for entertainment, it's nice to be able to avoid things that would upset you. That's the entire point of entertainment.

This is not say all sites or the world in general should have this feature, but places that are meant to be fun should be able to stay fun.

When it comes to something that's meant for entertainment, it's nice to be able to avoid things that would upset you.

But the things that upset you might entertain me, and vice versa. If you want to be able to choose what you see and what you don't, that's great, but shouldn't I get to make that choice for myself too?

Facebook kicking someone off does not stop you from seeking that out. It's entertainment for the masses, so you're going to deal with the whims of the majority, but no one is preventing you from seeing that sort of content if you want to. You just won't be doing it on Facebook.

I don't like this comment and you should be banned.

If the majority of users feel my presence ruins their experience, then it would be in SE's best interests to ban me, absolutely.

Now if it's just you, there is no real incentive to care.

" it's nice to be able to avoid things that would upset you"

stay home, turn off the tv, shut your drapes. there you go.

Private company. That means their sandbox, their rules. Don't like it? Fuck off, and go build your own sandbox.

Really, if you don't like the way Facebook polices it's intellectual property, then just stop using the damn thing- it's not like everyone on the planet uses it for communication, or anything.

Right?

Facebook should be a place where I can say anything I want, even to tell everyone else to shut up.

Not sure if the rest of the US is getting this news, but a woman (Korryn Gaines) was shot by SWAT here in Baltimore in her home with her five year old. She barricaded herself in her home with a shotgun and police said . She's dead. The boy was also shot by the SWAT team and survived.

Korryn Gaines was streaming the ordeal on her Facebook and posting videos on Instagram during the standoff. Baltimore PD contacted Facebook to take down her Facebook account before they shot her. They also took down her Instagram account. Supposedly the videos she shared are now part of the investigation.

All sides of this matter aside, Facebook is definitely a private company

Okay... 1234 and other Numbers... since you're usually downmodded here, what is your opinion?