I find it confusing that a community that frequently acknowledges that free services treat their users as the product simultaneously has expectations that the free service should amplify their speech.
This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.
What exactly is your argument that this isn’t censorship? They’re providing a private chat platform and preventing certain messages from being sent. As far as I can tell this is the exact definition of censorship.
I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship. I'm not making the affirmative claim. If you're curious about how I arrived at a conclusion so easily: we're here discussing it openly on the public Internet.
Every publication that has ever had any editorial control over its platform has exercised it. It’s entitled as hell to think you can use other people’s resources to publish your own thoughts unconstrained.
> I don't need to make an argument that it isn't censorship
Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.
No, I don’t. I’m not making the claim. Look, still not making a claim! Still not making an argument. It’s up to “Facebook is censoring me” to make the case that warrants a defense. And I’m not Facebook so I don’t have do defend that. I can just… have this conversation without censorship. And if I get moderated here in a way I hope I won’t be but don’t expect… I can go to my blog or Twitter or whatever.
Facebook isn’t a censor. Proof: we’re having this conversation. I don’t expect to convince you, but I find it ridiculous that I’m being asked to prove a negative because an affirmative position was extended and you’re not willing to critically examine it.
If FB is a censor, they’re extremely bad at it, and not authorized to be good at it.
"It's not censorship if we can still whisper in the back alleys."
So if Facebook isn't ubiquitous and omnipotent they cannot be considered a censor? You're deliberately applying an impossible requirement that you made up. By this requirement there is nobody that can censor, "China doesn't censor because you can still talk about what you want in America." It's absurd.
FB censors private messages between two people on Facebook Messenger. That's the claim. I'd say it's pretty well backed up with proof and facts in this thread.
Censoring is a verb. They censor (remove content they deem objectionable) communication on their platforms. That is the claim. You’re setting up some kind of straw man here saying they aren’t “a censor” because other platforms exist. By your definition, no true censor exists because someone could always communicate directly 1:1 with someone.
It's censorship, and more specifically it's corporate censorship. When it comes to ranking a feed, you have more of an argument, but blocking direct and supposedly "private" messages on the basis of their content is censorship.
Okay. I'll concede, Facebook is controlling what content is sent on Facebook's own network and services. How. Dare. They? I should be able to send whatever I see fit on their DMs right? Child porn? Coordinated mass violence? Pictures of patterns of holes that upset people with trypophobia? Credit scams? How dare they silence this Nigerian prince?
You're moving goalposts. First you claimed that this wasn't censorship, now you're saying okay it is but it's fine for them to do so here. Censorship is unacceptable in private messages, there's already reporting functionality.
I’m saying none of those causes is censorship, Facebook has no obligation to send your private messages to anyone, and I was glib enough in saying so to include my own personal squick about patterns of holes in things to emphasize the point.
If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
Maybe I'm misreading your message, but you seem to be writing as if your counterpart in the discussion believes these things, despite saying nothing of the kind.
No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those. If you say a private company can’t moderate private messages it hosts, you’re saying it must allow private exchange of child porn. And harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving. And basically any harmful behavior you can imagine.
If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
>No I’m saying “censorship” as a rallying cry around moderation of a platform is effectively demanding permission for those.
I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook.
And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Without Facebook's network effects, they would probably be using a different messenger, so you can't even claim that Facebook is enabling a communication that would otherwise not take place.
And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.
This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.