You're saying that Facebook should be compelled to host speech and that its employees may, at most, make a comment about that speech in the comment section.
How would you feel if I told you that you must put a campaign placard in your front yard, and that if you don't like it you may always put a post-it note under the sign expressing your discontent?
> Where did the comment say that Facebook “should be compelled” to do anything?
Here:
>>> They should be allowed to post "this is false" all they want in the comment box, just like everyone else is. They just shouldn't get special powers, like blurring out your article and putting their comment directly over it, instead of in the comment section.
The ability to decide which pixels to serve from a server you own isn't a "special power". It's free speech.
> "Telling someone which pixels they can't serve is censorship."
Ignoring the extreme irony of people supposedly on the left arguing to protect corporate rights and personhood (of an absurdly wealthy megacorporation, no less), this is the same argument as "Telling a shop owner which $PROTECTED_CLASS they must serve is restricting freedom of association." once used by bigots. In both cases, yes, it is but both are public accommodations and it serves the greater good to require that they serve everyone equally.
It’s not at all the same argument. The key difference is “$PROTECTED_CLASS”. It’s perfectly legal for a shop owner to refuse service to anyone as long as it’s not based on a protected class. That should hold true for Facebook as well. If they censor people based on a protected attribute, such as sex, then they should be compelled to offer equal service. In any of these cases being discussed, they don’t relate to protected classes.
That's a circular argument. The reason $PROTECTED_CLASS became a protected class is because people saw the unjustness of their treatment and agreed that they needed to be treated equally, backed up by the force of law. If you were placed in the year 1800, by your logic you'd be saying that $FUTURE_PROTECTED_CLASS doesn't need to be treated equally right now because they're not a protected class. Clearly, that's not valid. The unequal treatment is the problem; not being in a protected class is irrelevant to that.
The problems with Facebook can't be solved by censorship, either of Facebook users or of Facebook itself.
To be blunt, your comment is presumptive, confrontational, and unpleasant for no reason. My point of view on this is obviously more nuanced than your lazy straw-man.
In the comment I posted, had you bothered to read the whole thread instead of jumping down my throat, I say:
>> Should a company the size of Facebook get Section 230 protection? Probably not. Should government officials be allowed to use social media sites for official business? I don't think so. Should campaign finance laws be strengthened and ad spends on social media sites subject to much more sunshine? Sure. And should meta be broken up? Yeah.
>> I'm not here to defend Facebook, and I think the interventions I would propose to deal with the Facebook Problem are probably far more damaging to Facebook the company than "no more moderation".
Far from advocating protecting corporate rights, I'm arguing for the dissolution of legal protections which are much more valuable to Facebook than its free speech protections.
Moving on to the rest of your comment, you say:
> this is the same argument as "Telling a shop owner which $PROTECTED_CLASS they must serve is restricting freedom of association
Yawn. Who cares? This is not an instructive or insightful comment. It's a meme that has been repeated on every thread on this topic for close to a decade at this point. It doesn't really tell us anything about the nature of the problem.
There are many ways to check corporate power. Compelling or restricting speech is not the right tool in the case of Facebook. Censoring Facebook as an intervention is too weak, too susceptible to abuse, and doesn't address the underlying problem.
Go look at actual attempts to implement something like what you suggest. E.g., Hawley's legislation which would allow Facebook moderation powers (which is, frankly, necessary for any community with higher utility than 4chan). But which would also have a panel of political appointees decide, based on Facebook's moderation behavior, whether it should keep Section 230. Surely you see how that is ripe for abuse, right?
Again. The problems with Facebook can't be solved by censorship, either of Facebook users or of Facebook itself. That is not a defense of Facebook. Quite the opposite.
Speaking of irony... I'm literally the only person in this thread advocating for a solution to the Facebook problem that doesn't involve censoring someone/something.
The argument is that certain people (fact checkers) have special powers from the perspective of Facebook. I'm not arguing that it should be illegal for Facebook to do this (which they indeed have the right to), but that it's morally wrong.
How would you feel if I told you that you must put a campaign placard in your front yard, and that if you don't like it you may always put a post-it note under the sign expressing your discontent?