Facebook thinks of itself as a state and fundamentally misunderstands it's relationship to the traditional "big L" liberal democracies.
The first amendment[0] specifically defines congress, the law making body, as the arbiter of free speech. This is because without the force of government behind it, the concept of censorship is effectively meaningless.
In a constitutional sense, it is impossible for any actor other than the government to violate a persons first amendment rights.
Facebook, as a corporation, is not capable of violating first amendment rights. Even FCC section 230 [1] explicitly enables facebook to moderate as it sees fit. Facebook could decide that any post that contains the word "avocado" would be deleted on the spot. Or they could decide that only political posts that support Vermin Supreme [2] are allowed.
This would be completely legal.
The same way you are allowed to delete spam and comments by Nazis on your personal blog. You are also not liable if someone posts a libelous comment on your blog, just like facebook isn't liable.
Similarly, if you decide that you are a-ok with rabid neo-nazis commenting on your personal blog, well, then, sure, that's legal, but it also says a hell of a lot about you and your personal beliefs. There's a word for people that sympathize with nazis...
You could run the smallest blog or the largest, world spanning social network and delete Nazi content legally in the US.
So, when Mark Zuckerberg says he is defending free speech, he is using misdirection. He is fully aware that the legal, constitutional term "free speech" doesn't apply to Facebook.
He wants you to avoid thinking that the people that run Facebook are morally responsible for the legal, fcc section 230 moderation that they choose to engage in, the same way you would be morally responsible for actively allowing Nazis to comment on your blog.
It's so simple, a six panel stick figure comic can explain it. [3]
Zuck just doesn't want to show Trump the door. Why? Because he makes a lot of money from sowing division and hate. [4]
As Barry Schnitt, former spokes person for facebook put it [5]:
"Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the Facebook engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice."
The first amendment[0] specifically defines congress, the law making body, as the arbiter of free speech. This is because without the force of government behind it, the concept of censorship is effectively meaningless.
In a constitutional sense, it is impossible for any actor other than the government to violate a persons first amendment rights.
Facebook, as a corporation, is not capable of violating first amendment rights. Even FCC section 230 [1] explicitly enables facebook to moderate as it sees fit. Facebook could decide that any post that contains the word "avocado" would be deleted on the spot. Or they could decide that only political posts that support Vermin Supreme [2] are allowed.
This would be completely legal.
The same way you are allowed to delete spam and comments by Nazis on your personal blog. You are also not liable if someone posts a libelous comment on your blog, just like facebook isn't liable.
Similarly, if you decide that you are a-ok with rabid neo-nazis commenting on your personal blog, well, then, sure, that's legal, but it also says a hell of a lot about you and your personal beliefs. There's a word for people that sympathize with nazis...
You could run the smallest blog or the largest, world spanning social network and delete Nazi content legally in the US.
So, when Mark Zuckerberg says he is defending free speech, he is using misdirection. He is fully aware that the legal, constitutional term "free speech" doesn't apply to Facebook.
He wants you to avoid thinking that the people that run Facebook are morally responsible for the legal, fcc section 230 moderation that they choose to engage in, the same way you would be morally responsible for actively allowing Nazis to comment on your blog.
It's so simple, a six panel stick figure comic can explain it. [3]
Zuck just doesn't want to show Trump the door. Why? Because he makes a lot of money from sowing division and hate. [4]
As Barry Schnitt, former spokes person for facebook put it [5]:
"Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the Facebook engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice."
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
[1] https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-inte...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme
[3] https://xkcd.com/1357/
[4] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...
[5] https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-employees-7d01761e5...