Why Facebook is Bad for Humans and Villages

mrincredible said:
Well, the problem here I think is talking about censorship in the context of Facebook. They are a company, not a government. They offer a free service which comes with a boatload of conditions. 
Ultimately you are playing in their sandbox. If they ask you to leave the sandbox they have every right to do so. It belongs to them.
In my mind the bigger problem is how much information has been turned over to Facebook. And how much they've created dependency. It's getting harder to live without Facebook, especially with a kid in school. Events are announced and coordinated through Facebook, for instance. 
So it's more like living in a neighborhood where one private house becomes the place where everyone hangs out. If you want to see your neighbors and know what's going on you have to go to that house. To the point where not going there isolates you from your neighbors. If the owner decides they don't like you or your opinions they are within their rights to ask you to mind what you say, or to ask you to leave entirely. 
Billions of people have entered into this arrangement willingly. But calling it censorship misses the point, and complaining about lack of rights misses the point as well.

 This house actually exists in many towns, and it's called the Church.

ridski said:

mrincredible said:

Billions of people have entered into this arrangement willingly. But calling it censorship misses the point, and complaining about lack of rights misses the point as well.

 This house actually exists in many towns, and it's called the Church.

I can make do without the Church. But though I enter these arrangements willingly, I’d find it very hard to make do without heat, water or other public utilities. There’s the rub: While I’m still off the Facebook grid myself, it seems to be getting closer and closer to being relied on like a public utility. (Or at least it was. Maybe the tide is beginning to turn.) If that’s the case, complaints about rights and censorship start gaining more oomph, I think.

ridski said:

mrincredible said:
Well, the problem here I think is talking about censorship in the context of Facebook. They are a company, not a government. They offer a free service which comes with a boatload of conditions. 
Ultimately you are playing in their sandbox. If they ask you to leave the sandbox they have every right to do so. It belongs to them.
In my mind the bigger problem is how much information has been turned over to Facebook. And how much they've created dependency. It's getting harder to live without Facebook, especially with a kid in school. Events are announced and coordinated through Facebook, for instance. 
So it's more like living in a neighborhood where one private house becomes the place where everyone hangs out. If you want to see your neighbors and know what's going on you have to go to that house. To the point where not going there isolates you from your neighbors. If the owner decides they don't like you or your opinions they are within their rights to ask you to mind what you say, or to ask you to leave entirely. 
Billions of people have entered into this arrangement willingly. But calling it censorship misses the point, and complaining about lack of rights misses the point as well.

 This house actually exists in many towns, and it's called the Church.

 This is a great point. It's easy for church-going folk around here to lose sight of that. I go to one of several different churches. Even the biggest church in SOMA (Sorrows I'm guessing) probably doesn't constitute a majority of residents. So the local religious institutions don't enjoy the dominant social position of churches (synagogues / mosques / Wegman's (don't tell me this isn't a religion)) in some communities. 

As far as regulation the only thing I wish was possible was to force more clear EULA language for digital platforms that collect data. I'm sure there are other potential legislative solutions but I cannot think if any right now.

Regarding Facebook participation, we must become our own regulators.  We can choose what to post, what to read, which posters, if any, to follow.  When we see content of a questionable nature, we have the option to dig deeper into the issue,  post a counter point of view, or simply to scroll past.  It is when persons post and read information without stopping to question its content that we run into problems. 

ETA in response to above statements:  We also have the option of ignoring/withdrawing from Facebook and similar platforms of expression entirely.  In this case, it is a question of voting with one's fingers.

Joan, I could not agree with you more. But the ubiquity of Facebook has made it challenging to willingly drop out of that online community. It would have to happen en masse.

I'll add one more thing to my metaphor up above. The owner of the house where everyone hangs out takes note of EVERYTHING everyone says. Then the owner contacts local businesses and tells them "hey I know ten people who are expecting children" or "people in town are interested in more coffee shops" or "everyone is complaining there's no Wegman's". The businesses pay money for this info.

I am done metaphoring... It's exhausting. 

ridski said:

 That led me to this, which is the term I've been looking for to describe countless posts on this board.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_minority#Second-option_bias

 Thank you for the link. It seems to me that second opinion bias plays a substantial role in Trump's appeal to his base.

In the not-to-distant past there was litigation over whether First Amendment Rights apply within large shopping malls. Although they are privately owned properties it was argued that they function as public spaces, as "Town Squares". I believe that view ultimately prevailed.

Is the concept applicable to Facebook? 

I expect the day is coming when it will be argued that it does.

But then what does Facebook do about the trollbots and fake news? Aren't those all protected as well?

FYI

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2016/05/aa-shopping-centers-california/

good discussion going here. Just FYI, this thread isn’t about Jimmy Dore, it’s about Facebook and censorship. 

It's about whatever we want to talk about, unless you want to censor us.

Lovesagoodsale said:
the solution to losing one’s rights is not to give them up voluntarily in the first place. As to why this is in the education section, think about it. 

 Is this an answer to my question on what your solution is? Because if it is, it tells me nothing.

And I did think about why this was in Education. That's why I questioned it. If this is an educational issue, than pretty much everything is.

Lovesagoodsale said:
good discussion going here. Just FYI, this thread isn’t about Jimmy Dore, it’s about Facebook and censorship. 

 So, why is Facebook bad for humans and villages? Censorship?

Lovesagoodsale said:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever posted on next-door?  Your sentiments regarding Facebook remind me of someone I knew (of) over there.

To quote the Princess, I have a bad feeling about this.

Lovesagoodsale said:
good discussion going here. Just FYI, this thread isn’t about Jimmy Dore, it’s about Facebook and censorship. 

 Probably shouldn't have opened with one of his videos, then.

if you guys wanna spend all your time slamming Jimmy Dore rather than discussing other things that might actually affect you, it wouldn’t make you unique. Smearing people is a common tactic and it works well with the masses. The bar is low. 

the issue of censorship is one worth debating. I urge people to learn to debate rather than smear. It’s educational and informative.

Sigh.

Lovesagoodsale said:
I urge people to learn to debate ...

Welcome, newbie (or renewed oldbie). Many of us have been here learning to debate for ages. Your debate methods may be counterproductive to what I'm guessing is your current goal. Please help me stop guessing: What is your goal with this post/debate?

you have assumed you know what my goal is so please go ahead and describe it. I’ll let you know if you’re on target. What do you think I mean?

Lovesagoodsale said:
if you guys wanna spend all your time slamming Jimmy Dore rather than discussing other things that might actually affect you, it wouldn’t make you unique. Smearing people is a common tactic and it works well with the masses. The bar is low. 

 Does that mean we can't slam the "MSM"?

you can do whatever you want. Be careful what you wish for. 

Now I think your goal is to stir the pot. So, maybe I was incorrect.

Censorship is a serious topic deserving consideration. So is the flip side of it though -- editorial accountability.

If Facebook's mission is really "to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together" (I mean it's not -- their mission is to make money for their executives, but let's pretend), then this also implies a responsibility for actively nurturing communication on their platform that encourages connection. Censorship can inhibit this, by chilling speech and discouraging participation, but a high volume free-for-all likewise has a chilling effect that corrodes, rather than nurtures, connection.

This is a problem for social/communication platforms on the internet in general, not just FB.  Technology has enabled faster and more direct communication than ever before, but it's also become somewhat of a firehose, and you can't drink from a firehose.

All of which is to say -- it's a lot more complicated than censorship vs free speech.

FWIW: The Atlantic published an article yesterday that discusses some possible futures of Facebook's content decisions:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/facebook-punish-censorship/577654/

One idea he aired might be thought of as a Supreme Court of Facebook. “I’ve increasingly come to believe that Facebook should not make so many important decisions about free expression and safety on our own,” Zuckerberg wrote. “In the next year, we’re planning to create a new way for people to appeal content decisions to an independent body, whose decisions would be transparent and binding.”

A person who was kicked off the platform, or frustrated that a certain kind of post is consistently censored, might soon have a new venue to air his grievances.

...

Douek, speculating as to why a “Supreme Court of Facebook” might be appealing to the company, argues, “Content-moderation decisions on Facebook are hard, and any call is likely to upset a proportion of Facebook users. By outsourcing the decision and blame, Facebook can try to wash its hands of controversial decisions.” If that’s part of the motivation, it doesn’t make the underlying idea better or worse.

But consumers should be aware that Facebook may prefer to manipulate distribution rather than impose an outright ban. A Supreme Court of Facebook with no control of the algorithm, in a context where Facebook wasn’t transparent about what content it penalizes and why, wouldn’t necessarily remove Facebook’s control over free expression and the most important censorship decisions after all.