Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Pishwish
Clardic Fug
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Pishwish » Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:59 pm

The language got banned for using was even further from being an incitement to violence than that.
Waters' language wasn't smart, but it wasn't an incitement to violence. It was an incitement to protest.

Trump held a rally within walking distance of the Capitol, on the day the votes were to be counted. He told the crowd the election was stolen and that they would stop this from happening. He told them to march to the capital (He did say peacefully, but he also said that he would march with them and did not). Some of his supporters went to the Capitol, there were violent confrontations with the police, pipe bombs were found, and windows were smashed to gain entry. Elected representatives were evacuated, their offices ransacked, and items stolen. The mob called for Mike Pence, the focus of some criticism in Trump's speech, to be hanged. Members of the press were attacked and had their equipment smashed (At the rally, Trump had called the media the enemy of the people and the country's biggest problem). Trump was reported as being pleased when the mob entered the Capitol, and initially refused to condemn the rioters, or even to tell them to leave.
Later, he tweeted his approval of his followers' actions with the following: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” He added, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
The Republican National Committee took a different view, strongly condemning the violence and saying that it did “not represent acts of patriotism, but an attack on our country and its founding principles.” Some republicans were momentarily shaken out of their complacency towards Trump's lawless rhetoric and called for stronger condemnation. Mitch McConnell said, "The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people," The next day, once a temporary twitter ban expired, Trump did condemn the violence and concede defeat. He later regretted conceding, and then tried to claim that it was Antifa that stormed the Capitol. This pretence that Antifa stormed the Capitol was taken up by some of the right wing media, and Republican politicians backtracked as Democrats tried to impeach the president and investigate the events of January 6.

Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can do what they want. Their rationale for banning Trump might be easy to criticise, given their inaction on many of Trumps' previous posts promoting violence, but ultimately it was a commercial decision. Although sharing right-wing disinformation remains lucrative part of their business model, they may have decided that first quarter profitability could be affected if Trump's posts led to further violence or even government overthrow.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:04 am

Pishwish wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:59 pm
The language got banned for using was even further from being an incitement to violence than that.
Waters' language wasn't smart, but it wasn't an incitement to violence. It was an incitement to protest.

Trump held a rally within walking distance of the Capitol, on the day the votes were to be counted. He told the crowd the election was stolen and that they would stop this from happening. He told them to march to the capital (He did say peacefully, but he also said that he would march with them and did not). Some of his supporters went to the Capitol, there were violent confrontations with the police, pipe bombs were found, and windows were smashed to gain entry. Elected representatives were evacuated, their offices ransacked, and items stolen. The mob called for Mike Pence, the focus of some criticism in Trump's speech, to be hanged. Members of the press were attacked and had their equipment smashed (At the rally, Trump had called the media the enemy of the people and the country's biggest problem). Trump was reported as being pleased when the mob entered the Capitol, and initially refused to condemn the rioters, or even to tell them to leave.
You're holding him to a completely different standard to people like Waters here.
Facebook and Twitter are private companies, they can do what they want.
Yeah.. except for their section 230 exemption which is predicated on the basis that it's supposed to be too hard for them to exercise editorial control over what people post for them to be held to the same standards as an old fashioned newspaper.

They clearly can, when they want to, and it's clearly not politically impartial.

Pishwish
Clardic Fug
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Pishwish » Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:38 am

You don't think
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” He added, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
is excusing/justifying violence?

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:43 am

Pishwish wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:38 am
You don't think
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” He added, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
is excusing/justifying violence?
Compare and contrast

"Go home with love & in peace"

with

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Given the scale of the violence in the second case, I think it's actually absurd that somebody would consider banning the first person and not the second, and then think they weren't being politically biased.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Gfamily » Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:52 am

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:43 am
Pishwish wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:38 am
You don't think
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” He added, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
is excusing/justifying violence?
Compare and contrast

"Go home with love & in peace"

with

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Given the scale of the violence in the second case, I think it's actually absurd that somebody would consider banning the first person and not the second, and then think they weren't being politically biased.
Yup, that's why we don't take you seriously. Context.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:15 am

The context is (significantly white, middle class) crowds of people burning and looting african american businesses and beating people up who don't agree with them. There's no parallel here with the peaceful protests of King's era. Pishwash just wrote a lengthy preamble describing Trump organising a protest, and then tried to exonerate Waters... because she was organising a protest. The difference between them is that protests Waters' was encouraging had already done a lot more human damage and she was using much more aggressive and inflammatory language.

The Facebook policy in question doesn't conclude with 'well, you know, unless we kind of agree with the violent protestors in the big historical picture of things'.. because doing so would be obvious political bias just as they're trying to claim impartiality.

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Martin_B » Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:00 am

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:04 am
Pishwish wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:59 pm
The language got banned for using was even further from being an incitement to violence than that.
Waters' language wasn't smart, but it wasn't an incitement to violence. It was an incitement to protest.

Trump held a rally within walking distance of the Capitol, on the day the votes were to be counted. He told the crowd the election was stolen and that they would stop this from happening. He told them to march to the capital (He did say peacefully, but he also said that he would march with them and did not). Some of his supporters went to the Capitol, there were violent confrontations with the police, pipe bombs were found, and windows were smashed to gain entry. Elected representatives were evacuated, their offices ransacked, and items stolen. The mob called for Mike Pence, the focus of some criticism in Trump's speech, to be hanged. Members of the press were attacked and had their equipment smashed (At the rally, Trump had called the media the enemy of the people and the country's biggest problem). Trump was reported as being pleased when the mob entered the Capitol, and initially refused to condemn the rioters, or even to tell them to leave.
You're holding him to a completely different standard to people like Waters here.
One was a congresswoman commenting on riots which erupted from a real event. The other was the president of the country commenting on a conspiracy he (and others) invented and propagated. So maybe they *should* be held to a different standard.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

Pishwish
Clardic Fug
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Pishwish » Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:43 am

The context is (significantly white, middle class) crowds of people burning and looting african american businesses and beating people up who don't agree with them. There's no parallel here with the peaceful protests of King's era. Pishwash just wrote a lengthy preamble describing Trump organising a protest, and then tried to exonerate Waters... because she was organising a protest. The difference between them is that protests Waters' was encouraging had already done a lot more human damage and she was using much more aggressive and inflammatory language.
January 6th wasn't a protest. He was trying to overthrow a general election result. But no big deal, it didn't work and only a few people died.

Your problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't seem to understand why people are protesting against those nice policemen who kill over 1,000 people a year. You seem to think that the antics of a few morons in Portland invalidate the legitimacy of protests by people tired of cops killing their friends and getting away with it. No parallel between last' year's protests and the protests of King's era? Read a book, or at least the wiki. Riots and protests in the 1960s were far more widespread and damaging. People were killed, cities burned. King called for nonviolence*, yet his protests attracted violence. And speaking of parallels with the 1960s, Trump's tweet "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is a quote dating from that time.

Unaccountable cops killing with impunity? Sheldrake is unmoved.
Protests attracting looters and troublemakers: Sheldrake thinks the protests should end.
Cops beating and maiming protesters and passers by? Sheldrake is not interested.
Trump flirts with the alt-right, tries to overthrow an election: Sheldrake thinks: A man of Peace.
Social media kicks Trump off their platforms: Sheldrake is outraged.

(*)
This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.....We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by plodder » Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:11 am

What is this 'political bias' you're all so worried about?

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:15 am

Pishwish wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:43 am


Unaccountable cops killing with impunity? Sheldrake is unmoved.
Cops beating and maiming protesters and passers by? Sheldrake is not interested.
These two are nonsense.
Protests attracting looters and troublemakers: Sheldrake thinks the protests should end.
I don't think encouraging the protesters to become more confrontational in those circumstances is sane, no.
Trump flirts with the alt-right, tries to overthrow an election: Sheldrake thinks: A man of Peace.
You're chaining together weird non-sequiturs now.

The argument you're trying to construct is the one I've already described; you think it's okay for somebody to encourage already violent protests to become more confrontational, knowingly ignoring that much of the violence is directed against completely innocent people. Having a rule against 'inciting violence' and ignoring it in that case but applying to somebody who despite their many obvious faults was actually calling for protestors to be peaceful is an egregious example of bias, yes.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by plodder » Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:32 am

"we will fight them on the beaches"

<2 month auto ban>

Pishwish
Clardic Fug
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Pishwish » Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:26 am

What is nonsense: (1)That cops kill with impunity/beat and maim protesters/passers by
Or (2) that you have no interest in such brutality?

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by plodder » Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:29 am

https://youtu.be/aROyIWFsB1o

<bzzzzt> ban this incendiary filth.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:36 am

Pishwish wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:26 am
What is nonsense: (1)That cops kill with impunity/beat and maim protesters/passers by
Or (2) that you have no interest in such brutality?
2) That I don't care about the brutality.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:37 am

plodder wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:29 am
https://youtu.be/aROyIWFsB1o

<bzzzzt> ban this incendiary filth.
I'm not pro-censorship. I'm anti selective censorship by people pretending to be politically neutral. I would rather both Trump and Waters were able to speak, rather than both banned.

Chris Preston
Snowbonk
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Chris Preston » Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:54 am

Last time I looked, Facebook was a private company and able to ban users who violated its rules. Same applies to Twitter and YouTube.
Here grows much rhubarb.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by plodder » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:12 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:37 am
I'm anti selective censorship by people pretending to be politically neutral.
why is selective censorship a problem and why is being politically neutral so important to you? I'm not sure what 'politically neutral' even means. It doesn't mean conservative, or radical, or risky, or safe, or anything really. How can an organisation have a policy based on nothing at all?

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Stephanie » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:20 pm

The original point I was making when I started this thread was the effects of banning users from a handful of companies that between them control a large portion of the internet. Facebook has 2.8 billion users. That's an enormous community to get shut out of.

If i I lose my personal account, that affects my work - my account is tied in with pages that I manage, and groups I admin, on behalf of companies I work for.

I'm not particularly interested in relitigating who should or shouldn't have been banned from Facebook. But the fact that they effectively control so much of our online speech.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Stephanie » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:23 pm

And given this started with an anti-vaxxer, there are plenty of pro-vax folk who also have comments removed, have time outs, etc, because Facebook automates the majority of their moderation, and it's not sophisticated enough to understand the context of certain comments.

A group I'm in that tries to have a civil discussions about vaccination, including people who are anti, is struggling to keep the group going, because Facebook also auto moderates groups, and they keep getting warnings.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Fishnut » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:31 pm

Skeptics in the Pub Online had a talk last night with Mike Rothschild on QAnon. They had to be really careful with how they publicised it because any explicit mention of QAnon got their posts removed. There was no way for Facebook's algorithms to recognise the difference between people promoting conspiracy theories and people critiquing them, which seems like a major flaw in their system.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Stephanie » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:35 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:31 pm
Skeptics in the Pub Online had a talk last night with Mike Rothschild on QAnon. They had to be really careful with how they publicised it because any explicit mention of QAnon got their posts removed. There was no way for Facebook's algorithms to recognise the difference between people promoting conspiracy theories and people critiquing them, which seems like a major flaw in their system.
the last stat I saw put automated moderation at 90%, then the remaining 10% is the low-paid human moderators who get PTSD from scanning through everyone's horrible content.

unless of course you're a VIP on Facebook's cross-check programme, then your content barely gets moderated at all (that's the majority of celebrities, influencers and politicians fwiw).
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:36 pm

plodder wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:12 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:37 am
I'm anti selective censorship by people pretending to be politically neutral.
why is selective censorship a problem and why is being politically neutral so important to you? I'm not sure what 'politically neutral' even means. It doesn't mean conservative, or radical, or risky, or safe, or anything really. How can an organisation have a policy based on nothing at all?
It can have a policy based on transparent and open rules which it applies evenly, and I think that is important when it's a) got such an enormous global market share and b) insists it doesn't/can't really exercise editorial control over what it's users post in order to enjoy protections which newspapers and TV stations don't have (section 230). I'm not insisting that the Guardian or the Telegraph pretend to be neutral because they don't have this kind of market share or have those legal exemptions.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Snowbonk
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:48 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:31 pm
Skeptics in the Pub Online had a talk last night with Mike Rothschild on QAnon. They had to be really careful with how they publicised it because any explicit mention of QAnon got their posts removed. There was no way for Facebook's algorithms to recognise the difference between people promoting conspiracy theories and people critiquing them, which seems like a major flaw in their system.
Very good talk - and Q&A afterwards. Will be on YouTube in a few days if peeps are interested in seeing it

CF
Image

Post Reply