The way to think about Facebook is that it’s a drug (behavioral addiction) that billions of people consume regularly, so we should think about it more like a casino or a bar. The only real exception being that the costs of mistakes are 1000x larger (or more), because it’s used way more often than people go to casinos and bars.
If someone wanted to print and mail out pamphlets advocating bleach therapy, write a book, lobby for scientific study, even if they wanted to write an old-fashioned blog—I wouldn’t particularly care. Maybe in some way I would support it as a someone is exercising their first amendment rights, and there is some virtue in that even if they’re woefully incorrect.
I realize I used the word “censored” (mostly because David did, and there’s really not better language in common use) but better term might be 86′d as it’s used in bars. Meaning something like, “you’re misbehaving in a bar in a way that is likely to endanger yourself or others, and we’re now liable if we don’t remove you.”
In the context of Facebook this is saying “it’s your right to create content advocating for bleach therapy, but when we at Facebook algorithmically freebase your content for maximum engagement we’re worried about the externalities so we’re 86ing it.” That’s just being a responsible digital bartender, or digital drug dealer… whatever metaphor you prefer.
If you go back 20, or even maybe 10 years ago, I would completely agree with you here. A point I’ve made elsewhere is we’re confusing engagement-based social media with speech platforms and news media. It’s a category error that causes us to make a lot of mistakes.
The way to think about Facebook is that it’s a drug (behavioral addiction) that billions of people consume regularly, so we should think about it more like a casino or a bar. The only real exception being that the costs of mistakes are 1000x larger (or more), because it’s used way more often than people go to casinos and bars.
If someone wanted to print and mail out pamphlets advocating bleach therapy, write a book, lobby for scientific study, even if they wanted to write an old-fashioned blog—I wouldn’t particularly care. Maybe in some way I would support it as a someone is exercising their first amendment rights, and there is some virtue in that even if they’re woefully incorrect.
I realize I used the word “censored” (mostly because David did, and there’s really not better language in common use) but better term might be 86′d as it’s used in bars. Meaning something like, “you’re misbehaving in a bar in a way that is likely to endanger yourself or others, and we’re now liable if we don’t remove you.”
In the context of Facebook this is saying “it’s your right to create content advocating for bleach therapy, but when we at Facebook algorithmically freebase your content for maximum engagement we’re worried about the externalities so we’re 86ing it.” That’s just being a responsible digital bartender, or digital drug dealer… whatever metaphor you prefer.