37
votes
Facebook Says InfoWars, Which Reported That NASA Has a Slave Colony on Mars, Is a Valid Source of “Opinion and Analysis”
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Ben Mathis-Lilley
- Published
- Jul 12 2018
- Word count
- 507 words
Would it be considered rude to block *.facebook.com on friend’s routers when you visit their homes? You know the user/pass is admin/admin.
But seriously, this is the true face of political correctness.
If nothing else, it might inspire them to change their default passwords.
Freedom of speech dictates that this is correct. It isn't up to the media gate keepers to determine what is right and wrong. It's up to the public to read all opinions and determine for themselves what is right and wrong.
Some just happen to be absurdly wrong...
This argument falls flat on it's face as soon as you apply it to old media.
Would you say that the Chicago Tribune should be forced to run my personal op-ed? Would you say that I have a RIGHT to have the TV show I recorded in my basement to be broadcast by CBS? Of course not, because that's an absurd suggestion. Applying the same argument to Facebook or Twitter doesn't change the level of absurdity.
The right to free speech is not the right to be heard.
You're missing my point entirely.
Then can you please help me understand it? Because I reread it several times and am not understanding it any differently.
The chicago tribune curates their content. They choose exactly what it is they devote their space to.
Facebook allows anyone to set up their own page, and post whatever they want to it. They are saying it is not up to facebook and twitter to choose the content being posted as long as they allow anyone to post whatever they want.
This is not accurate. They have detailed policies around what you can and cannot post. For example, no pornography or videos of murder, etc.
They might say this, but it's not accurate. As I just pointed out, and I believe you are already well aware of, FB has free reign to decide what content they want to allow or disallow and has long had detailed policies about what they will and will not permit on their site.
The term "free speech" is often used in these arguments, but it's never made clear in what sense it's being used. It cannot be in the sense of the 1st amendment because that doesn't apply to private companies censoring content on their private platforms and publications. Rather we have to assume that the term "free speech" is intentionally misused to try to provide some legitimacy to post hateful, divisive, and often wholly false content.
This is why I've stated that many folks are confusing a right to speak freely to a right to be heard.
That isn't what's being argued at all. @OriginalBinChicken did not say facebook should be forced to publish Infowars or Alex Jones for viewers.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by this. Free speech is part of freedom of expression which is the right to freely exchange ideas, so isn't part of free speech, the right to be heard? We're not talking about forcing everyone to listen to you, but censoring is deny people from being able to hear you.
Though in this case, I'm not sure there's much value in what they're saying, but should they be censored for it?
Generally speaking, there is no right to broadcast in America -- that is, you can't walk up to your local NPR station or Fox News and demand that they let you on the air, cover your viewpoint or cater to your opinion. In fact they would laugh you right out of the place.
I believe this is what @Pilgrim is getting at with the statement:
Or, at least that is how I interpret it.
Essentially, you can say whatever you want (with specific carve-outs: fighting words, inciting violence, etc.) without persecution by the government, but no television or print media is forced to publish it. The logical extension here is that Facebook et al. do not have to allow you to publish (say) hate-speech on their news side-bar, if they so choose. In fact, I'm not aware of any (please: correct me if I'm wrong) legal reason why Facebook as a private corporation couldn't simply declare that all, say, right-leaning news was hate-speech, and block those publications from appearing on their website. Clearly in this hyperbolic example there would be a clear social and political price to pay (as there probably should be), but no-one is forcing FB to allow Infowars on their platform.
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Just adding, I guess people don't like that FB is choosing to allow Infowars (and similar) on their platform.
Spot on!
I'd say that is up to the company/platform that they're using. It's OK for private companies to censor speech they don't like. And I'm certainly OK with discussing should X be censored on a given platform - but their seems to be a belief among some that they're entitled to share their views in private spaces, which is definitely not the case. I can shout on the street about the end of the world (public place) but not inside a 7/11 (private place).
My comments have been directed mostly towards the Right (I'll happily make that clear) but it goes for the Left as well. This business of shutting down classrooms for entire semesters because a minority group feels aggrieved is also totally bogus. These students feel entitled to do this - but have no right to and I'd encourage colleges to crack down on that hard.
Where this gets a bit more complicated is when we start talking about speakers and rallies at public universities. There's much more room for debate there.
This is something that bothers me too. Especially how every random opinion/thought is granted equal weighing when it's clearly not deserved.
This is a weird one for sure. I do hear of universities cancelling speakers due to protests and I'm honestly torn on it.
Facebook isn't the sidewalk though. It's a privately owned advertising/media platform. The government isn't censoring people, preventing them from speaking their opinion. Facebook owns this particular soap box.
Man on the street interview, some TV host goes around asking people their thoughts on current events. They ask 50 people but only end up showing 5 clips on TV. Are they censoring the other 45 people, or are they deciding what they want to publish on their platform?
You're free to exchange ideas in public. You can walk around with a sandwich board handing out flyers and no one can stop you. But facebook isn't the public. Just because social media seems self-published doesn't mean it necessarily is. It's still a media platform owned by a company who can decide what they do or don't publish, just like a TV station or newspaper.
But by this logic, isn't FB free to choose the content they allow, which is what they're doing.
Of course as a consumer, we can choose not to support this platform, the same way we would not buy a newspaper that leans strongly away from our values.
Yep, and that's a great argument to provide those that want to give cover to hate speech. It's ironically the same argument used by those who want to allow businesses to discriminate services based on race/gender, which I'm sure overlaps quite a bit with the first group mentioned.
For the record, I'm not defending Infowars or FB. I think Infowars is scum and FB have a novel-length of issues. I don't want to give cover for hate speech, and I didn't even think we we're talking about hate speech as much we're talking about inaccurate/incorrect speech.
My two-cents, FB is not the government, and they can draft their own policies on what they allow on their platform (assuming they are not breaking any other laws, such as discriminating against a protected class). This is true of any platform, so what makes FB different? Because they're big? Arguably yes, they are influential and for that reason have a greater responsibility than a random no-name blog. But they are not required to by law, so that leaves us with a couple options (among others):
I honestly don't understand where you're going with this. Denying services based on race/gender as a business is very different from refusing to consume a product for any reason as a consumer.
My comments were intended as conversation, not argument. If it came off otherwise it was not intentional. I think we're largely in agreement. :)
I do not think regulation is the answer. I think the only true answer is education.
I mention this only to point out an inconsistency in logic that some on the right display (again, not directed at you in any way) when asserting the rights of private companies, where at least libertarians are consistent.
Mine too! Though I know I can get a bit pointed in my wording. No offense intended, I am honestly interested in this discussion. :D
Edit to continue, cuz I fat fingered enter.
I believe we are in agreement. Regulation is not something I actually support either. But honestly, I am not sure how to "fix" platforms like FB. Education is definitely the way to go, but a platform that is open and honest and attractive is required, which generally won't appeal to large audience the way FB does.
Apparently the NYTimes no qualms with that since they've run the op-ed of Erik Prince and a few other shitbags...
It definitely goes both ways though - any publication should be able to run what they want, even if it's hate speech.
I like Jones and his show, though i am not a regular viewer/listener. I think he plays an entertaining character, and in amongst the BS there are actual valid opinions and news. Like, Art Bell/coast to coast is entertaining, and 99.99% of it is just silly. Infowars is like... 70% silly. I mean, the globalists (multinational corporations) really are turning the frogs gay (well more like trans) through dumping chemicals into the water (due to negligence and profit motives, not because they want to turn frogs trans - and the health/hormonal effects on humans are not so clear cut as with frogs). ;)
That frog thing is totally true.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-herbicide-turns-male-frogs-into-females/
I found this corbett report video on the topic to be insightful regarding the sociological context of this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-qdxhC6jc
Pollution is no joke and I do agree on that front. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not writing him off entirely :)
As with all sites, he needs to clearly delineate his character and opinion content from his news coverage, then. There are people in this country who are less concerned with verifying news content, and that's how stuff like PIzzagate starts. In this case, it progressed to a shooting. The shooter was actually there to rescue the children that the host of infowars had told people were being held there.
Of course, clearly delineating his character and opinion content from his news content just might put a huge dent in his stats and income.
Freedom of speech (in America) applies narrowly to the government censorship of speech, and says nothing about private corporations:
Facebook doesn't have to do anything, and would be well within their rights to can Infowars, if only so some video discussion of slave colonies on Mars doesn't show up next to a frickin' Space-X ad or something.
You might make an argument appealing more broadly to the "Ideal of Freedom of Speech", but it very clear that we do not live in this world
At the risk of sounding like an echo of the others...
It's important to distinguish between freedom of speech in the sense of "the government shouldn't be able to punish you for your opinions" and in the sense of "websites shouldn't be allowed to ban you for your opinions." The former is guaranteed by the US constitution. The latter is not, and for good reason.
A site like Facebook, Reddit, Tildes, whatever, is private property, and its owners have the right to determine what they will and won't host. Just like I don't have to let someone put political signs out on my lawn if I disagree with them, sites are under no obligation to host content they think is detrimental to the site or reflects poorly on them. Banning a group from Facebook doesn't infringe on their freedom of speech, because they can still express whatever views they like; they just can't use Facebook to spread them. XKCD has a great comic that sums it up pretty well.
There are sites dedicated to the "nothing should ever be banned" type of freedom of speech, and without moderation, they pretty much inevitably very quickly turn into complete shitholes as soon as they get a decently sized userbase (looking at you, Voat).
Yeah, Facebook, block the single organisation willing to take on the interplanetary slave trade.
"So edgy"
I think infowars is all bullshit, fabricated stories to peddle Jones' snakeoil products.
... But I still think this is the right choice. Facebook is a modern day "City Square," it shouldn't be up to them what people can and can't see.
Ok, sure. I’ll agree with that as long as the comments are open to all, and not moderated by the news source themselves. That should actually be hilarious.
That notion just gave me a long continuous chuckle, thanks.
I certainly have no evidence that NASA doesn't have a slave colony. It's not entirely unreasonable to think they might, either, nor that they could very effectively keep it quiet if they did. I doubt they do, but if they did, and someone were to leak it, this might be what it would look like.
The cost scope of putting a colony on mars is large enough that I don't see it as something feasibly kept secret. I also fail to see an adequate reason for an organization like NASA to spend that much time, effort and money to save a couple bucks on payroll. Especially when we're talking about these slaves being children, who have no experience doing anything (since they're kids). Also, why kidnap when volunteers are so easy to find?
Wait, they didn't mean alien slaves that were already on Mars? /s
I know we’re getting a little silly here but I’m always surprised that people think the govt couldn’t keep something quiet if they wanted to. The Manhattan project is a good older example but the govt must be currently keeping tons of really amazing “futuristic” experiments and projects secret. I don’t think that would be hard at all.
Rocket launches to Mars aren't really something you can keep quiet. Unless we're willing to entertain the idea of stealth rockets that can not be seen or detected at any point from launch, through atmospheric travel, the ~260 day trip to Mars, or the return launch on Mars 3 or 4 months later, the ~260 day transit time back to Earth, reentering atmo, and landing. You just can't do it. Eyewitnesses, seismic sensors, surveillance satellites, space tracking, etc.
Not to mention we don't have a Mars-capable rocket in the first place. The last one that flew with a high enough total impulse and payload capacity is the Saturn V, and the last one of those flew 45 years ago. We general fly Atlas V's, Falcon 9's, and Soyuz-family rockets these days. I'm fairly certain none of those are capable of putting humans on Mars at all. If you wanted to build a colony on Mars I can't even begin to think how many launches that would take just to get the infrastructure there. Let alone assemble it and stock it with food and water. How would you even return? Even a fully loaded Saturn V carrying a single person wouldn't have the fuel or capability to return. They're disposable launch vehicles as well, and cost something like $180 million per launch. You'd need two rockets for a round-trip, one already on Mars, which is an entire problem of its own. You're looking at nearly two-years off Earth for a round-trip as well, counting transit time and waiting for the orbits to line up. And that's the quick option. Gravity on Mars is 38% that of Earths. That would fuck you up after any extended time, and your bones would be in constant risk of breaking. Lord knows how it would affect our immune systems or cardiovascular systems as well.
It's just not happening. A child slave colony on Mars, why? You're looking at probably tens of billions of dollars just to build it. Nine months of one-way transit time, with no medical or emergency service if something happened. It just doesn't make sense. If there's a child slave colony anywhere, state-sanctioned or otherwise, it's on Earth. It would just be cheaper, more feasible, and easier to hide, and you don't spend 18 months twiddling your thumbs in rocket at half a billion for a round-trip on a non-existent rocket. It's pure silliness.
As I mentioned in my other comment, yeah. There is so much that would go into it, why would you put in children with no relevant experience? There is no way, when looking at the cost of the whole mission, that paying some people, lets say 1 mil/year (to go overboard like crazy) to live on mars who actually have relevant expertise would be worse than having random children do it for free. Especially when you can recruit randoms with some level of experience for free (if you really wanna save on labor cost). Even then, you probably get way more payout by sending people who are experts in appropriate fields.