This article inanely retreads some very generalized observations about Facebook's announced (but not yet tangibly implemented) new policy, quotes a random American citizen's nonsensical beliefs...
This article inanely retreads some very generalized observations about Facebook's announced (but not yet tangibly implemented) new policy, quotes a random American citizen's nonsensical beliefs about freedom of expression, then spends its back two-thirds surveying a list of moves made by Facebook thought to be reactions to terrorist violence.
What on earth are those? I'm relatively well travelled, and the only international norms I could point at are basic rules like 'don't be a dick' - it's all pretty different out there.
International Norms
What on earth are those?
I'm relatively well travelled, and the only international norms I could point at are basic rules like 'don't be a dick' - it's all pretty different out there.
I'd argue that at least one "International speech norm" is a ban on hate speech. The United States is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of hate speech law on the...
I'd argue that at least one "International speech norm" is a ban on hate speech.
The United States is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of hate speech law on the books.
I'd also argue that the Imminent lawless action-test for what sort of avocations for violence are illegal in the US are also way less strict than the international norms that disallow way more speech in those directions.
Facebook, among others, are applying more restrictive and international standards there than the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
I agree with the other comments in this thread that this article makes a poor job of explaining and describing its case.
I think the main proposition is strong though: western/English-speaking cultures' rules on hate speech, advocating violence, fighting words and many other things are way stricter than the US laws. Social media platforms are forced to apply those norms rather than US laws. (I'd argue that's because the US laws are outdated, and unworkable in a modern society of mass-communication)
Facebook is indeed applying international speech norms rather than US law. Banning white supremacy is indeed a strong further move in that direction. This means that US citizens will be way more exposed to environments that have these rules than their own laws. I expect that will lead a lot more Americans to realize that there's no need to allow purified hate like the Westburo baptist church and others.
Those types of speech are not something we need to allow in society. People with large followings cause real harm by spreading those kinds of messages, even when they stay within the confines of US law.
Except that's aligning laws and company policy, which aren't even close to the same thing. If you said the things that are being banned in just about any US company you would get shitcanned. It's...
Except that's aligning laws and company policy, which aren't even close to the same thing.
If you said the things that are being banned in just about any US company you would get shitcanned. It's a US norm, it just isn't a US law.
It's the opposite of aligning laws and company policy: it's diverging company policy from US law. As Facebook policy diverges more and more from US law, it is approaching the international norms....
It's the opposite of aligning laws and company policy: it's diverging company policy from US law.
As Facebook policy diverges more and more from US law, it is approaching the international norms.
The US constitution (and consequently US speech law) is changed very rarely.
That's not the case for other constitutions or speech laws. Those laws in other countries align more with the norms of the day since they're adjusted more regularly, and have been changed much more recently than 1969.
The differences between US companies and social media shitcanning people for saying legal, objectionable things is that social media platforms essentially provide areas for people to talk with themselves.
I can't use Facebook to spread hate within my closed group of friends (or subgrups of friends), even if those groups of friends say those hateful things when they get together in meatspace.
Media platforms emulate public-like spaces for talking but impose other norms than the laws that actually govern public spaces.
I'm saying YOU are aligning laws and company policy by comparing them directly, and that that is like comparing apples and oranges. The US has norms that are not at all enshrined in its laws -...
I'm saying YOU are aligning laws and company policy by comparing them directly, and that that is like comparing apples and oranges.
The US has norms that are not at all enshrined in its laws - Facebook is following those.
This article inanely retreads some very generalized observations about Facebook's announced (but not yet tangibly implemented) new policy, quotes a random American citizen's nonsensical beliefs about freedom of expression, then spends its back two-thirds surveying a list of moves made by Facebook thought to be reactions to terrorist violence.
What on earth are those?
I'm relatively well travelled, and the only international norms I could point at are basic rules like 'don't be a dick' - it's all pretty different out there.
I'd argue that at least one "International speech norm" is a ban on hate speech.
The United States is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of hate speech law on the books.
I'd also argue that the Imminent lawless action-test for what sort of avocations for violence are illegal in the US are also way less strict than the international norms that disallow way more speech in those directions.
That's in line with previous US Supreme Court rulings and standards prior to the ILA-test's entrance in 1969.
Facebook, among others, are applying more restrictive and international standards there than the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
I agree with the other comments in this thread that this article makes a poor job of explaining and describing its case.
I think the main proposition is strong though: western/English-speaking cultures' rules on hate speech, advocating violence, fighting words and many other things are way stricter than the US laws. Social media platforms are forced to apply those norms rather than US laws. (I'd argue that's because the US laws are outdated, and unworkable in a modern society of mass-communication)
Facebook is indeed applying international speech norms rather than US law. Banning white supremacy is indeed a strong further move in that direction. This means that US citizens will be way more exposed to environments that have these rules than their own laws. I expect that will lead a lot more Americans to realize that there's no need to allow purified hate like the Westburo baptist church and others.
Those types of speech are not something we need to allow in society. People with large followings cause real harm by spreading those kinds of messages, even when they stay within the confines of US law.
Except that's aligning laws and company policy, which aren't even close to the same thing.
If you said the things that are being banned in just about any US company you would get shitcanned. It's a US norm, it just isn't a US law.
It's the opposite of aligning laws and company policy: it's diverging company policy from US law.
As Facebook policy diverges more and more from US law, it is approaching the international norms.
The US constitution (and consequently US speech law) is changed very rarely.
That's not the case for other constitutions or speech laws. Those laws in other countries align more with the norms of the day since they're adjusted more regularly, and have been changed much more recently than 1969.
The differences between US companies and social media shitcanning people for saying legal, objectionable things is that social media platforms essentially provide areas for people to talk with themselves.
I can't use Facebook to spread hate within my closed group of friends (or subgrups of friends), even if those groups of friends say those hateful things when they get together in meatspace.
Media platforms emulate public-like spaces for talking but impose other norms than the laws that actually govern public spaces.
I'm saying YOU are aligning laws and company policy by comparing them directly, and that that is like comparing apples and oranges.
The US has norms that are not at all enshrined in its laws - Facebook is following those.
Yep, rules 1 & 2 of surviving as a human: