Facebook's New Orwellian Censorship

[Renegade]

For the last little bit, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage.

CAUTION: This link has a video that autostarts with sound - scroll down to pause it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate



http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424957180900724&set=pb.231164773613300.-2207520000.1351783684&type=3&src=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc7%2F334352_424957180900724_389941814_o.jpg&smallsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc7%2F420852_424957180900724_389941814_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1529



(They need Screenshot Captor~! )

http://www.prisonplanet.com/facebook-flags-pacs-obama-benghazi-meme-post-threatens-account-closure.html



I'm sure there are more.

This is... disturbing...

I started to write a post, then decided not to post it. It was still in a tab in my browser, so I'll put it here in a spoiler as it is related. (I never finished the post.)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It seems that speech is being censored on Facebook more and more. A lot of people use Facebook as a platform for a group or ideology or something, and it seems increasingly that Facebook is starting to block some things. I've seen it twice in the last few days.

Now, for government censorship (public), most people are basically behind governments not censoring. but not really - they mostly just pay lip service to allowing popular speech, then balk at any kind of unpopular speech, which pretty much defeats the purpose of free speech. Still, they at least pay lip service to free speech and no censorship.

But, when it comes to companies (private), it seems like a very different beast. Attitudes change, and there's much more gray area there.

For example, if you have a small web site dedicated to ACME rocket skates and other dangerous ACME products, you don't really want people posting about free speech, and would likely block those posts, or ban users. This seems more reasonable for a topically dedicated site. But non-topical, or social sites that start censoring, there seems to be a bit more reservation there, or a sense of being less likely to tolerate "censorship".

It's pretty hard to see any of those images as "offensive". They're pretty simple and certainly not controversial. Well, no more controversial than stating things like there's a moon in the sky.

[tomos]

Ach, they're a bit controversial all right -
but that doesn't excuse the censorship...

Combine that with the fact that only 10-20% of your friends/fans actually see what you post - unless you pay exorbitant amounts. They better cop on or they'll just go down the drain.
See especially the dangerousminds link:

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_i_want_my_friends_back

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7888969/Facebook-sneaks-in-fees-to-promote-posts?cid=dlvr.it

So .. pay $10 a post if you want it to reach more than 20% of the people who should be able to see it?

(from the other current FB thread)

[Renegade]

Actually, they're not in any way controversial. Merely "inconvenient" facts.

For the first, it's just a matter of fact. On September 11th, 2012, support calls were turned down. The General in charge of the operation ordered troops in for support, and within moments was arrested as the 2IC took over and things returned to "normal". No controversy there. Just matters of fact.

The second is even less controversial. It's just an avatar of Che Guevera wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

For the third, well, again. Just matters of fact. Al Quaida is an invention of the CIA. This is broadly known, and in no way controversial. It's just a matter of fact.


Like I said -- Orwellian -- http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'

'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.

THIS is EXACTLY the Orwellian nightmare.

Another short 1984 snippet - from immediately after the above

'"Who controls the present controls the past,"' said O'Brien, nodding his
head with slow approval. 'Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has
real existence?'

Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted
towards the dial. He not only did not know whether 'yes' or 'no' was the
answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he
believed to be the true one.

O'Brien smiled faintly. 'You are no metaphysician, Winston,' he said.
'Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I
will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is
there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past
is still happening?'

'No.'

'Then where does the past exist, if at all?'

'In records. It is written down.'

'In records. And----?'

'In the mind. In human memories.'

'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we
control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?'

'But how can you stop people remembering things?' cried Winston again
momentarily forgetting the dial. 'It is involuntary. It is outside oneself.
How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!'

O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.

For those links - yes - I've already read them. (I'll stay in that thread for that travesty.)

[tomos]

My main point was that -whether they are considered controversial or not- I dont see why FB should be censoring them.

Debating whether they're controversial or not is kinda besides the point imo
(FB obviously finds them controversial enough to censor)

[Renegade]

Debating whether they're controversial or not is kinda besides the point imo
(FB obviously finds them controversial enough to censor)

+1~!

[40hz]

Facebook is under increasing pressure due to it's shoddy and mercurial policies on privacy (or lack thereof) and some questionable financial reporting during its public offering. What better time than now for some in a position to let the hounds off the leash to "suggest" FB "voluntarily" start cutting down on some freedom of expression. Especially since, as a private business, FB is under no constitutional obligations or constraints whatsoever.

That's the beauty of privatization. Government has checks and balances placed upon it. Corporations have none other than whatever "customer agreement" it cares to offer - and which is subject to change without notice.

[attach]

[f0dder]

Nope...I don't want less government in my life. I want less 'corporation.'

And once again 40hz is spot on the sugar. Bravo, sir!

[wraith808]

Nope...I don't want less government in my life. I want less 'corporation.'

Actually, I want less of both.

[tomos]

Corporations have none other than whatever "customer agreement" it cares to offer - and which is subject to change without notice.

I know that most customers are pretty mindless, but you still gotta look after them:
They're seriously losing business support with their pay (a fortune) per view tactics. With censorship, they're also now getting bad press.
If they can keep the masses posting, I guess they'll be okay.
For a while ...

I barely ever check in there now myself, (was even considering deleting my account lately, but probably wont bother - for a while anyway).

[Stoic Joker]

Nope...I don't want less government in my life. I want less 'corporation.'

Actually, I want less of both.

+1

[Renegade]

Kind of related, conceptually anyways:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0147393882.shtml

Truth Is No Longer An Absolute Defense Against Libel?!?