Not very long ago, YouTube, Facebook and some other large content providers/social networks decided to block Alex Jones. Alex Jones, the Infowars founder that regularly spreads everything from 9/11 conspiracy to Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. What finally convinced these companies to make a change is an analysis for another time, as this discussion will focus on what this decision may ultimately mean.
One might argue that Facebook and Google are private companies, and can do as they please. They aren't obligated to serve Alex Jones cake of any kind, and are not public squares or public institutions that can do what they want. If Alex Jones doesn't like it, he can move on to its own website.
Another argument is that Facebook and Google have a defacto monopoly, and this move sets a bad precedent. Either the government should intervene, or the general public should be made aware of these efforts to control speech. In some sense, Facebook should either be legally forced or socially shamed into making changes and getting Alex Jones back on the platform until he does something really stupid on Facebook.
Yet those defending Alex Jones' place on Facebook and believe this to be a bad precedent for the platform expose a comically high level of ignorance of how Facebook actually functions. Facebook is a website that already bans all pseudonyms, all semblance of nudity and violence. If anyone meets the requirements of a bully, it would be Alex Jones, a person that would win Olympic gold if defaming people was a sport. For smaller infractions, Facebook has deleted loads of people before Alex Jones, and will continue to delete people after Alex Jones.
There are those that may not care that Facebook is a private company and may think that Facebook was already censoring too much even before Alex Jones was banned. People like Bill Maher that saw the ban as a bad step (those that may be describe as a 'ACLU left' of sorts) might think that Facebook's corporate rights don't overrule individual rights and individuals already face too much censorship. They might circle back to the definition of social networks as a modern 'public square' and that the answer to 'bad speech' is 'more speech'.
However, social networks are clearly not public squares. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Nearly all the ad-buys, ad-views, posts, messages, clicks, likes, and a lot of the content is privileged information. Nobody can see what you see on Facebook. Users are marketed to at an individual level to such an extent that they fall into a bubble of their own making, and the only actor in control of the bubbles is Facebook.
Hypothetical-but-actually-real scenario: Imagine for a moment that an Islamist sympathizing group bought ads on Facebook with a 'legit-enough' legal entity. They targeted demographics based on 'Likes' and ages. Ads showed invites to private groups or specific Facebook applications, which further harvested information. Content in the user's feed is soon directly tailored for them, out of public view.
In what sense can this technological dystopia be fought with 'more speech' as if it was all happening in a transparent manner? Clearly Facebook is holding all the cards and then has an ethical obligation to manage content. There is literally no way for 'public discourse' to counteract private ads and secret messages. Thinking of Facebook as a public space is to completely misunderstand how Facebook treats its audience and how this audience interacts with content.
Strangely enough, Facebook has a very vertical relationship with its consumers. Facebook does not merely manage identity, it manages links, ads, content sorting. Facebook is curating the user's attention for its own profit.
Once upon a time, this vertical integration was fought in a battle over net neutrality - largely left-leaning people saw corporate control over the internet as disturbing as ISPs could abuse monopoly power to privilege its content (Comcast could provide special rates and speeds for NBC digital content). Despite most of America having very little choice in high speed internet providers, a lot of right-leaning 'free market' advocates scoffed at the idea of regulating companies that have established vast claims to both physical space and spectrum space in America.
With Alex Jones being established as a sort of 'anti-SJW' Trump surrogate, some of the people that were against the 'socialist' net neutrality are now making the argument that Facebook is a pseudo public square and in some grand irony believe that this move is a really bad omen for the ability of average Americans to access information. One network space is a 'public square' that should be forced or shamed into fair play rules, whereas the other network is a private company that can do what it wants even if it happens to own the only cable that services your home and the cable was subsidized by the taxpayer or is inherently public property.
In summary:
One might argue that Facebook and Google are private companies, and can do as they please. They aren't obligated to serve Alex Jones cake of any kind, and are not public squares or public institutions that can do what they want. If Alex Jones doesn't like it, he can move on to its own website.
Another argument is that Facebook and Google have a defacto monopoly, and this move sets a bad precedent. Either the government should intervene, or the general public should be made aware of these efforts to control speech. In some sense, Facebook should either be legally forced or socially shamed into making changes and getting Alex Jones back on the platform until he does something really stupid on Facebook.
Yet those defending Alex Jones' place on Facebook and believe this to be a bad precedent for the platform expose a comically high level of ignorance of how Facebook actually functions. Facebook is a website that already bans all pseudonyms, all semblance of nudity and violence. If anyone meets the requirements of a bully, it would be Alex Jones, a person that would win Olympic gold if defaming people was a sport. For smaller infractions, Facebook has deleted loads of people before Alex Jones, and will continue to delete people after Alex Jones.
There are those that may not care that Facebook is a private company and may think that Facebook was already censoring too much even before Alex Jones was banned. People like Bill Maher that saw the ban as a bad step (those that may be describe as a 'ACLU left' of sorts) might think that Facebook's corporate rights don't overrule individual rights and individuals already face too much censorship. They might circle back to the definition of social networks as a modern 'public square' and that the answer to 'bad speech' is 'more speech'.
However, social networks are clearly not public squares. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Nearly all the ad-buys, ad-views, posts, messages, clicks, likes, and a lot of the content is privileged information. Nobody can see what you see on Facebook. Users are marketed to at an individual level to such an extent that they fall into a bubble of their own making, and the only actor in control of the bubbles is Facebook.
Hypothetical-but-actually-real scenario: Imagine for a moment that an Islamist sympathizing group bought ads on Facebook with a 'legit-enough' legal entity. They targeted demographics based on 'Likes' and ages. Ads showed invites to private groups or specific Facebook applications, which further harvested information. Content in the user's feed is soon directly tailored for them, out of public view.
In what sense can this technological dystopia be fought with 'more speech' as if it was all happening in a transparent manner? Clearly Facebook is holding all the cards and then has an ethical obligation to manage content. There is literally no way for 'public discourse' to counteract private ads and secret messages. Thinking of Facebook as a public space is to completely misunderstand how Facebook treats its audience and how this audience interacts with content.
Strangely enough, Facebook has a very vertical relationship with its consumers. Facebook does not merely manage identity, it manages links, ads, content sorting. Facebook is curating the user's attention for its own profit.
Once upon a time, this vertical integration was fought in a battle over net neutrality - largely left-leaning people saw corporate control over the internet as disturbing as ISPs could abuse monopoly power to privilege its content (Comcast could provide special rates and speeds for NBC digital content). Despite most of America having very little choice in high speed internet providers, a lot of right-leaning 'free market' advocates scoffed at the idea of regulating companies that have established vast claims to both physical space and spectrum space in America.
With Alex Jones being established as a sort of 'anti-SJW' Trump surrogate, some of the people that were against the 'socialist' net neutrality are now making the argument that Facebook is a pseudo public square and in some grand irony believe that this move is a really bad omen for the ability of average Americans to access information. One network space is a 'public square' that should be forced or shamed into fair play rules, whereas the other network is a private company that can do what it wants even if it happens to own the only cable that services your home and the cable was subsidized by the taxpayer or is inherently public property.
In summary:
- Facebook is not a public forum, it's a complicated application providing a personalized content experience that exists solely to make Facebook money. It's not a debate app.
- Net neutrality is a vastly more important issue if one wishes to spend a day sounding off about monopolistic control of the internet
There are many reasons to find both the role of Facebook and ISPs quite worrisome, but understanding Facebook as a public square and understanding ISPs as plainly private companies is a model of the world that has no basis in reality.
It's time to learn how the internet actually works.